Cryptic Crossword answer explanation

[MikeS]

Having always being fascinated by cryptic crosswords, and having a passing acquaintance with the rules of same, I finally tried to solve one on a (delayed) flight home recently. I managed to get about two-thirds of the puzzle solved (I guess it must have been an easy one), but there's one clue in particular that, having looked up the answer, I can't make head or tail of:

The clue is: "Colour a green sign about stumbling block (7,4)"
The answer, provided on the magazine's website without explanation, is:PEACOCK BLUE
I'm extremely confused about why this is the answer. Can someone who's wiser in the ways of cryptic crosswords help me out?

[chowder]

Best I can think of is that Peacock Blue is a greenish blue colour and that feeling blue is a sort of a block.

Or summink

[Ximenean]

"a green" is PEA
"sign" is CUE
"stumbling block" is OCKBL

[Scarlett67]

"Colour" = clue to the meaning of the final answer

"a green sign" = PEA CUE ("pea" meaning the color, "cue" = sign)

"about" = the preceding term encloses or is wrapped around . . .

"stumbling block" = the letters B L O C K jumbled up, or "stumbling"

PEAC OCK BL UE

[Acsenray]

Thanks for reminding me why I stick to regular crosswords.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

Thanks for reminding me why I stick to regular crosswords.

Heh, different strokes. This reminded me why I love cryptics and tend to be bored by regular crosswords.

[pulykamell]

Thanks for reminding me why I stick to regular crosswords.

Yeah. I don't think I've ever solved a single cryptic clue by myself, and I have researched the rules for cluemaking and the sort of tricks involved. Cryptics drive me friggin insane. Gimme a New York Times or patternless puzzle any day.

[Ximenean]

Thanks for reminding me why I stick to regular crosswords.
Heh. But it's worthing saying that the explanations above are not how people generally go about solving cryptic clues. What you do is look at the beginning and end of the clue for the definition part, so in this case the definition is going to be "colour", "block", or possibly "stumbling block". Then you think of an answer that fits the definition, and see if the rest of the clue, the "wordplay", confirms it.

There are shortcuts - in this case, the word "stumbling" is, to seasoned solvers, a giant flashing anagram indicator. You immediately think of jumbling the letters of "block", and it also conveniently rules out two of the three likely definition/wordplay divisions. Likewise "about" is an extremely common container indicator.

[gigi]

Was this a British puzzle, or is there something about Peacock Blue that makes it British ("colour")?

[Acsenray]

Heh. But it's worthing saying that the explanations above are not how people generally go about solving cryptic clues. What you do is look at the beginning and end of the clue for the definition part, so in this case the definition is going to be "colour", "block", or possibly "stumbling block". Then you think of an answer that fits the definition, and see if the rest of the clue, the "wordplay", confirms it.

But I find this kind of "wordplay" -- especially when you reveal that it is rather formulaic -- precious and uninteresting. It seems a completely different skill than the general knowledge about words and facts skill tested by a crossword puzzle. At least that skill is reflective of day-to-day experience or knowledge about something rather than knowledge about a particular way of encoding.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

But I find this kind of "wordplay" -- especially when you reveal that it is rather formulaic -- precious and uninteresting. It seems a completely different skill than the general knowledge about words and facts skill tested by a crossword puzzle. At least that skill is reflective of day-to-day experience or knowledge about something rather than knowledge about a particular way of encoding.

Well, yeah, but you still have to have a pretty extensive vocabulary and general knowledge to solve the cryptics. For example, you're not going to get the one in the OP unless you know that "Peacock blue" is a colour, and some of the "theme" cryptics require a fairly good knowledge of a particular subject matter.

[Thudlow Boink]

But I find this kind of "wordplay" -- especially when you reveal that it is rather formulaic -- precious and uninteresting. It seems a completely different skill than the general knowledge about words and facts skill tested by a crossword puzzle. At least that skill is reflective of day-to-day experience or knowledge about something rather than knowledge about a particular way of encoding.It is a different skill, but not necessarily a "lower" or less useful one. The ability to see things from different angles, to break things down into smaller parts, to consider alternative interpretations of words and phrases, strikes me as being at least as potentially useful as remembering French prepositions, Asian rivers, and decades-ago Pulitzer Prize winners. One of the things that some people find appealing about cryptic crosswords is that they don't rely on esoteric knowledge, but on mental flexibility and "trickery."

Cryptic crosswords, like standard crosswords and many other things, become easier the more practice and experience you have.

[Ximenean]

It's not supposed to be a useful skill, anyway. The puzzles are supposed to fun. If you find them pointless, that's OK. But for me, a clue like

Colour (7, 4)

is less interesting (not to mention harder) than

Colour a green sign about stumbling block (7,4)


Solving the former is a mere guessing game. Even if you guessed right, how would you know?

[suranyi]

I like both kinds of puzzles. In fact, I prefer to solve them alternately. A tough New York times puzzle one day, a good cryptic the next. I find the thought process used to solve them is a little bit different, so it feels like I'm exercising a slightly different part of my brain.

Ed

[Acsenray]

It's not supposed to be a useful skill, anyway.

"Useful" wasn't my word. I said "precious and uninteresting."


But for me, a clue like

Colour (7, 4)

is less interesting (not to mention harder) than

Colour a green sign about stumbling block (7,4)

I don't like either. Leave out the (7, 4). That's only there because the textual clue itself is marginal.

How about something more along the lines of "Proud Subcontinental feathered friend's hue"? That makes the clue about the word, its meaning, its connotations, the folklore of the animal, etc.

Whereas, "a green sign about stumbling block" is merely about shuffling letters around and not about the actual solution itself.

Solving the former is a mere guessing game. Even if you guessed right, how would you know?

Well, it would fit into the puzzle, and if you've solved some other clues, they would cross correctly. Which brings me to another complaint about these sorts of crossword puzzles -- very often, they either have too many or too few "black" boxes. Either there aren't enough "crosses" or else everything crosses in the same way.

[Voyager]

Yeah. I don't think I've ever solved a single cryptic clue by myself, and I have researched the rules for cluemaking and the sort of tricks involved. Cryptics drive me friggin insane. Gimme a New York Times or patternless puzzle any day.
The New Yorker ran cryptics for a while, and there is a book out of them. Try those - they are smaller and easier than even the ones that run in the Times. I used them to train my daughter.

Avoid British cryptics, like the ones that run in the Financial Times unless you are very up on British culture. (sorry, the names of rugby teams are not on the tip of my tongue.) A friend of mine from New Zealand, much smarter than me, had trouble with them also. If I get them half solved I'm doing well, while I can do American cryptics, even variety ones, fairly quickly.

[Voyager]

Well, it would fit into the puzzle, and if you've solved some other clues, they would cross correctly. Which brings me to another complaint about these sorts of crossword puzzles -- very often, they either have too many or too few "black" boxes. Either there aren't enough "crosses" or else everything crosses in the same way.
That's a feature, not a bug. It makes you solve every clue. I can do the Monday and Tuesday NY Times puzzles looking at the across clues and only a small percentage of downs. Faster, but maybe I miss an amusing clue. Cryptics make you fight for every square.

Every word puzzle has its good points - I like them all.

[Scarlett67]

Actually, the "7,4" is a standard part of a cryptic clue. It's there as an aid to solving. I suppose leaving it out would be akin to a gridless crossword where you have to figure out where the black squares go as well as solve the clues (ugh, hate those things).

How about something more along the lines of "Proud Subcontinental feathered friend's hue"? That makes the clue about the word, its meaning, its connotations, the folklore of the animal, etc.
Blah. Boring. This is just the sort of clue that makes me avoid regular crosswords. It just coming up with synonyms, answering definitions. I don't enjoy word searches for the same reason; it's just "busywork."
Whereas, "a green sign about stumbling block" is merely about shuffling letters around and not about the actual solution itself.
But it is about the solution. For us cryptic-crossword lovers, we enjoy the twisty logic, trying to figure out which words are clues, which are synonyms of the answer, and which are pieces to be taken apart.

I realize that cryptics are not for everyone. I'm a wordplay geek, and some things that tickle me just make Mr. S roll his eyes. I used to do cryptics all the time, but sadly I just don't have the time for them anymore.

[MikeS]

Was this a British puzzle, or is there something about Peacock Blue that makes it British ("colour")?Canadian, actually. It was in this month's issue of The Walrus.

Thanks for the help, everyone. I'm a big fan of conventional crossword puzzles too, but I've always been fascinated by cryptics; I'll have to see if I can track down the book of New Yorker cryptics that Voyager mentioned.

Part of my fascination with cryptics stems from the monthly Puzzler that used to run in the Atlantic Monthly. Usually this would involve some particularly daunting special theme, like not knowing where the words would start or end, or having spiral or circular grids, so I never actually attempted one of those.

[Thudlow Boink]

I'm a big fan of conventional crossword puzzles too, but I've always been fascinated by cryptics; I'll have to see if I can track down the book of New Yorker cryptics that Voyager mentioned.I believe this (http://www.amazon.com/101-Cryptic-Crosswords-New-Yorker/dp/0806901861/ref=sr_1_1/105-6453067-4059644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185393890&sr=1-1) is it, and that this same book got bound together with several others to make this (http://www.amazon.com/Brainiacs-Puzzle-Book-Frank-Longo/dp/1402708750/ref=sr_1_2/105-6453067-4059644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185394041&sr=1-2) volume.
Part of my fascination with cryptics stems from the monthly Puzzler that used to run in the Atlantic Monthly. Usually this would involve some particularly daunting special theme, like not knowing where the words would start or end, or having spiral or circular grids, so I never actually attempted one of those.Now those were difficult!

I can usually handle the variety crptic in Games magazine, though, and I end up feeling both proud of myself and in awe of the cleverness of the constructor.

[Ximenean]

How about something more along the lines of "Proud Subcontinental feathered friend's hue"? That makes the clue about the word, its meaning, its connotations, the folklore of the animal, etc.
Well maybe we're looking for different things in a crossword. I'm not terribly interested in the words themselves, their etymology and so on. If I want to learn that I can Google for it. I'm interested in the puzzle itself, the logic of it and the deception the setter uses to disguise the definition.

That said, the example in this thread is a rather poor cryptic clue. The surface reading is almost meaningless. "Colour a green sign about stumbling block." What's that supposed to even mean? Good clues make sense as a sentence taken at face value, and make a completely different kind of sense when you solve them.

[pulykamell]

Blah. Boring. This is just the sort of clue that makes me avoid regular crosswords. It just coming up with synonyms, answering definitions. I don't enjoy word searches for the same reason; it's just "busywork."

Well-written American-style crosswords should not be just definitions. The fun in a good crossword (like the New York Times) is in the playfulness and deception of the clues themselves, plus in the themes running through the puzzle, or trying to figure out the "catch" (especially on Thursday NYT puzzles). There certainly are more straightforward definition-type crosswords out there, but I find those boring as well. For example, part of the reason I subscribe to the Sun Times rather than the Tribune is because it runs NYTimes crossword. The Trib's regular crossword (and the Sun Times's regular crossword) is boring definition-type crap.

If I want a straightforward definition crossword, then I'll take the patternless, because it at least gives me something else to work on. (Patternless crosswords are not as hard as they look.) When I used to commute, on Mondays I usually was able to solve the three crosswords (regular, New York Times, and patternless) in the Sun-Times in the forty minutes to work. Tuesdays I would need part of the second half of the commute.

I would like to get in on cryptics. I used to subscribe to Games magazine, but I still couldn't the hang of 'em. Even when I saw the answers I couldn't figure out how they get arrived at--I need some book or instruction that shows me the clue, the answer, and the method.

[from_a_to_z]

I would like to get in on cryptics. I used to subscribe to Games magazine, but I still couldn't the hang of 'em.
About 20 years ago, Games (http://gamesmagazine-online.com/) magazine had a series of tutorials (explanations?) on how to solve cryptics, with each clue followed by a description of its type (container, charade, etc.). The Straight Dopers could surely convince Games to rerun it.

I'm still hooked on cryptics, especially variety cryptics. (It's about time for a Henry Hook appreciation thread.) I used to work the swing shift at a company known as Backward Kate, and some nights after I got off work I would unwind by doing cryptics until my mind fogged over. (Other nights...that's for another thread.)

One of my favorite Cox and Rathvon clues:
"Sow observed on The Beverly Hillbillies?"
seed

[Robot Arm]

Part of my fascination with cryptics stems from the monthly Puzzler that used to run in the Atlantic Monthly. Usually this would involve some particularly daunting special theme, like not knowing where the words would start or end, or having spiral or circular grids,...I used to do those. Not well, mind you, but I'd give it a shot. Don't know if I ever got one 100% right, but used to come close. And I'm glad it was a monthly; usually took me about that long.

I'm told they still do the Puzzlers, but only online for subscribers. I've tried a few of the ones in Harper's since then, but don't like them quite as much.

[Ximenean]

About 20 years ago, Games (http://gamesmagazine-online.com/) magazine had a series of tutorials (explanations?) on how to solve cryptics, with each clue followed by a description of its type (container, charade, etc.). The Straight Dopers could surely convince Games to rerun it.
The Atlantic Monthly has an introduction (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/puzzclue.htm) to solving cryptic clues, FWIW.

[scm1001]

T
Avoid British cryptics, like the ones that run in the Financial Times unless you are very up on British culture. (sorry, the names of rugby teams are not on the tip of my tongue.)

I second that as you will also need an in depth knowledge of all UK rivers (Dee etc) as well as towns, suburbs and tube stops.

Had a friend who could do the Times cryptic on average in 20 minutes. It took me a day to get about 1/3 done.

[from_a_to_z]

...FWIW.
Thin. (It's worth something, some thing, the first 4 letters. Anyway...) Thank you Usram. That is useful. Games also included the simple grids that the answers go into, so that the user can also guess the answer from the crossing words.

If we're not yet at the brim, here's a clue by JO Fuller, via Colin Dexter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Dexter) 1-1/2 years ago in the Guardian Weekly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/):
"Remember ether masks what is usually felt" (5)
beret
If we don't include the explanations of the clues do we move it, Coyote Faces? (2,4,7)
do we move "to Cafe Society"?

[Voyager]

I believe this (http://www.amazon.com/101-Cryptic-Crosswords-New-Yorker/dp/0806901861/ref=sr_1_1/105-6453067-4059644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185393890&sr=1-1) is it, and that this same book got bound together with several others to make this (http://www.amazon.com/Brainiacs-Puzzle-Book-Frank-Longo/dp/1402708750/ref=sr_1_2/105-6453067-4059644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185394041&sr=1-2) volume.
Now those were difficult!

I can usually handle the variety crptic in Games magazine, though, and I end up feeling both proud of myself and in awe of the cleverness of the constructor.

That's the one. I had some books of collected Atlantic Monthly cryptics. I doubt they are still in print.

There was a boom in cryptics a few years ago, but our resident expert twickster confirmed that it died when those buying the books found they couldn't do them.

Anyone wishing to do non-clever regular crosswords can get an old anthology of puzzles edited by Will Weng or the grande dame herself, Margaret Farrar. But you need to be up on the culture of the mid 20th century. My m-i-l liked that type, and I got her unfinished puzzle books.

Crosswords, by the way, are good for staving off Alzheimers - though maybe cryptics drive you bats.