There are a lot of patterns you have to recognize to get answers in cryptics and if you try to solve them without knowing how the clues work it's just nonsense.

There are a lot of patterns you have to recognize to get answers in cryptics and if you try to solve them without knowing how the clues work it's just nonsense. Especially if you assume they work at all like a normal crossword. I don't enjoy them, but I get it. The article mentions "Spooner" in a clue being a dead giveaway there's a Spoonerism, but there's a lot of similar things to look for. There's usually a hint that there's an anagram, put one word inside another, combine two words and find a new word inside them, etc. The clue almost always has a synonym for the answer as part of it, so the "I = say + nothing" actually is how it's intended to be read, e.g. "saw = dog wearing lead".