Just a quick note to thank you for finding this page, but I do not intend to use this wordpress in future. I have a new blog, which I intend to be a lot more active with, lol, at my personal website: www.johnleeshaw.com
As well as my writing, there will be photos, and other things you you will hopefully find interesting!
I’d like to thank you for your support and patience with this blog, but 2012 has seen a new start — and I hope to see you there for the journey ahead!
All the best,
John
Posted in Uncategorized
Neil Robertson 2012 Masters Champion
I have been a snooker fan now for most of my life. I remember, as a kid, watching the likes of Steve Davis, Cliff Thorburn, Doug Mountjoy, Terry Griffiths and the like, during the sports TV of the weekend. At the time, I think it begun as a pleasant relief from the horse racing which my Grandfather followed closely; but, soon, I came to appreciate what a wonderful sport snooker is in its own right. Fiercely competitive, indeed, yet gracious and ‘gentlemanly’ if you like, also.
Over the weekend, I watched the 2012 BGC Masters Final, which was staged at Alexandra Palace in London. This was contested between Neil Robertson of Australia, and Shaun Murphy of England. Now, before going any further, it should be said, that for the last 7 years I have lived in Holland, and for the vast majority of that have not been able to follow snooker very closely as the sport has not yet been deemed gripping by the Dutch. (They also do not have many top players like they do in darts, which strangely enough gets widely televised — however, this is all besides the point.) Thankfully, since the middle of last year, I have been able to receive the BBC here, and have very gratefully picked up again on my snooker viewing.
The first thing that became very clear to me, was just how much the game has changed since I was last ‘clued-up’ on it. I mean, before moving to Holland, I consider myself to have been quite knowledgeable on the sport, I had a good grasp of the players, and knew what was what. I have to admit that now I feel like a complete novice again. The top end of the sport contains many players who I only had a vague recollection of if any, the ones who I expected to be there were either moving down the rankings or nowhere to be seen, and there’s been a World Champion from Australia for Heavens sake . . . ! 
And said World Champion (2010-2011), Neil Robertson, now appeared ranked number 5 in the world, against world number 6 and 2005 World Champion, Shaun Murphy. There was no sign of the players who I would have expected to be in the final, the likes of Ronnie O’Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, who along with Stephen Hendry were the driving force in snooker when I was at all with it.
The game of snooker, I think like any sport, metamorphoses pretty much like Doctor Who does, generation by generation. This is nothing unusual, Joe Davis was an early master and dominated the sport from the late 1920′s, winning world titles from 1927 right up to 1940, and again in 1946. He made the first officially recognised 147 maximum break in 1955. Keeping it in the family, Joe Davis would hand the mantle over to his brother, Fred, for 8 world titles between 1948 and 1956, and then, John Pullman would break the Davis hold with 8 world titles, before the likes of Alex Higgins and John Spencer would come along to break the dominance.
The 1970′s belonged to a Welshman by the name of Ray Reardon, who would win 6 world titles, and add some personality to the game with his own brand of humour. Just as Reardon was getting comfy, though, came an Englishman by the name of Steve Davis, who would cue like poetry and win 6 world titles. Steve Davis would also make the first televised 147 maximum break on television — ironically against John Spencer, who had made a 147 in a televised tournament earlier, but unfortunately the camera crew was on their tea break. Steve Davis, (who I make no secret of is my snooker hero) really brought the game forward, scoring sizeably and tying his opponents up in knots with his safety play, knowledge of the angles, and match playing temperament. It was long thought that he would be extremely difficult to shake from the top spot in snooker.
However, shaken he was, when a youngster by the name of Stephen Hendry came along, and took the game forward another leap. Hendry would not only score heavily when among the balls, but given a chance would pretty much leave only the white left on the table. He played a form of attacking snooker the likes had never been seen before, long potting, precision positional play, and break building were his strengths. In my opinion, Hendry’s safety play was not at a high standard seen in other players, but one could not really call this a weakness — he got by with it. Hendry made century after century, popularised the total clearance, 147′s followed, and he would take 7 world titles. The mantle had been passed (taken?) from Davis to Hendry, and questions were asked again of how long this player could occupy the snooker throne.
Well, certainly through the 90′s, but then came not one young pretender, but two. Ronnie O’Sullivan of England and John Higgins of Scotland entered the snooker stage in their teens, and immediately set people whispering. Higgins took long potting to the extreme, while having also a strong tactical game; O’Sullivan meanwhile made break building look like childs play. Added in to this mix, was another Welshman by the name of Mark Williams, who with his excellent potting and hugely attacking style, would by no means be making up numbers, winning two world titles in 2000 and 2003.
It has been Higgins and O’Sullivan, however, who have really taken Hendry’s breed of snooker forward, and shared the spoils between the late 90′s and present day. Between 1998 and 2012, O’Sullivan has notched up 3 world titles, and Higgins 4, and is as I type this the current World Champion. In O’Sullivan’s case, one could really be forgiven for thinking the number should have been more, for such a natural in the game, really in a class of his own for a period, his temperament has very often let him down. Higgins, by contrast, has his temperament, particularly when under pressure, as one of his strengths.
And so, here we are, in 2012, and snooker has a strange situation in my opinion, with absolutely no one able to dominate. The forces that have been find themselves competed with, in essence, by people who have looked up to them and based their game on them. The result is that now most players are keen eyed long potters, by necessity, fantastic break builders, and not half bad at putting their opponent in trouble with safety also. There is now more of an all-round player than every, in some part thanks to coaching and snooker initiatives, and all play at a high level. The simple truth is now that most professionals are capable of knocking in a long red to get started, and making a frame-winning-break to win the frame in one visit. This is un-questionable, the only dividing factor is now who can do it on the day, the most often.
And on this, the jury is out, at least in my opinion. The list of potentials is sizeable, with Higgins and O’Sullivan, Williams still right up there, with such relative newbies as Murphy, Robertson, Selby, all on their heels. And, by all accounts, a 22-year-old Englishman by the name of Judd Trump, is the new one to watch. Trump has already reached the world championship final in 2011, and is currently the reigning UK Champion. One fellow snooker fan said to me, that Trump “makes O’Sullivan look passive” so the chances for up-coming fireworks are looking good! Certainly, one should not expect the likes of Higgins (and O’Sullivan if he feels like it) to roll over just yet.
And this brings me back to the BGC Master final over the weekend, which went to demonstrate the very minute divide between players these days. Robertson and Murphy fought fiercely, both in-form, but rather tentative. However, from 3-3 Murphy found himself under pressure in the best of 19 frame match, as Robertson began to surge ahead and grow in confidence, breaks of 72 and 59 gave the Australian a 5-3 lead.
It must be said that Murphy added to his troubles somewhat, making unforced errors both when in the balls, and with his safety play. I must say, I found his safety way under par for the occasion, very often making contact with a baulk colour to leave the cue-ball way short of the intended baulk cushion. From 3-3 Robertson would win 6 out of seven frames, to lead 9-4. After the interval, Murphy came out clearly determined to fight, and having moved up a couple of gears played very attacking snooker and took the first two frames to reduce his deficit by two frames — but it was too little too late, and 9-6 was still an uphill battle. A break of 70 in the 16th frame would seal the event for Robertson, 10-6.
And this is the point really, on another day the result could have been very different, the winner and runner-up being separated more and more by a very small difference here or there. And one must wonder when, if ever, the game will see another dominant force such as the Davis’s, Reardon’s, and Hendry’s. And will it be Trump, or one of the plethora of other contenders out there at this time? Only time will tell . . .
Roll on April and the 2012 World Championship, that’s all I say!
Posted in Uncategorized
Hi!
Is it too late to wish you a happy new year? We’re way in to 2012 by now, but I really would like to offer my best wishes for the year ahead, and although late (my 2012 started way hecticly than I imagined) it is heartfelt none-the-less.
So, I have not blogged in a while, mainly having had other things requiring my time for a while now — and feeling like I didn’t really have anything worthwhile to say and take internet space up with. I was always raised with the “nothing worthwhile to say, say nothing” principle.
However, being a sporadic blogger, I feel, is a little like having a dog and only walking it twice a month, or when one feels like it. Not only does it fail to take advantage of a great way of physical exercise, but it is also not constructive where building a connection is concerned. Admittedly, blogging is more an intellectual exercise (or I hope intellectual lol) but I think to do it successfully one should do it regularly and often; and, where a connection with one’s readers is concerned, (which I guess is the point of blogging, it is for me anyway), being inreliable and seemingly un-motivated, probably does not achieve the desired connection and following.
And so, I thought long and hard lately about whether I want to blog or not, with the view to closing the blog if not, and getting serious about it if I do. I decided that I do want to blog, I have a lot to say on various things, and I do need somewhere to put it all, and I feel that some of it will be of interest to readers. Furthermore, it helps me keep in touch with various friends and family, and keep them up to speed with what’s going on. Sure, there are things such as facebook which do the same, but to be honest, I am not so happy at facebook recently, and so this blog may become my main source of communication to the world out there
So, I decided to continue, (whether that is good or bad I leave entirely for you to decide lol), and from this post onwards, to post something here every day, even if it’s just saying hi and telling a little about my day. Ok, there may be required times of absence, but I will try to let you know about those, hopefully in advance.
And so, dear reader, my apologies for the several false starts prior to this one, please expect a higher standard from me from this point on. It will be a long road ahead, and like all roads will have it’s ups and downs for sure, but I am determined to do more with my writing, and to give you more to come here for. And hopefully have you coming back for more.
And, just as a last thought, please feel free to comment on my posts and let me know you’re out there, and how you think it’s going — it is very constructive and motivating!
All the best, and happy reading!
Posted in Uncategorized
I don’t know about you, but after the recent ‘heavy’ posts, I am in the mood for something a bit lighter in mood. Actually, I promised this on my facebook, which is why I have refrained from doing a post on the recent riots in England. I feel that I should honour my vow, and post something rather more upbeat. And so, without further ado, I present to you my latest fascinating two-penneth …
I was recently ‘googling’ (has this word made dictionaries yet? I’ve a feeling it should have by now!) methods of prayer. I do such things now and again, mainly out of curiosity having sorted out my spirituality decades ago. I came across a website which went in to the practice of Lectio Divina, the Christian practice of spiritual reading and prayer, and I read with some interest the article that was there. Then I noticed, that there was a link to take a test, and discover what kind of spiritual person I was. Well, normally I pay no attention to such things, but I must confess to being rather curious, so I took the bait.
After clicking the link, I was presented with some multiple choice questions, not really of a spiritual nature, one was what I would do on a beach, another what I found most important from a meeting. There was however a question regarding what I enjoyed most about a church service — unfortunately ‘the end’ was not an option, and so I chose the nearest equivalent ‘silence’. I must say, I have taken such surveys before, mostly after having them sent to me by friends on facebook or in email, and I have found them to be very unreliable and highly abstract. They are rather like horoscopes, in that they are highly generalised, and while probably applying to many people, (purely due to the laws of chance and coincidence,) with just as many if not more, the prediction falls way wide of the target. And so, it was with some scepticism, that I clicked ‘submit’ and this is what I got.
You are a Mystic, known for your imaginative, intuitive spirituality. You value peace, harmony, and inner silence. Mystics are nurtured by walking alone in the woods or sitting quietly with a trusted friend. You may also enjoy poetry, meditation, wordless prayer, candles, art, books, and anything else that helps you connect with God. Mystics experience God best through rich images and symbols. You are contemplative, introspective, intuitive, and focused on an inner world as real to you as the exterior one. Hearing from God is more important to you than speaking to God. Others may attribute human characteristics to God, but you see God as ineffable, unnamable, and more vast than any known category. You are intrigued by God’s mystery.
Mystics want to inspire and persuade others, and need to live lives of significance. At times you push the envelope of spirituality, helping the rest of us imagine who we might become if we followed your lead.
Sometimes you may feel a bit guilty about your need for solitude and silence. If so, you probably have bought into the American myth that says being alone and doing nothing is lazy, antisocial, and unproductive. Stop it — now. Give yourself permission to retreat and be alone. It’s essential for your well-being. On the other hand, don’t get so carried away retreating that you become a recluse. That only deprives the world of your gifts and deprives you of the lessons that come from being with others. Some Mystics may have a true vocation for solitary prayer, but the rest of you need to alternate retreat time with involvement and interaction.
I have to say, I was quite impressed with this assessment. Not that I consider myself a mystic, you understand, but I do very much identify with the text. I think my spirituality is intuitive, and breaks with the norm in that it is not religion-based, or with any icon at the helm other than God. I also do value peace, harmony, inner silence, and I do practice meditation and silent prayer, I like candles, art, and have a plethora of all kinds of books. I think I am a naturally contemplative person, often doing it without realising. By far the most true is “hearing from God is more important that speaking to God” for I think that it is through this that one can highly appreciate his works and wonders.
Sometimes I do relish silence and solitude, and recently I was thinking to myself that if life had been different, I could have been very happy as a monk. Had I have been able to choose a religion, had I not have fallen in love, I could have been very happy within the walls of a monastery, with books and quiet, and deep philosophical and spiritual conversation. However, as one monk asked me upon a retreat that I did some time ago, “is it mee-crosoft or my-crosoft?” So, one never really does know what to expect when it comes to God, does one?
However, dear reader, God has led me down a different path, for religion I have no time for and left it by the way side long ago in favour of faith. The two, in my experience, are very different indeed. And he led me to meet the most beautiful and amazing girl that he ever created. Every day, he fills my life with all kind of joys and treasures. Whether I am a mystic or not, that is down to interpretation I guess, but God certainly is “ineffable, unnamable, and more vast than any known category”.
May he bless you whoever and wherever you are, and whatever your belief
Posted in Uncategorized
Just recently I was in a cafe here in the centre of where I live, just there minding my own business, sipping a coffee, and tucking in to a bagel. It was a pleasant morning, and I was full of the joys of Summer All of a sudden, something caught my eye, namely a group of teenagers who were involved in an obviously enthralling discussion. Now, under normal circumstances, I find this a highly positive thing, I like to see my fellow human beings pleasantly interacting with each other. However, this display, I found rather concerning — because the group was not actually saying anything.
I had kind of subconsciously observed them enter the cafe; somewhere in my peripheral vision I had noted them sit down, exchange some pleasantries, take a sip of their cola or milkshake, and take out their mobile phones and place them on the table in front of them. One of them then received a text message, (announced by what sounded like a symphony quartet for all to hear), and this was then forwarded to each other person at the table by the initial receiver of the text. From this point on, the group fell silent.
What followed instead, was hurried and fluent use of the numeric keypad’s on their mobile telephones, to a soundtrack of chimes, tunes, and mp3′s. One girl received a text and I thought the cafe was on fire! Occasionally there was a giggle, a quick glance to the screen of another’s telephone in order to be shown something, but this was the only interaction at that table between this group of friends. One then connected earphones to the device, and stuck one in her ear, I assume so that she could listen to music.
I am no prude, or enemy of technology, nor am I someone who easily panics or becomes hysterical — but you know, dear reader, I found this very sad to observe. They were obviously friends, judging by their nature towards each other and their body language upon entering the cafe. They were engaging with each other, talking, sharing a giggle, commenting on this and that. It was highly pleasant to be aware of — there is so much negative interaction between people these days that it touches me when I see positive human relationships. I found it such a shame that this interaction was halted, over-prioritised in a way, by technology, the arrival of the text. And the text, that was sent to one person, was then passed around to the others, and became a conversation point — itself by text. There seemed to be something almost perverse about it.
Now, you know, I have to sort out my angle here, because my point is not that technology is bad, of course it isn’t. Many pieces of technology make life easier, and even enhanced it somewhat, of that there is no shadow of doubt. What, then, you may wonder, is my point? My point is, that I am beginning to get rather concerned, because rather than merely playing a functional role in day-to-day life, it is beginning to become day-to-day life. I fear that we are being hooked on ease, gimmickry and entertainment, to the profit of numerous commodities, at the detriment of our families, friends, and society as a whole.
Maybe I am over-reacting, just maybe — but also, maybe there is a general complacency that technology (and those it is making rich) is taking advantage of.
We tend to sit at computers to write letters these days rather than using paper and pen; we watch the TV rather than playing board games; we text instead of calling; we upload photos to facebook rather than visiting people with our photo albums …. or Heaven forbid, sending some photo’s by post with a narration or message on the back. We’d rather tell all about our life in a status message than telephone our nearest and dearest to say hi and talk about the day — or ask about theirs.
It makes me sad to observe this in other people, and it annoys and disappoints me to recognise it in myself. I too have been caught by this, it has snuck up on me like a well camouflaged hunter, and undoubtedly it has snared me. I work at the computer, I communicate at the computer, I exist at the computer. I have become a facebook page, a profile here, an account there. It’s just too easy to upload photos, send an email, and most people these days can text quicker than making a call. Technology, communications technology, has become super-good — but when is too much of a good thing in fact bad?
I am beginning to wonder, in general, if we are not there yet, perhaps we’re getting mighty close.
Surveys show that the average person spends 4-6 hours per day at the computer, specifically personal time at home and not work. This means, that in the case of a working adult, or child at school, this is the bulk (if not all) of the quality time that could be spent with loved ones or out with friends, or enjoying the fresh air that God has provided for us. A recent study in America suggested that the average teen sends and receives over three-thousand text messages each month. Yet studies also show that teenagers are becoming more socially backward and indifferent to society. I am starting to think that this is no coincidence. It is certainly giving me much food for thought lately.
And this has also encouraged me to observe my own behaviour, and to objectively take stock of how much a part technology is playing in my life, and in a certain way controlling my life. And where I see it taking place, I am determined to correct it. Perhaps, dear reader, with the greatest of respect, I might urge you to do the same? I think that vigilance with regard to this problem, which often occurs without us realising it, is extremely needed, and that the consequences of succumbing to technology much further will be dire.
If not, the day when we are sitting beside our spouse, listening to our mp3-player, texting him/her about what we’ve seen on his/her facebook just might be closer than we think . . .
Posted in Uncategorized
Ok, so, Britain and the world are currently outraged by the recent revelations of phone hacking by the News of the World, one of the newspapers that make up Rupert Murdoch’s News International empire. It seems that the newspaper has carried out a 6-year (that is known of) campaign of hacking and infringing people’s privacy in the search of news, which has within the last weeks resulted in the closure of the News of the World and several arrests, including former editors Andy Coulson (who then went on to work for current PM David Cameron) and Rebekah Brooks, who had progressed to become Chief Executive of News International.
To cut a long story shorter, things got rather concerning when in 2005, the News of the World published a story on a knee injury that had been sustained by Prince William. This was met by complaints from royal staff members about the possibility of voice mail messages being intercepted. These complaints resulted in a police inquiry. Then, a couple of years later in 2007, the News of the World‘s royal affairs editor Clive Goodman was jailed for four months for listening to voicemail messages left for the press secretary of the Prince of Wales and also for two officials who worked for princes William and Harry.
As years have rolled on, so it seems, have the infringements. Celebrities such as Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Hugh Grant, to name a few, have apparently all been confirmed as having been targetted. As was the former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. However, what has really caused the uproar, has been the most recent revelations that mobile phones of dead British soldiers, have also been hacked. Furthermore, the mobile telephones of relatives of the victims of the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, and possibly even those of 9/11 in the US have also been targeted. And as if to prove that they can sink to the lowest depths of the low, the mobile phone of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, was also hacked while she was missing.
What baffles me, actually, is that so many people have found this shocking. Quite frankly, I have not been shocked one bit by anything that has emerged. I mean, is it really a big shock that the press monitor communications? No it isn’t, or why else would they pay thousands and thousands to people with long lenses to point them over the walls of this celeb and that celeb, to root through trash to find a scrap of paper or an email, and for lip readers to sit in cars looking through binoculars into windows? They even had lip readers scrutinising what was said during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge earlier in the year. We’re all so surprised to discover they hack phones, emails? No. They snoop, that is what they do, and like everything disturbing, what we know about is nothing compared to what we don’t know about.
To be honest, I lost all respect for the press long ago. In my mind they rank as low down as politicians and others, tagged ‘not to be trusted’. Where politicians will do anything for power and to look after their own interests and agenda’s, in line with making as much money as possible, the press will do anything to sell newspapers, in line with making as much money as possible. It is my opinion, that the press/media have for far too long been allowed too much of a free hand over denying people the right to privacy, sporting the line “it is in the public interest”. To be honest, as a member of the public, I beg to differ.
As a member of the public, I want to know about things that matter and make a difference to life, what is being done about crime, pedophiles, poverty, drugs, making sure that the government is held to account for it’s failings and broken promises, and for ruining the country as it is. I want that highlighted, shouted about, and printed in the biggest text possible. I am not the slightest bit interested in which celeb is sleeping/cheating/arguing with whom, in Kelly Brook changing bikini’s, or the boring soap opera called Cheryl and Ashley Cole.
I have to wonder, however, am I the only one? For sure, I must be in a moniority, because after all, the tabloid press sell millions of copies of their publications, and earn millions and billions a year from their scandal-mongering, and their set-ups and stings, and their privacy-infringing contempt for people’s lives. They struck gold, for example, with Tiger Woods’ fall from grace, and persued him like wolves, with no thought at all for those also caught up in the events, his wife, his children. It is not in my interest to find out that Tiger Woods is a human being who makes mistakes, I knew that already, for we humans do make mistakes, it is only the nature of them which vary. The Tiger Woods story, the stories of those he’d committed adultery with, the photographs and blow-by-blow account of the heartbreak it obviously caused, just sold newspapers, plain and simple.
This ‘public interest’ line has to be dropped, because it just does not hold any more, if it ever has at all. As far as I am concerned, it is an insult, and is why I have not bought a tabloid (or anything with a red square on it’s front page) in over 10 years. The press and media act in the interest of their jobs, bonuses, and pockets. Why do they blow the whistle on scandals? Because they know people will buy the papers to ‘read all about it!’ There is not one iota of public interest, it is good marketting.
And for this, the public must bare some of the responsibility of these disgraceful acts of hacking, paparazzi hounding of celebrities, and surveilance. There has become a Big Brother mentality, the public love the evidence of famous people’s fall from grace, and to read of affairs and gossip. I remember when the story broke of Hugh Grant cheating on Liz Hurley with US prostitute Devine Brown some years ago, the photographs of him looking extremely pale an gaunt when talking to Liz in the garden of their ‘private’ residence were found highly entertaining. There was little thought at that time for the couple, or that those photographs were taken by someone with a high powered lens standing on a step ladder, and pointing it over their fence. The sex video of Paris Hilton, itself a gross infringement in privacy, received hundreds of thousands of hits within an hour of it breaking. The car crash which killed Diana Princess of Wales, if it had not have resulted as it did, and had actually resulted in one of those moped riding photographers nailing a picture of her in a romantic clinch with Dodi al Fayed in the back of the car; rather than being condemned, those photographs would have sold huge amounts of newspapers, and made hundreds of thousands, probably millions for the publishers. To deny this is futile — those photographers were not there for nothing, they were there for money.
The public become high and mighty, and holier than thou when papers hack the mobile phones of war heroes and murder victims; yet, when it is the sexy text messages of a cheating superstar, hardly bat an eyelid. Infact, then it is entertainment, it gives something to talk about. The public, who buy the news international newspapers, who contribute to it’s turnover and have paid for the Rupert Murdoch empire, are in no place to damn. They, the readers, fuel the market demand, and are accesories in the purest sense of the word, to everything that has gone on. It is they who have given these organisations the power that they have, and it is they who have been allowing at the very least, and encouraging at the very worst, their behaviour. Papers make money with sales, and anyone who buys such newspapers may say no words in critique, and may only show their distaste for what has been happening by not buying them anymore.
For that at the end of they day is what will send the clearest message to these ‘rags’, that their actions will no longer be tolerated, and really are not in the interests of the public. It is falling profits and share prices which will make Rupert Murdoch finally pull his people in to line and act with some decency and stick to reporting the news rather than manufacturing it. David Cameron has pledged an inquiry, but to wait for the goverment to act and legislate, penalise, is naivety and will be about as much use as waiting for them to do that on anything else has been.
No, we, the public, can effect this change far quicker than the governement can and will. And at the end of the day, we can save money in to the bargain.
Most importanly, it is in our interest.
Posted in Uncategorized
I have recently started doing Crosswords. Yes, you hear it right, surprising as it may be (or not, whichever) I have had the bug now for a couple of weeks. I suppose I should just specify, here, that I have also chosen the cryptic crosswords, rather than the quick versions. I don’t know, I guess my reasoning was this: “if I’m going to push my overloaded brain even more, might as well go the whole hog!” In a period of two weeks, attempting one puzzle a day, I have so far managed to solve one puzzle, which was definitely luck rather than skill, as my usual attempts, so far are leaving most (if not all) of the questions unanswered. Still, I must say, that I rather enjoy the challenge of the attempt, fruitless as it so often is at the moment, and so I do consider that I am now a fully fledged ‘cruciverbalist’ (one who creates or solves crosswords … apparently).
In order to try and aid my new hobby, I thought I would do some research in to the subject, the clues seemed totally bewildering to me, and made no sense what-so-ever. This, I was destined to find out, is quite the point, as no crossword is meant to be easy, and the cryptic crossword clue has the objective, agree most authors on the subject, “to deceive”. For example, as pointed out by Hugh Stephenson, cruciverbalist extraordinaire for the Guardian, in his book ‘Secrets of the Setters’: “Blue flower (6)” in a quick crossword, may well be “Violet” or “Zinnia”. However, the same clue in a cryptic crossword, would not be. In the cryptic crossword, “flower” would likely refer to something that flows, water for example, and could therefore be “Danube” — the Danube being a river in Germany (europe’s second longest to be exact), and ‘Blue Danube’ being a waltz by Johann Strauss. Annoyingly devious indeed.
As if there needs to be more to fry the brains of newbie solvers like myself, (which there doesn’t, quite frankly), there are several different types of clue that the ‘setters’ employ in order to confuse and disguise — anagrams, hidden, split-word, reversal, numbers, abbreviations, subtraction, double definition, charade, and this names but a few of the most common. In order to crack the clue and get to the answer, the solver must discover which type of clue he or she is dealing with. This can be done in the form of indicator words. For example, ‘around’ in a clue may indicate an anagram, ‘say’ may indicate a sounds like clue, ‘initially’ may mean abbreviation. I say may, because of course, things are never that simple, and clues are rarely made overly obvious. Take that in to consideration, along with the fact that cricket terms are also often used, as are golf terms, chess, and political reference can also appear, even Spoonerisms, the cryptic crossword is a never-ending learning experience.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel, however, because in order to level the playing field a little, some rules and decorum have been established and agreed for the setters of the cryptic crossword. Namely: each clue must contain a ‘definition’. This is most often (but not always) in the form of a single word, either at the beginning or end of the clue. For example, one that I have come across today, “image of coin is used (4)”. Although I solved this clue, I must admit to going off on a mental expedition of trying to think what image we have on coins that could contain 4 letters, but you see, here I had initially forgotten the way one must think in order to crack a cryptic clue. First, we look for the definition, so, if it is at the beginning or end of the clue, this is either “used” or “image”. Looking at image first, the answer actually leaps out, and for this “coin is used” tells us that it is an anagram answer, ‘using coin’. Therefore, we get “icon”. Also in the same crossword, “not much hope of losing weight (3,6)” is a nice play on words, giving the answer “fat chance”.
all-in-all, I must say, that the technicalities of the cryptic crossword, (and I have not even scratched the surface here), have rather intrigued and enlightened me. Rather than banging my head and throwing it in the recycle bin cursing the setter and vowing never to do another, I find myself rather admiring the imagination and skill with which they stump and bewilder me. I laugh at failing to discover the sometimes obvious, and the cunningness with which I have been wrong-footed, and I endeavour to try and educate myself via the solutions. Each time I take one on I feel more and more armed.
And I will keep going, dear reader, with the vow that while they might have won the battle(s), they have not …yet… won the war!
)
Posted in Uncategorized
