Bring me a drink that's easy to find,
Turn it to shine a treasure of the fruitful kind.
Such was the clue for Treasure 2 of the Master Category of theSun Hunt 2008. My team got this treasure correct. But to be honest, we did not solve the puzzle. We got it based on psychological deduction rather than cracking the cryptic clue.
You see, each participant was given a goodie bag. And in that bag there were many kinds of drinks. I can't remember from the top of my head, but perhaps there were at least 10 types of drinks. When I received the goodie bag, I thought it was rather strange that we were given so many drinks.
So from the psychological point of view, the first line of the clue must be referring to the drinks in the goodie bag. Otherwise why would that drink be "easy to find"? But now we come to the bigger problem—which one?
During the earlier stage of attempting this clue, we actually bought 2 or 3 types of drinks which we thought might fit. But later on, when we thought of the drinks in the goodie bag, the scope of search was narrowed down substantially. However, there were still many choices. We shortlisted further to either TWISTER or a kind of yogurt drink with the word SHINE on the bottle.
So which is the correct one?
Ek Leong voted for SHINE because after all that word was specifically mentioned in the clue. But Kah Sing thought SHINE was just too straightforward for a Master's treasure. I agreed with Kah Sing. SHINE did not fit from the psychological point of view. I did not entertain for a moment the idea that the setter would use that kind of cheap trick on the masters. Therefore, although we did not know the explanation, we decided on TWISTER.
And here's the explanation by the CoC:
The first line is as we had expected—that it's easy to find because it's found in the goodie bag!
The second line is more complicated. In fact, I dare say much more complicated! The word TURN carries the duty to find the word TWIST. But at the same time, TURN is also given the duty of being an anagram indicator, of which the fodder is "it to shine a". It means that the letters found in "it to shine a" are to be rearranged to become a new word. And the CoC expects the solver to come up with the word HESITATION. But that is not the end of the story. After arriving at HESITATION, the solver is supposed to equate that to ER (which is the usual sound we make when we hesitate).
In the end, the CoC meant to join the resulting words by means of the charade operation to derive TWISTER. Amazing, isn't it?
Although I can live with "IT TO SHINE A" => HESITATION => ER, I do not agree with the double duty of TURN. It is a blatant violation of basic cryptic clueing rules, and if allowed to develop in the sport of treasure hunting, can lead to all sorts of mediocre clues. Trust me on this folks, I can very quickly expand the idea of double duty to other indicators too. For example, I can use a reversal indicator for the purpose of a definition etc.
This is not the first time I'm discussing the issue of double duty. When I first started learning about cryptic clueing, I used to spend long hours surfing the net to research whatever I could about cryptic clueing. And there was one very good article I read which focused on the topic of Double Duty. Unfortunately, somehow I can no longer find that article to share with you all here. I've forgotten how I found it in the past.
Anyway, as I said, I have discussed about double duty in the past. Check out the post entitled: Multiple Functions. The discussion revolved around the acceptability of a word which is used for the role of an indicator; but also at the same time for a second duty within the same clue. To give an example, consider this clue:
Q) Doctors
A) SPG
In the above example, that word "Doctors" may be referring to GPs (General Practitioners). In this case, "Doctors" has the duty of defining the GPs. However, "Doctors" as a verb is also given the duty of being an anagram indicator, which means the letters in GPS are rearranged to become SPG. An ugly solution, is it not?
As you will see in the comment box of the Multiple Functions post, Mr Nestor Fields, who's apparently an expert in cryptic clueing, informed us that double duty is not allowed in cryptic clueing. And from the above example I'm sure many of you would understand why it is disallowed.
So I would plead all the CoCs out there; let's all set the standard of not employing the double duty trick in hunt clues because you may just find your trick back-firing on you. You may be caught by surprise if some teams found WATSONS in the sector for the DOCTORS question, and it would be extremely difficult to defend your SPG.
16 comments:
I thought the Double Duty clue was brilliantly used here, and when complemented by other facts that helps narrow down the list of possibilities, I see no reason why it cannot remain a tool for the setter.
Here the setter specifically mentioned that:
- it is a drink
- it is fruity
Had the treasure question been worded as just .....
Turn it to shine a treasure.
then my opinion would have differed.
On the other hand I felt T4 was vague. I'll talk about it another time.
Thanks for your comment, 2R1I.
I am all for progress and improvements in anything I do. And I am frequently treated as a Maverick because of my tendency to change how things are done.
I am therefore all out for progress in the sport of treasure hunting too. That said, however, I am also a sentimental person to a certain extent; and am inclined to remain religiously true to basic principles.
The Double Duty is, first and foremost, a violation of basic cryptic clueing rules. I suppose one might say that there are occasions which would warrant a departure from the basic rules, but we need a very strong justification for such rule-breaking. I do not think that the provision of "it is a drink" and "it is fruity" is a worthy justification for the rule-breaking.
Secondly, in my opinion, if we want to allow the violation of the rules on account of special circumstances, then we must identify a clear set of criteria. Othewise, we may well find ourselves with the question of:
Where do we draw the line?
You said it yourself, 2R1I. If the clue had only been:
Turn it to shine a treasure.
your opinion would have differed. How about if I throw in the "it is fruity", but not the "it is a drink", would you still have been happy with the Double Duty clue?
I think there is a need to at least think carefully about allowing the Double Duty clues in treasure hunts. Once the door is opened, I bet we will see a whole range of Double Duty clues which would result in a swift deterioration of quality in hunt clues.
Already, I am hearing a number of hunters grumbling about the questions in the recent hunt by the Captains because they were set in such a way to confuse for the sake of confusing, but at the expense of losing quality and elegance.
As for T4, yes, I will also comment on it, but it will come later.
Hi ckoh,
Here was how i convinced my team mates on this treasure.Well, I, thereafter reasoned with the COC and he agreed that the way i went with it was simple and logical too.
Turn it to shine etc....
To Shine - anagram (polish, to rub something)
Turn - synonym = wrest
Wrest it = Twister
"The standard tricks, I consider as no longer tricks per-say. They are being used so often that they instead become part of a treasure hunter's vocabulary."
The above is a paragraph which I have copied from A Hunter's Tale blog. Check out the entire post here:
http://cluebusters.blogspot.com/2008/11/thesun-motor-hunt-2008-those-elusive.html
I'd like to repeat that I am all for progress and improvements in hunt clues. But I doubt that I would do it by breaking the rules. I am sure there are many ways to trick the hunters; and perhaps many new ideas can come into the sport without having to break the rules.
We have enough avenues to come up with new twists through the existing themes; there is no need to break the rules, because once we start breaking rules, where will it end?
Just to give a mild example, consider this possible clue, the answer of which can be obtained from the answers (No. 1 - 35) of the Master Category of last Sunday's hunt:
Q) Start entering common numbers, and read the next entry.
Although it may look easy from the comfort of your homes, actually it would be quite a challenge in the field. And it is a clue which does not break the existing themes of treasure hunt.
We just have to be a bit more imaginative and creative when setting hunt questions. And if the existing tricks have become "a part of a treasure hunter's vocabulary", then so be it. It doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to solve the question!
Ah! that seems to be a more favourable approach, adrian, although I suspect some cryptic crosswords purists may not like the "to" being included in the indicator.
Ckoh,
I agree with you on the inclusion of the "to" but for surface reading, i opine that it is ok to be added in.
Q) Start entering common numbers, and read the next entry.
I have received 3 emails in connection with the above question. Interestingly, one said he was able to answer the above almost at a glance.
The second successful solver took a bit longer; he did it in about 15 - 20 minutes.
The third one is still lost up to now. Well, at least up to about 2pm today.
First, let me explain the solution. And then I will comment further on this question.
Using the basic themes of our treasure hunt, the first thing to do is to identify the word "Start". It is an initial indicator. It means that the solver will have to take only the first letter (s) of the fodder. So that's the first step.
Looking at the sentence, we may be looking for the "e" of "entering". But there is hardly anything else to help us in the rest of the sentence. So maybe we need to take the first letter of the following word (s) too, i.e. the "c" of "common", the "n" of "numbers"...
And at this point, many would abandon the search. You see, I have noticed that there is a certain tendency in most of the regular hunters. Whenever we have to find letters or words which are required to arrive at the answer, there is a tendency to look for shorter words first.
For example, if we are given a picture of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, we would probably choose TUN or DR M first. Even if we consider MAHATHIR MOHAMMAD, we probably won't spend a lot of time on it. And the reason is quite simple. Most of the time, it is easier for the setter to use only a few letters to maneuvre to the answer. Longer words are comparatively harder to mould into the answer.
Anyway, there is something like an automatic preference for shorter words.
Now if we were to take say the first 3 letters of the words following "Start", we would get ECN, which appear to mean nothing. Maybe some hardworking hunters would go a little further to get ECNAR (continue taking the first letters of the words that follow). These letters still don't seem to have any meaning.
The psychology of the riddle is that many hunters would abandon the search after the first few letters. And I therefore capitalise on that against the solvers. It is good to use psychology to beat the solvers, i.e. use their weaknesses against them!
Anyway, if one were to be really hardworking and take the "initials" of all the words in the sentence, this is what he'd get:
Start ENTERING COMMON NUMBERS, AND READ THE NEXT ENTRY.
to get: E C N A R T N E
That is the first step of the solution; and it is not an extremely difficult step.
The second step is of course that famous Double Jeopardy. Which means the indicator is found in the answer itself! Thus by adopting the DJ, the required answer in this case is:
BACK ENTRANCE
I will post this first and continue in another frame.
The point I am trying to make here with BACK ENTRANCE is that the question need not break cryptic clueing rules to be worthy of the masters recognition.
It is OK if some of them will solve it in the end. During the hunt, some of them will be able to solve it within 5 mintues. Others will probably take 10 - 15 minutes. Others still will give up after 20 minutes with nothing to show.
Usually, if you take more than 15 minutes for a single question, the alarm bells should already be ringing loudly. A few more 15-minute questions along the way would lead to a disastrous hunt.
So I say by all means, please take all the time you like to attempt this question. You may be able to solve it, yes, but the time you take to achieve that is already a victory on my part! For the time that you're spending on this single question will, one way or another, have repercussions on the other questions.
Re the 2 treasures discussed in this thread and another , I would like to offer my opinion on both of them.
Re the "twister" treasure question, the usage of "turn" to serve as anagram indicator as well as "charade" is an error.It flies in the face of cryptic clueing and simply cannot be condoned.Let's work backwards:
I have "twister" .
I now separate it to Twist er .
Then i expand it to Twist Hesitation.
Then i can go either of 2 ways but not both of them.
1st way:
Twist hesitation becomes Turn hesitation.(twist=turn)
2nd way:
Twist hesitation becomes Shine it to a ( double jeopardy )
2nd step of both ways can never lead to "Turn it to shine a" as it actually appears in the question.
So it is a leap which is faulty in the extreme.
This gap cannot be bridged by other clues since there is a violation of the primary clue.
Re the picture clue , if we work backwards from the answer GIANT GROUNDNUTS , we can spot the flaw easily.
GIANT = GI + ANT
GI + ANT = SOLDIER ANT (1 picture)
GROUNDNUTS = ground NUTS
ground NUTS = TUNS
TUNS= TUN + S ( 2 pictures)
However, 3rd picture does not directly translate into S.
A picture which represents S directly would be preferable.
But the bigger objection is that the anagram "ground" is not indicated in any way in the context of a picture clue.
Suffice it to say that if the setter had worked backward systematically , then he would have definitely thought twice about these "giant jumps" which cannot be justified. In the enthusiasm for spotting some "clever" openings, rigour is overlooked and the clueing deteriorates.
Setters must always double check their steps in the method described to objectively justify their clueing.
Then they can progress coherently to offer unique questions.
Otherwise , there is over-reach and unfortunately , in both of the recent hunts discussed here in the blog, the setters could have avoided that - using the Reverse Check Method.
Regards,
Nestor Fields.
Nestor, I'd like to get your opinion on the following Double Duty clue that I discovered in a reputable British article that had obviously promoted its use.
Q: Cabaret astonishes who?
A: Floor Show
While I considered the sentence construction to have room for improvement, I was impressed with the process leading to the answer.
a. Role 1: Astonishes as an anagram key, Who => How
b. Role 2: Astonishes as a synonym, Astonishes = Floors
Putting a. and b. together will yield Floor Show, a synonym for Cabaret.
This clue had a lot of similarities with the Twister treasure. While Setter A had used a (non cryptic) defintion in his clue to support his solution, Setter B had used other facts (drink, fruity drink, easy to find) to support his solution. Setter B had avoided the use of a definition in his clue (in my opinion) eg. Tornado, to make the solution less obvious to the solver.
Me, I am fine with the use of Double Duty cluing, PROVIDED it is well supplemented by a definition or other clues that helps to narrow down the search. I take it as a breath of fresh air, to the old book of cryptic cluing.
Thank you, Nestor and 2R1I for your comments.
It is very interesting to see this exchange of opinions between 2 cryptic experts. I'm itching to comment further, but as for now, I'd rather wait for Nestor to share his views on this latest example by 2R1I.
So Nestor, although you are apparently from another time dimension, and I'd probably be fast asleep by the time you post your comment, I shall be eagerly checking out this blog again tomorrow morning after I come home from my run.
Well, it seems that Mr Fields is not keen to comment on 2R1I's example of the Double Duty question. So perhaps I can comment instead.
The first thing I thought of when I read 2R1I's comment above, was whether it was specifically explained as a Double Duty question in the article. Or was it his own deduction that that is the explanation?
The second thing I thought of was whether that example, if indeed meant to demonstrate a Double Duty situation, which was probably an isolated one, amounts to an "obvious promotion" of its use in cryptic clueing?
On both counts, I must say that I doubt an affirmative answer. But I may be wrong, and perhaps 2R1I would like to elaborate further on his source and what was actually stated therein.
Then, as I was exploring other possible explanations, I was suddenly attracted to the question mark at the end of the clue. And I remembered a little discussion we have had in the RR Blog some time ago.
I was still waiting for Mr Fields to respond to 2R1I when I received an email from another Master about this issue. I was surprised that he, too, shared the same ideas as mine. And I propose to discuss it here now.
Q) Cabaret astonishes who?
A) Floor Show
There was once when we were discussing anagram indicators in the RR Blog, someone brought up the issue of adopting the question mark (?) as an anagram indicator.
If I'm not wrong, it was Master Vincent Woo who told us that there's a CoC who had the habit of setting hunt clues by adopting the "?" as anagram indicators. Quite frankly, I am not impressed with "?" as an anagram indicator. However, if that is an established cryptic clueing rule, then I am willing to accept it. Having said that, however, I have not discovered any article that would confirm the "?" as an acceptable anagram indicator.
Could it be possible that the "?" in the above example is the anagram indicator; in which case that word "astonishes" is no longer given double duty? I'm not saying that I prefer this alternative solution, but I'm just weighing the possible explanation based on what Vincent has informed us before.
2R1I, are you able to share with us your source; perhaps provide the link in this blog?
Sorry I am unable to recall the link to that article.
From my memory, what I posted was how the article had explained it. From my limited experience, the (?) has mainly been used as a pun in cryptic crosswords, and never as an anagram indicator.
Vincent is correct that it (?) was introduced and regularly used by an individual many years ago (who has since retired). However this practice did not catch on with the rest of the more reputable CoCs.
If well crafted (like how defined it), I see no reason why it cannot remain a tool for the setter.
I am sure (for those of you who recall) the Double Jeopardy clue probably created the same amount of Hooha when it was introduced. It is natural for people to resist when they are unfamiliar, and I can live with that.
2R1I,
When you said, "If well crafted (like how defined it), I see no reason why it cannot remain a tool for the setter", were you referring to the Double Jeopardy or the "?" as anagram indicator?
And let's hear it from the rest of the hunting fraternity; would you welcome the Double Duty idea in hunt questions?
I myself am not in favour of it. As you can see, this is not the first time that the Double Duty has been discussed in the cryptic crosswords world. I'm sure some people must have tried to inject the idea into crosswords, as shown by 2R1I's example above, but you will notice that the vast majority of cryptic clues involving anagrams very, very rarely adopted this idea, if any. I am inclined to interpret that as an implied disfavour against the Double Duty, especially amongst the cryptic crosswords purists.
My contention is that if the Double Duty is a good idea, it would have been readily accepted long ago, and we would not even have this discussion now!
I was away and could not not reply in time to 2R&1I regarding the clue he mentioned.
Not knowing the context, I will speculate that the clue is not a standard clue but probably belongs to a special theme-like puzzle.
Within such a special subset of puzzles , where the rules have been altered, its ok.
However, it fails the Ximenean standard regarding double duty. Explicitly, a word in a clue must not be both indicator and fodder.
There are very good reasons why this makes sense.In any sentence we use everyday to communicate , we follow a grammatical structure that makes it comprehensible to our listener.Should we deviate from its iron rules, we will not be understood at all.Even speaking brokenly, but still adhering to the language’s distinction of object, subject and verb and rules concerning nestled phrases – we can communicate efficiently using long and complex sentences. A child concocts new sentences all the time and still can make sense to his playmates and parents – because the rules are adhered to. He has picked them up from parents and peers and importantly, from his brain’s innate categorization of the components of a sentence.
So, cryptic clueing works for many people because it still follows the underpinnings of the grammatical substratum of the brain.
One word serving 2 functions is understood by most people but it is very difficult and rare to have that word in a normal understandable sentence serving two functions , say, noun and verb.
However, in cryptic clueing I have come across structures that seem to defy the distinctions and still make sense without sacrifice of rule-breaking.
But my memory doesn’t serve me well and so I can’t quote any now.
Has anyone of you come across successful usage of double duty in hunt clues where the rule is not broken?
The word must be used as indicator as well as definition or part of definition and still not be unfair.
Nestor Fields
Post a Comment