Broke Down
Hi! My latest puzzle is a symmetric themeless, which for some reason I feel like I should prove the world I'm capable of? But I think I also wanna keep the blog a symmetry-free zone, so you can find this puzzle at https://mycrossword.co.uk/cryptic/1028. Thanks to Skaldskaparmal and Pixlate for test solving, and thanks to Norah Sharpe for suggesting the signature clue idea.
I think when I do this from time to time I'll use this space to wax on a topic, as if it's my blog.
Today, I'd like to talk about connecting words. I don't really have any big philosophy on connecting words but I think I differ from the mainstream in a few ways that are worth presenting my take one.
Firstly, I don't really get "with" as a connecting word. The promise of a cryptic clue is that it's going to give you two things. I'm not sure why, but saying "THIS with THAT" makes the two things that are supposed to be there into one thing in a way that saying "THIS and THAT" doesn't in my head. The closest I can get for "THIS with THAT" is instructions to write "THIS" next to "THAT," which will then be a legal cryptic clue. This is not YET a thing I have a principled stand to take on, however... "with" is just too useful to give up right now. Maybe someday though.
The other place I think I diverge from the norm is that many of the classically one-directional connecting words totally work both directions in my head. Tradition dictates that [wordplay] from [def] is wrong and [def] from [wordplay] is correct, but in my head, this is just making an assumption about which direction the solver is going to use when solving the clue. The bad one, [wordplay] from [def] makes perfect sense to me as "you're going to have to think of a word that can be constructed from this wordplay, and one way to do it is to think of a word with this definition," which is much more accurate to the way I actually solve clues. Or even "I, the setter, had a word that means [def] in this grid, and from staring at that, I found this wordplay instructions that generates that word."
This works in my head to get "for" and "from" and "as" to go both ways. I think maybe "through" doesn't work the same way though... only "def through wordplay" sounds right to my ear, although it may just be a matter of thinking about it more.
Anyway, that's all. Please enjoy my goofy lil symmetric 15x15 block grid puzzle.
Looking forward to solving this, as always; I'm with you on the "wordplay from def" rationale, especially since I get a lot of the wordplay by first figuring out the crossword clue. The only argument AGAINST that is that people call that "backsolving" implying that it's not the right direction in which to go, but Kosman and Picciotto have been pretty clear about there being no wrong way to solve a cryptic, and I'm firmly in that camp, especially for tougher variety puzzles where you gotta use everything at your disposal.
ReplyDeletehi juff, interesting points on link words ... but I'm going to have to disagree. Re "with", it is used in the sense of "by means of" or "as a result of" (Chambers defs. 19 & 20) rather than e.g. "alongside". So "[definition] with [wordplay]" seems fine ... although not "wordplay with definition" because directionality really *is* important . As Aaron notes above, there's no wrong way to go about solving, so however you get there is fine, but it's called 'back-solving' for a reason - the solution is the definition, and the wordplay is what leads you there. That's why you don't get clues that are e.g. just two bits of wordplay - the definition is always the solver's ultimate goal, not the wordplay, and the clue structure must reflect that. (It's also why directional indicators in double definitions don't really work.) Well, of course ... imho! :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Fez!
DeleteI hadn't heard that interpretation of "with" before, which I totally buy! But which immediately makes me buy the other direction as well...
I want to zoom in for a second on your comment that "the solution is the definition..." I think this is where we disagree. The number of times I (and I assume you as well) have correctly identified *what* the definition is in a clue but still haven't solved the clue is huge. Because the solution isn't the defintion, the solution is the *fill*. Which is a thing which is indicated by the definition, but it's also a thing that's indicated by the wordplay, and I don't see either of those as the main feature of the clue.
This is sort of getting at a topic I kind of want to write another blog post about someday, the invisible "word that means" that occurs all over the place in cryptic clues. When you say "Exceeded by strange hurt (10)," ["exceeded"=OUTRE+ACHED] what's really going on isn't "strange"+"hurt"="exceeded," what we have is "word that means strange"+"word that means hurt"="word that means exceeded." Those "word that means"es mostly happen invisibly behind the scenes, but they're there, and we can feel them when we solve: for example when someone does an unfair two-steps connection (say, I for A or more controversially, "way" for ST) and it doesn't feel right, because you're allowed an invisible "word that means" but not a "word that means a word that means"....
Anyway, awareness of that "word that means" that's always going on in the definition--to me--puts the definition at the same level as the wordplay, a step away, and makes me comfortable seeing either as the primary indicator of the answer, and so I'm happy to see either as "of" or "for" or "by" or now "with" the one. (Of course, imho as well!)