Very interesting – although more perhaps for the journey than for the conclusion, as the author indeed proposes. Modern clues simply adhere more to pure logic – which IMO is perfectly reasonable and arguably more democratic.
The purpose of the study was focused on whether the crosswords have become easier or not, and I found it very interesting. But can I make a plea for another focus that I think is highly relevant to how enjoyable the crossword is – the parsimony of cluing? What distinguished the best of Araucaria’s clues was the efficiency with which they were articulated – the fewest words to offer both cryptic and meaning. This created delight when one got the answer and also meant one was usually confident one had the correct answer.
This parsimony contrasts with some more recent setters where there are long clues (usually charades) which use so many different parts (often just one or two letters) that it becomes very difficult to work out the answer from the cryptic, even if the definition has been guessed correctly. And that means uncertainty whether it is correct. It’s much less fun, too.
I want to mention clues of the type of #30,108 3D/24A, “Leader on laptop behind it, our chats fallacious?” I’ll not spoil the answer since as I write it hasn’t appeared here, but if I parse correctly, clue and wordplay are inextricably fused.
Is this a distinct type of clue? Is it distinctively modern? This example isn’t the world’s hardest, but clues of this type can seem very hard to me.
Very interesting – although more perhaps for the journey than for the conclusion, as the author indeed proposes. Modern clues simply adhere more to pure logic – which IMO is perfectly reasonable and arguably more democratic.
The purpose of the study was focused on whether the crosswords have become easier or not, and I found it very interesting. But can I make a plea for another focus that I think is highly relevant to how enjoyable the crossword is – the parsimony of cluing? What distinguished the best of Araucaria’s clues was the efficiency with which they were articulated – the fewest words to offer both cryptic and meaning. This created delight when one got the answer and also meant one was usually confident one had the correct answer.
This parsimony contrasts with some more recent setters where there are long clues (usually charades) which use so many different parts (often just one or two letters) that it becomes very difficult to work out the answer from the cryptic, even if the definition has been guessed correctly. And that means uncertainty whether it is correct. It’s much less fun, too.
I want to mention clues of the type of #30,108 3D/24A, “Leader on laptop behind it, our chats fallacious?” I’ll not spoil the answer since as I write it hasn’t appeared here, but if I parse correctly, clue and wordplay are inextricably fused.
Is this a distinct type of clue? Is it distinctively modern? This example isn’t the world’s hardest, but clues of this type can seem very hard to me.
@3 Ratushebarl — I think it’s “&lit” — so the whole clue is the definition as well as wordplay.