The Times Crossword’s 80th Anniversary
February 1st 1930 saw the publication of the first Times Crossword, and this event is commemorated at least twice in the media this year. Firstly the Times is publishing three historical puzzles to intrigue its readers, from 1940, 1960 and 1980, and then The One Show, a daily BBC documentary magazine, is looking at the mystery of the cryptic crossword.
Both of these outlets contacted me to offer further opportunities for public humiliation, and I naturally leapt at the chances.
Invited to tackle the Times puzzles, I managed the 1980 one all right, and eventually worked my way through the slightly different style of the 1960 puzzle. The example from 1940 utterly defeated me, and I gave up after half an hour with only 11 answers filled in with any confidence. The reporter was delighted to observe, accurately, that the puzzle had reduced me to the level of a novice solver. Readers of the Times will have the chance to assess for themselves, but the differences in accessibility were dramatic to me.
The 1980 puzzle had a slightly different style from those of 2010, but was readily recognisable to the modern solver – I was surprised to note one of the famous ‘quotation’ clues (Shakespeare) and happy to leave it till I had all the checking. Other than that, there was little significant delay and I think most regular solvers will find it reasonably straightforward. The 1960 specimen was markedly different, though I wasn’t good at explaining what the extra obstacles were. Certainly a couple of clues had no definition, and a few others used devices which were tenuous and unlikely to pass muster today – however, it’s hard to quantify how much the level of uncertainty this creates knocks on to delaying the solving of other clues. I remember spending lots of time wondering how one particular clue would turn out to be vaguely alluding to its answer, only to find that it was completely sound and normal. I gave myself about a minute at the end of the puzzle to decide the most plausible answer to another quotation clue.
I certainly was not expecting the seismic shift to 1940. I decided that if this was a standard example, I give little credence to anybody’s claim to complete every daily puzzle in that era. As far as I can see, some pretty significant guesswork would be necessary to come close to filling the grid, and probably some more guesswork to fill the last few spaces as well. In half an hour, I couldn’t come up with more than one or two answers in the bottom half of the grid that even looked likely. Unless there is a bogus enumeration in that section (as there was for the 1960 puzzle, by modern standards), I can justify almost nothing there – and was quite proud of a little arcane knowledge that helped me get even a few answers in the top half. The specific problem is that so many clues are just hints, without any of the certainty that comes with a modern clue. I wait to see whether many people will claim greater success than me.
The One Show provided a different form of awkwardness. In this case the largely pre-scripted idea requires the youthful presenter to investigate the cryptic crossword by first talking to a doyen amongst current setters, then the son of the original Times compiler, and finally coming to the current champion to ‘challenge’ him to a competition. For my part, I was asked to try and give Alex the briefest of tips on how to solve, and then to try the Times’s daily puzzle at the same time as him. The tweeness of the scene is emphasised by the Victorian classroom setting, the pointlessness of a novice trying to complete a crossword at speed, the difficulty of providing any real help in about a minute, and then the cardboard crown awarded to the winner and the cheesy end-line, with an answer for the presenters to reveal.
Frankly, I suspect regular solvers would enjoy their day more without watching this item. I might well have done so, had I not taken part. We’ll see what happens in the edit, but I have little doubt I’ll come across (reasonably accurately) as a pompous jerk. I didn’t even have the satisfaction of recording a decent time on the puzzle, due to the necessities to intercut ‘humorous’ lines and provide close-ups and retakes. I do fear that any attempt on my part to show crosswords as being fun and accessible would have been vetoed by the director anyway. Of course crossworders might hope for that outcome, but perhaps that’s as unrealistic as the likelihood of a popular programme wanting to show that side. Or perhaps the other interviewees had more joy? Monday’s programme will reveal all.
Mark Goodliffe
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
> Frankly, I suspect regular solvers would enjoy their day more without watching this item.
I did watch it, and I think you are right! There wasn’t enough of you to come across as anything, though, or enough of the piece to be of interest to anyone very much (IMHO, of course).
The Times did a better job; so they should, of course, it is their crossword. I can only commend you on doing any of the 1940 one. When I first came across the beast in the ’60s, it required a fair amount of knowledge, the clues alone not really being enough. I, of course, still don’t, and can’t complete it regularly, although the clues are much ‘fairer’ now.