Tembak Series 1—Elegance

I meant that last post to be the last comment for Tembak Series 1. However, I have mentioned that I'd be happier if there's more "elegance" in some of the questions. Lacking elegance doesn't really affect the accuracy of the questions/answers in most cases, but sometimes they do! Moreover, some of you have written to me to seek further comments on the subject of "elegance".

In my opinion, a good cryptic clue is one which, apart from having the cryptic elements, must also have a meaningful surface reading. The "storyline" of the clue may have nothing to do with the true intention of the setter.

Consider the following question from Tembak Series 1 (TS1):

QH2) SHAKE SHAKE IN LONG HEART.

AH2) PEAK SHINE SDN. BHD.

One is made to wonder if there is such a thing as a "long heart". By means of the anagram indicator, SHAKE, the other SHAKE is reconfigured into EAKSH. LONG is converted into one of its synonyms, PINE. Then EAKSH is inserted in PINE to become PEAK SHINE. You will notice that HEART is unnecessary. The word "IN" is quite good enough to do the job in instructing the solver to insert EAKSH into PINE. However, for the purpose of the surface reading, HEART is added. The HEART in this clue is supposed to tell the solver to put the EAKSH into the "heart" if PINE, but it is not entirely necessary.

If it's possible, I'd like to make every word in my clues count. But sometimes, I, too, include words which are not really necessary except for the purpose of smooth surface reading. Check out the following examples from my KK Challenge 4:

Q) Name of business which does not fully exist.

A) Restoran Wu Ju

In this case, the words found in the clue are not to be taken independently. Rather, they're treated together as a whole. They're necessary to be there because otherwise the sentence would look awkward.

And another one from the same hunt:

Q) An eatery which is only half normal.

A) Kafeteria NOR

And another (Angkatan Hebat-Sutera Harbour Hunt):

Q) National flag without stripes?

A) Gemilang Enterprise

In each case, I tried to make some sort of meaningful story out of the clues while at the same time remaining true to the cryptic principles.

Now check out the following from TS1:

QC4) OH! HE HUNG SOLE AWKWARDLY HERE.

AC4) LONG-HEH HOUSE

One will wonder if there is a meaning when looking at QC4 literally. The sentence gives a dubious storyline. However, for the purpose of the intended solution, the clue is impeccable.

And,

QG1) WHITEHEAD AND I ARE EATING HERE.

AG1) RESTORAN WANDI.

I have not checked if there is a special meaning to "WHITEHEAD" in my dictionary. If there is a meaning to that word, maybe it's some kind of nickname for an animal; say, a fish or bird? So there you are, eating together with a bird. However, again for the purpose of the intended solution, the clue is impeccable.

Now we explore a little further on how things can become a bit more complicated. The following is also from TS1:

QG3) THREE FEET WITHIN MAN IN DISARRAY.

AG3) KEDAI KOPI MELANIAN 2

Now let's see if we can understand the intention of the CoC. We can analyse the clue like this:

THREE FEET = ELA (Malay for YARD)

WITHIN = container indicator

DISARRAY = anagram indicator

Simplifying,

ELA within MAN IN anagram => MELANIAN

The first thing we ask ourselves is the logic of "3ft within man". Just the sound of that is somewhat ugly. Secondly, I think the "WITHIN" is quite unnecessary in this clue, for it does not help in improving the surface reading of the clue; as well as in the cryptic puzzle. The anagram operation is quite enough to support all the fodders for the transformation into MELANIAN.

Maybe, it's possible to improve both the surface reading as well as the cryptic puzzle like this:

Q) MAN WITH THREE FEET IN DISARRAY.

In this case, "DISARRAY" is still the anagram indicator; and "WITH" tells the solver to combine "MAN" with "THREE FEET (ELA), IN". And the whole thing, when reconfigured, can yield MELANIAN. Thus still arriving at the same destination. But while it's a bit bizarre to picture a man having three feet, it is at least more meaningful when compared to "3 feet within man".

I guess the question of "elegance" in treasure hunt clues is a matter of personal taste. I know some CoCs are not concerned with surface reading whatsoever, as long as they're accurate in the cryptic sense. But the CoCs I admire are those who can conjure up clues with meaningful surface readings, as well as deceiving storylines.

I want to mention here that, on the whole, Kena Tembak produced clues of decent standard in the Tembak Series 1, and I saw some clever ideas too. I am glad that they've made the effort to organise the hunt; and I'm looking forward to their next project: The Palliative Care Charity Hunt on 26 July. I hope they will continue organising hunts in the years ahead; and I'll be even happier if I can win all of them! (Smile)