In just ten days, I'll have my first cryptic crossword in print and I couldn't be more excited. It's being published by Montreal Review of Books, which you can get all over Canada (see here for a list of places that carry it). I'm especially honoured given that this is the first time they've published a cryptic crossword before.
I hadn't really thought of it until my editor called to double-check a word in one of my clues, but proofreading a cryptic crossword puzzle must be really tricky. Clues can sound really weird even when they're right and even a perfectly symmetrical grid can have a structural error (which happened with The Globe and Mail a few months back).
If you don't happen to solve cryptic crosswords, which my editor doesn't (yet), how do you proceed?
If you don't happen to solve cryptic crosswords, which my editor doesn't (yet), how do you proceed?
When I'm writing creatively, the most important part of the process of getting to a final piece is not the brainstorming or the slog through the first draft, or even the copy editing at the end, it's the beta-reading. This is the stage at which I must ask the really tough questions. Does the character's motivation make sense? Are the stakes high enough? Is the pacing even? Are there sections of this piece of writing that don't seem to belong here? And at the end of the day, is this piece of writing meaningful?
There are a handful of people whom I trust to give me the cold truth about what I'm working on, even if it's not what I want to hear. For years, they have reviewed everything I've published, from crime fiction to QWF/CBC Writer-in-Residence essays about Montreal.
My work is always stronger for it.
There are a handful of people whom I trust to give me the cold truth about what I'm working on, even if it's not what I want to hear. For years, they have reviewed everything I've published, from crime fiction to QWF/CBC Writer-in-Residence essays about Montreal.
My work is always stronger for it.
When I finished my cryptic crossword puzzle for Montreal Review of Books, I harangued my gorgeous husband to not only solve the thing but to solve it in front of me. I wanted to check for three things. First, I wanted to ensure that all the clues were solvable and not overly clunky. Next, I wanted to ensure that everything fit properly into the grid.
The third thing was new to me. A few months ago, my unwitting mentors, DA and anax, helped me understand that a good setter plans for a puzzle to have a certain internal momentum. There should be a few easier clues scattered around the grid, which serve as an "in" to the trickier ones. For the first time, I really thought about the internal momentum as I planned out this puzzle, and I wanted to see, as my husband solved it, if my efforts paid off.
The third thing was new to me. A few months ago, my unwitting mentors, DA and anax, helped me understand that a good setter plans for a puzzle to have a certain internal momentum. There should be a few easier clues scattered around the grid, which serve as an "in" to the trickier ones. For the first time, I really thought about the internal momentum as I planned out this puzzle, and I wanted to see, as my husband solved it, if my efforts paid off.
There were a few little things that needed correction -- a numerator was missing and two of the clues had room for improvement on word choice -- but imagine my delight when I discovered that the internal momentum of the puzzle was exactly what I'd hoped it would be, in this one solve, anyway.
The whole thing led me to wonder. Do papers like The Globe and Mail have beta-solvers on staff for their cryptic crossword puzzles? Is there anyone who proofreads the clues? Or is this labour of love one that is invariably undertaken by the long-suffering paramours of cryptic crossword setters?
RSS Feed
