Fun Cryptic Clues | Hacker News Reader

Fun Cryptic Clues

onwords.substack.com

23 pointsCaiero21 comments

Such fun. I'm not a big solver of puzzles, but I enjoy the clues.

I still remember the sample clue given in the brief 1-paragraph enticement, a short how-to guide for cryptics, written below the weekly cryptic on the back page of The Nation:

"If you don't know why LURES are GROUND RULES (5), send for yours at $MAGAZINE_ADDRESS"

This clue is by former cryptographer Frank Lewis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_W._Lewis) who wrote 60 years of puzzles for the magazine, and his brief guide is:

https://www.thenation.com/crossword/

So, I love these kinds of puzzles as well. One intersection that I've never much seen that feels natural to me personally. I also love lyrically complex/interesting hip-hop e.g. MF Doom - and the wordplay is very similar. Haven't really seen much noting this?

This is entirely about crossword puzzle clues, by the way.

(And demonstrates why I don't enjoy crosswords. Perhaps I'm not awake enough yet, but the explanation of the answer to "I say nothing (3)" is one of those that is so much of a stretch that I would reject it if I thought of it. "o" means "nothing"??)

These are cryptics, not crosswords. The idea is that most clues have two parts, a literal "I" and a figurative "say == 'e.g.', nothing == 'o'".

Cryptics are a language unto themselves - they're not for everyone! But i love them so much.

Weird piece of pedantry. Most commonly cryptic clues are used as clues to crosswords, right?

Not really; they're an entirely different type of clue than traditional crosswords. As the poster above found out, if you go in expecting crossword clues, you're going to be confused and disappointed. The comment you're replying to is making this distinction to explain this to them.

In the UK the distinction is not really made. All the main broadsheet newspaper crosswords are set with cryptic clues (often with an alternative solve for the grid based on a separate set of ‘quick clues’).

Huh, interesting. Yeah, in the US cryptic clues are almost unheard of and considered very hard.

Stephen Sondheim tried to educate y’all in 1968.

https://nymag.com/article/2019/03/stephen-sondheim-on-how-to...

Ah, yeah, I've seen this.

(I've been slowly learning cryptic clues myself this past year.)

Usually the quick crosswords are separate (different grid and answers) from the cryptics. The Grauniad also has quiptic crosswords, which are cryptic but usually easier than regular cryptics, and the Glasgow Herald has the Wee Stinker, which was smaller and harder than cryptics.

That makes sense on a re-reading. I've never heard of cryptics so the title was, well, cryptic to me.

I still think "nothing -> o" is ridiculous though. Is it an allusion to some other work or jargon? Or that it looks similar to a "0"?

> Or that it looks similar to a "0"?

Yes, that's why. It's a tradition in cryptic crosswords. Similarly, duck (from cricket) and love (from tennis) can also be used for letter O. It's one of the things you pick up when you start doing cryptics, along with other things like doctor (used as a verb), criminal, and nuts (meaning crazy) suggesting an anagram. If you think things like that are ridiculous, perhaps cryptic crosswords are not for you.

There are a lot of patterns you have to recognize to get answers in cryptics and if you try to solve them without knowing how the clues work it's just nonsense. Especially if you assume they work at all like a normal crossword. I don't enjoy them, but I get it.

The article mentions "Spooner" in a clue being a dead giveaway there's a Spoonerism, but there's a lot of similar things to look for. There's usually a hint that there's an anagram, put one word inside another, combine two words and find a new word inside them, etc. The clue almost always has a synonym for the answer as part of it, so the "I = say + nothing" actually is how it's intended to be read, e.g. "saw = dog wearing lead".

There's a really good cryptic crossword trainer on mobile ( https://www.learncrypticcrosswords.com/ ) that teaches you how to recognize these sorts of hint words and parse the clues. It costs a few bucks to unlock all the lessons, but I started enjoying cryptics a lot more with that basic grounding. Turns out it's actually a very structured activity, for all the apparent chaos.

I am fascinated by coded messages but cryptic crossword clues don’t do it for me at all.

> I say nothing (3) … The answer (EGO) becomes more obvious if you repunctuate the clue thus: “I” = “say” + “nothing.” “Ego” (which means “I”) is “say” (e.g.) + “nothing” (o). Neat!

Is it neat? The derivation is a complete non sequitur. Why would you think to add = and + operators randomly? “Nothing” and “o” are not synonymous. There’s no way to tell if you’re getting close to the solution, and you can practically justify any answer because the correct one doesn’t have a sensible explanation.

It reminds me of how unsolved cryptograms like Kryptos K4 attract crackpots who see meandering patterns that don’t really exist.

For me the epitome of a cryptic clue is: A number of fingers (5). Short, precise, tricky, delightful.

EIGHT? Plus two thumbs?

DIGIT?

a number = numb.

what makes fingers go numb? cold, snow, or frost. Could it be just "frost"?

But I don't know where this fits in with fingers. Doesn't "of" mean "from" or "subtract/intersection"? so remove the letters frost - fingers

seems to be pointing to "ing" word ending?

frost is the answer. It's one of a number of numb-ers of fingers as you suggest. Another clue I have come across in a similar vein is "A flower of Paris (5)" to which the answer is Seine. These clues may or may not be to your liking. I like them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com