Only Connect

Only Connect

On the relations between parts of a cryptic clue.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Last week’s blog post cited the precept of Ximenes (the nom de guerre of the English constructor Derrick Macnutt) that a cryptic clue should consist of three things: (1) a definition, (2) wordplay and (3) nothing else. That’s an admirably crisp and straightforward guideline, expressed with wondrous wit; but in practice, the third part of the formula is hard to observe too faithfully—at least not without sacrificing more surface sense than we’d prefer.

So, like most American constructors, we use the Ximenean principle more as a guideline than as a commandment. It’s true that a clue that juxtaposes definition and wordplay without any intervening material has a certain elegance and purity to it—especially when the border between the two parts comes in the middle of a single phrase, as in this clue:

SPRAYER Mister Softee’s primary appeal (7)

Or, more fancifully, this one:

CURBSIDE “Where to Recycle a Dog”: a song not likely to hit the charts (8)

(All the clues quoted here come from past Nation puzzles.)

Far more often, though, it’s necessary to include some kind of connective tissue to make the parts of a clue work smoothly together. These fall into a few basic categories.

• Juxtaposition: The two parts of a clue can simply be joined by “and,” “or” or, less often, “with.” Some constructors go even further, using connectors like “by” or “alongside,” though we do not.

• Equivalence: Since the two parts of a cryptic clue both point to the same answer, it’s common for a clue to assert their equivalence with a connector like “is”, “can be” or perhaps “equals.”

• Process: Many clues are instructions that tell the solver how to arrive at a given solution, and here the constructor is on more delicate ground. Our philosophy is that the wordplay should lead to the definition, and never vice versa; so any connectors that imply directionality need to be pointing in the appropriate direction.

This arises most often with the connector “for,” in the sense of “to arrive at” or “to get.” Here are a few examples:

CIGAR Invest one grand in automobile for Havana, perhaps (5)

H G WELLS Mercury sources for writer (1,1,5)

NIECES Rewrite Scene I for younger relatives (6)

In each case, the solver is instructed to do the relevant operation (insertion, charade and anagram, respectively), to get the intended answer. “For” pointing in the other direction—i.e., [definition] for [wordplay]—would make no sense.

Today we wrote about clues that break into two disjoint parts (wordplay and definition). We’ll leave for a future post a discussion of clues where the two parts are coterminous (so-called &lit clues), as well as clues that have some leakage between the two parts.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x