There are some conventions that show up in crosswords that vary in popularity. For example, in this puzzle there are four pairs of clues that explicitly refer to each other in various ways. I’ve found that some people like this sort of thing, since it unifies different parts of the puzzle. Others describe might it as simply annoying or even lazy. Obviously I lean towards the former view, or I wouldn’t keep using the technique, but here’s your chance to express your opinion: do you like these sorts of clues, hate them, or just contentedly take whatever we throw at you without worrying about it much?
Title: Appreciation
Difficulty: Thursday
Download: Across Lite or printable PNG (w/ solution)
I usually find them to be supremely annoying.
I’ve never thought of it as being “lazy” cluing. I just assumed that it was a symptom of wanting to be bring a themeless together in an overly eager manner.
Some months ago I made a puzzle with TICTAC as one entry and TOE as another. I still wish that I’d resisted the impulse to connect them. TICTAC is a perfectly fine entry as a breath mint, and TOE is a fine entry as a digit (or in some other context). But I “cross-clued” them because I could. And I still regret it.
In my opinion, every entry should stand alone and have it’s own clue. Perhaps it’s only because I’ve seen it abused so much, but I think that cross-referencing clues are either too clever by half, clued as afterthoughts, and/or downright annoying.
Quote puzzles notwithstanding, of course.
All that being said: You’re cross references weren’t annoying because they were so close together. Only 10-Across connecting with 54-Across were seperated in the grid; and that was quite a difficult connection for any constructor to ignore. (And probably the reason you wanted to ask for feedback in the first place.)
So the general answer is: Cross-refereneces, generally, suck.
But you did a good job of having cross-references that don’t suck.
I hope that clears thing up for ya. 🙂
Comment by Tuning Spork — August 16, 2009 @ 4:51 am