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.
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.
About 20 years ago, Games 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?”
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.
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 1-1/2 years ago in the Guardian Weekly:
“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)
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.