[itachi-san]

I have a question and it's stated in the Topic name. Here's what I'm thinking: take the riddle of the Sphinx for example.

What goes on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs in the evening?

This is one of the most popular, well know and well accepted riddles of all time.

Now imagine that it never existed and that someone came up with it today and posted it on this forum. It would be torn to pieces by us (a lot of us at least). 'Arms aren't legs!' 'A cane isn't a leg!' 'Morning isn't being a baby!', etc...

I expect everyone has their own opinions on this. I do think that it is fun to be nit-picky sometimes and find holes in the words of others' riddles. But if there is not a serious logic flaw, should we just accept them and move on? Is every scenario really so different that we can't decide (at least individually) where to draw the line for acceptability? How far should a riddle maker be able to stretch the language and maintain an appropriate standard?

Mostly, I'm just curious as to how old and widely accepted riddles would fare if we had a chance to dissect them before they became famous.

[Guest]

I have a question and it's stated in the Topic name. Here's what I'm thinking: take the riddle of the Sphinx for example.

What goes on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs in the evening?

So I'm kind of a big opponent of nitpicking. IF one decides to write the above riddle to avoid criticism, then what does it become?

What goes on four extremities early in life, on two legs later in life, then two legs and an inanimate object even later than that?

Hmmmmmmm - takes away the thinking outside of the box scenario.

Ideally, all riddles would be written grammatically correct with decent spelling. That is not the case all the time, and at that time questions may be appropriate. I say UNLESS something is TOTALLY UNCLEAR, take the riddle at face value and try to solve. There is no need to mention that some incredibly esoteric example exists that possibly may alter the solution of a riddle. Most riddles are written and take into account the reader's knowledge base. Person posting puzzle should not expect reader to know what happens in that less than 1% of the time scenario.

My thoughts

[Guest]

I would say it's part of the fun/sport and not to be taken personally, some are written to 'catch' you out.

I enjoy viewing such remarks and making them - hope not to be upsetting anyone though, not keen on knocking people for poor english, poor spelling - but interpretation, semantics and philosophy play a big part in riddles.Engl ish is a problem for this, a good riddle should be simple and clear, if it is'nt then it may get a bit of barracking but it still brings out interesting comments, hopefully no abusive ones.

[Guest]

I'm not defending nit-picking, since it can certainly suck the joy out of a clever riddle. However, I've also been on the other side, trying to guess a riddle, finally seeing the answer, and thinking "what the heck? that's lame." In the Sphinx riddle, the times of day are clearly metaphors (and common ones at that), and the arms of a baby and the cane certainly function like legs. I'm pretty sure I liked it the first time I heard it (can't remember if I figured it out or not, but I'd like to think I did; it's not hard).

With regard to your riddles (I know you weren't asking, but I'll throw it out there anyhow), even if I haven't been able to guess them, I usually like 'em, because they have a poetic style and the difficulty generally arises from a metaphorical connection which is hard to guess, but which is satisfying afterwards. I see the solution and think, "cool". That's the reaction you want.

Another important key is that there has to be only one good solution to the riddle, or at least that the intended solution stands out as superior to others. Many of the riddles I've seen on this site are too nebulous, or just poorly formed. Sometimes it's hard to put a finger on why, just like it's hard to explain what makes a good poem, but when we read a good one, we know it. Usually I just don't bother giving much thought to riddles that strike me as weak, saving my limited brain energy for the ones that immediately seem intriguing. But sometimes a riddle seems interesting, only to fall flat when the solution is revealed. That's the reaction you don't want.

So, regarding nitpicking about "holes" ... I'd say it's generally a bad idea, but a little prod now and then may encourage posters to work extra hard on improving the formation of their riddles, which will result in a more satisfying experience for everyone.