Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

There has been a lot of praise for Listener 4658 but also some comments on the clarity of the preamble (v. 'May Contain Answers' thread).

Some felt the preamble to this fine puzzle could have been clearer - I must say I struggled with it. But the brainboxes of this parish did not and I wondered if the subject of preamble clarity were worth a thread all of its own.

I muse whether setters of taxing puzzles consider it proper that their preambles are oracular in nature, that is, obscure. After all, if the puzzle is intended to be puzzling should the preamble not also be part of the misdirection?

Or should the preamble be like an exam rubric, that is, clear?

I'd be interested to hear the views of readers, especially setters.

Hi kt17
If I come across a puzzle that has a substantial preamble, I tend to pass it by!

I think as long as the direction in the preamble passes the ‘fairness’ test then ok. Misdirection is a key part of cryptic setting/solving and can be applied to preamble as well as to clues. I have come to appreciate that certain conventions/styles exist in preambles just as they do in clue setting. Ultimately, the setter should always provide the means for the solver to prevail, albeit having presented a demanding challenge.

I tend to agree with jono

For me, the preamble is also part of the puzzle and uncovering its secrets leads to satisfying PDMs.

However, it has to be accurate and fair so that once you've solved the puzzle it all makes complete sense.

In that vein, I'm not convinced that the preamble to last week's Listener ticks all the boxes as although the final step is pretty obvious the preamble could have made that clearer and I'm still not totally happy with the fact that the first stage affected the spelling of one of the two thematic entries used in the final stage.

I see the preamble as just one part of the solver's route map to the solution. I have set themed puzzles without preambles, and puzzles where the preamble was integrated with the clues. The important thing in my view is that between them the grid, clues, preamble, title etc must provide sufficient information to enable the solver:

1. To progress through the puzzle without making mental leaps that could not reasonably be expected of them,

2. To know when they have crossed the finishing line, and

3. To identify unambiguously the intended solution.

Attempting to avoid ambiguity tends to result in wordy preambles, but puzzles such as the Listener have tight space constraints which mean that the preamble will often have to be pared down significantly. This should be borne in mind when solving: the editors will ensure that the key points are covered, but careful reading (and re-reading) may be required - the words used will all have been carefully chosen.

Regarding misdirection, there are rules for preambles, just as there are for clues, and these must not be breached in order to mislead. If a preamble were to use the standard text 'Each clue must have a letter removed prior to solving', I would not be happy if I found myself removing 'bee' or 'Rigsby'. I'd have no problem, though, with a preamble saying 'Six clues must have an element removed prior to solving' when 'tin', 'gold', 'lead' etc needed to be removed, as there has been no deception (the term 'element' having no standard meaning in a preamble).