Listener 4868: Robbed by Cagey – a Setter’s Blog

Is a Crossword Alive?*
By Cagey
This was always intended to be a less ambitious crossword than my previous (and potentially next few) Listener crosswords. The subject of natural world words being removed from the children’s dictionary appalled me when I first read about it. Then a while later I saw the delightful book by Rob Macfarlane and Jackie Morris, and wondered if their loss had been worth it purely for the production of a far more inspiring replacement work.
The idea of setting a crossword without definitions, was appealing. Since part of the theme and idea is dictionaries, and the replacement acrostic poems were also in alphabetical order, I felt obliged (perhaps retrospectively naively) to also put them in alphabetical order in the grid, with jumbled down entries. I wondered about writing the clues as acrostics too, with some later indication, but could not think how that indication would work and what would happen to the downs when replacing original answers. Also wondered if it might be a little obvious. Anyway, ended up being extremely glad a few months later that decided not to as Twin sent me his fantastic acrostic puzzle to test solve! Instead, I asked myself what is the consequence of a having no definitions? Well, confusion! So I set about attempting to emulate that confusion by trying to make the wordplay only clues look like proper clues, which morphed very rapidly into making them work as actual clues as well as wordplay only clues. I tried really hard to make the “proper reading” (i.e. definition + wordplay) easier than the wordplay only reading, with varied success. Aimed also for as much variation as possible, but it was clear from my testers and then the two Editors that a few of the “proper reading” variations were ropy or more difficult to spot and so these ended up getting tweaked right up to the end. In the end I was pleased with the set, I thought they were nicely succinct and had some reasonably smooth surface readings that did not betray shenanigans were afoot. Although I think the final few were a little more formulaic in construction.
Getting the blurb right is difficult. Both testers got the hint that across clues were “thematically defined” which was not enough of a hint. It was changed to thematically deficient for submission, which I worried / think made the wordplay only element stand out too much.
The original grid had colours, rather than slightly ugly symbols and circles, but unfortunately these are not allowed in the Listener series. The letters were carefully picked to make the authors read as easily as possible, and The Lost Words to become increasingly scattered from one end of the phrase to the other, all in a way that looked a bit like an exploded flower.
I had guessed in advance there would be multiple routes through this. And had expected some to google and find after solving only a few across clues (which was fine if that is what they want… just then please don’t complain it was too easy or quick, kind of only have yourself to blame there!). Others I expected would see wordplay only and go with that. Others would find some of one and some of the other. Others may only find the traditional readings. All in the hope of generating some confusion, akin to not being able to define something.
The original blurb included… “Coloured cells contain a jumble of two creators and their remedial work which, if known in advance, would have greatly assisted in any confusion.”
I actually went to school with Rob Macfarlane, and for a few years were in same English class, with teacher (Mr) Andrew Winter. Rob was always much better at English than me (I am sure you do not need to formally compare this screed with his work to see that). I permit myself one story… There was one occasion when we had to write a book review on any book. Rob did an excellent one on Animal Farm (not a class reader). I did one on a Nancy Drew book. Now for me this was the third time I had written the same review, first in prep school, then in first year and then trudged out the same thing again in second (possibly third) year. I had not reread the book; it was all from memory. I made up the title (who can remember all the titles of the Nancy Drew books [Aside: confession – the title I used for the review this time round was Nancy Drew in River Heights, when actual title was Nancy Drew and the Mysterious Image]) and knowing full well they were written by committee. Mr Winter’s comment – You do not think you could have tried something a little more ambitious? Well yes, but that would have involved paying attention, when there was so much to doodle and so many windows to stare out of…
… Which all meant I owed Mr Andrew Winter a large apology. Anway, he actually got in touch with me early this year, after I wrote a cryptic crossword for the schools “old boy” magazine (the Old Nottinghamian). He has started to write cryptic crosswords and he got in touch to ask me about them. I have since met him a few times (most recently this last week and at the Nottingham Setters and Bloggers), which has just made me feel more guilty at ignoring him when at school! I had the pleasure of getting to try his first crossword. It really was rather good… I am very much looking forward to tackling any future ones he sets.
Anyway, I usually waffle to much so I will stop by thanking people for having a go at the puzzle, for any feedback or kind words they had; thanking Roger Emerson (Arcadia) and Colin Thomas (Twin) for there patient testing and suggestions; thanking Shane and Roger the crossword editors for taking a punt on this and for tidying up some clues (especially in keeping to the constraints I had set) and making it all presentable to the real world; And finally thanking Robert Macfarlane and Jackie Morris for creating such a wonderful dictionary and work of art!
Thanks, Stuart
*No, but it does evolve.