Cliche Clues

In February of 2003, the debut album of 27-year-old Curtis James Jackson III, "Get Rich Or Die Tryin'", was released under his stage name, 50 Cent. Songs from this album such as "In Da Club" and "P.I.M.P." rose to the top of the charts, and the album itself went on to be the best selling album of the year. 50 Cent's fame had spread beyond hip-hop enthusiasts, and even beyond the under-30 demographic--indeed it was reasonable to assume that most Americans would have heard of this musical upstart and his penchant for busting rhymes.

On April 11, 2003, a New York Sun puzzle by Randall J. Hartman entitled "Jack Nicholson Food Film Festival" had the entry RAPS, clued as {50 Cent pieces}. This was a great clue (you see, because it's playing on the double meaning of "piece" here; it looks like it's referring to the coin, but it's actually referring to pieces of music such as those recorded by the artist 50 Cent. Is this patronizing enough?). The clue resurfaced once more in 2003, in a New York Times puzzle by (no, really) Frances Hansen.

50 Cent's still touring and recording albums, and he had one more #1 single, "Candy Shop", in 2005, but his peak of stardom remains the period after the release of his first album. However, between November and December of 2006, the clue {50 Cent pieces} was used twice more for the word RAPS and {50 Cent piece} once, for RAP. This clue, or variants (like {50 Cent piece?} for RAP SONG) had since appeared 5 more times in puzzles from CrosSynergy, the New York Sun, and the New York Times. This seems rather odd--were constructors just now twigging onto the existence of 50 Cent and his potential use in misdirecting clues? I have another theory.

There's this website, www.cruciverb.com, where one can (for a yearly fee) access a database of every clue of every puzzle published in the NYT, NYS, WSJ, CrosSynergy, LAT, and a few other venues, dating back to sometime in 1997. I myself have a membership at this website, which I will probably renew once it lapses. In any case, near the end of 2005, there was a major update to the database, adding in a backlog of at least two years' worth of puzzles, including the aforementioned puzzles by Mr. Hartman and Mrs. Hansen.

I myself use the database as a reference tool--sometimes I can't remember all the famous IDAs, or I want to see what all I?E? entries pass muster in this-or-that venue. But I don't think this is the way most constructors use it. It would explain the large gap between appearances of {50 Cent piece?} for RAP; it's not that constructors weren't aware of the *person*, it's that they weren't aware of the *clue*. Now that it was in the database though, constructors would see it, recognize its cleverness, and copy it and use it in their own puzzles. (This is more than just idle speculation. In one of the blurbs accompanying a puzzle answer in the back of Ben Tausig's book "Gonzo Crosswords", Mr. Tausig says--and I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have the book at hand--that it's a common practice for constructors, when writing clues, to be influenced, subconsciously or otherwise, by clues they see during their database searches.)

I don't think using the database to find and reappropriate clues is immoral or unethical; however, I think this practice should be reexamined, as it has (for me) a diminishing effect on the overall quality of puzzles. I'll go into more detail below, but the gist of it is: When I see a clue like {50 Cent piece?} for RAP or {Apple cores?} for CPUS (sorry to be picking on your puzzle, Patrick, there are a number of examples in other puzzles as well), the message this sends to me is "I don't feel like trying to come up with a good clue right now, but I want to make it seem like I did." I know that's not the thought process running through the constructor's head, but I can't help but feel the impression of being short-changed.

A few tangential points:

1. I don't think repeated clues are in and of themselves bad. However, it is a lot less intrusive, to me, if I see a word like ORE clued as {Source of iron} rather than {Mined-over matter?}. It's easy to fall into the trap of seeing RAP in a themeless puzzle you're cluing and saying to yourself "Well, {Snoop Dogg's genre} would be too easy, so I should probably try for some misdirection", when in point of fact the clue {50 Cent piece?} would be just as easy, because most people who are experienced enough to be able to solve a themeless puzzle would have probably run across that clue, and as such it would be an automatic fill for them. It was for me.

2. A clue can be a cliche without being a word-for-word repeat. The entry TNT has appeared in the New York Sun 41 times to date, with only 5 clues repeated exactly. However, here are five of the "non-repeat" clues:
{Big bang cause}
{Big bang letters}
{Big bang material}
{Big bang source}
{Big banger}. Extending the search to the NYT, we can add {Big bang maker} to the list; that one has appeared 5 times. I should reiterate: I don't mind repeated clues. It's unreasonable to expect a constructor to bust his or her back trying to come up with something original for every entry. But if you're constructing and you aren't feeling too inspired on one entry or another, I'd much prefer if you went with something simple like {Powerful explosive} rather than piggybacking off of someone else's previous effort.

3. It is, of course, possible for someone to independently come up with a clever clue for an entry that has been done before. I remember being very self-proud when I thought up {Ball-bearing item?} for TEE. (If this is the case with either the clue for RAP or CPUS in the CS puzzle, Mr. Blindauer, I apologize.) However, the rate of repetition among tricky clues like this is too high to be attributed to independent ingenuity on the part of all the constructors, IMO. Both {Fire proof?}--ASH and {Cold call?}--ACHOO have appeared twice this week, and that's pretty par for the course.

In closing, I should emphasize that a) I am very grateful for the service Kevin McCann provides through the CruciVerb website and b) I in no way intend this post as an attack on said site or on any constructor who uses it, in whatever capacity. Also, I do believe that most constructors can come up with clever clues themselves if they try; I urge you, the next time you're cluing a puzzle, to push yourself and not fall back on cliches.