Cryptic crosswords are great fun and I love doing them. It's not really about beating the setter, but just having fun with words. It's the word play and seeing through the intentional misleads which is so delightful
A Saturday ritual here is that we do the crossword on Saturday mornings. S calls out the clues and I try to do them unseen.
Different setters each have their own style. Some are congenial, and some difficult, some both. For all his huge popularity, I hate the crosswords compiled by Araucaria in the Guardian. For me they are just not fun, while other setters can make me laugh out loud.
You get used to the voice and style of particular setters, though, and occasionally run up against one whose clues you just don't understand.
And I wondered about this.
All setters are using the same conventions, using the same traps and pitfalls to puzzle the solver and mislead the unwary. And when you start out, you have to get into the language, the syntax of crosswording.
So are the differences differences of dialect ? Of accent ? Running up against a new setter, you might find instant recognition in the clues. Or, just now and then, you can be left with a sense of complete incomprehension and you do not know where to start. Where exactly does the difference lie ?
No comments:
Post a Comment