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.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x