The Stickler Weekly 85 Solution

Most people are aware that I’m not fond of single-definition clues in a cryptic crossword and I’ve given my reasons for this in past posts. One of the main reasons is the lack of indication telling the solver that this clue should be read differently to just about all other types. Some may say that’s part of the battle, but I say the solver has basically lost the battle before they even tackle the clue. IMO, this “there should be indication” concept extends beyond the cryptic definition realm and applies to any clue that doesn’t fit the usual two-part cryptic clue pattern as it’s not right for a solver to have to consider every possible clue variation for every clue. The average solver has trouble enough decoding cryptic clues without the odd curve ball being thrown in unannounced.
Consider this clue: Wine can destroy 50s dress (4)
There are four separate “definitions” all meaning “SACK” but, for me, it’s not a clue that a solver is going to work out without getting at least one contributing letter because the idea of the clue’s makeup will only come after the answer has been found – it’s unlikely the clue as a whole will lead to the answer. This is just like the cryptic definition clue – unconventional in its structure and therefore not solvable through conventional means. In this case Chambers considers possibly three of the four of the definitions stem from the same origin, with only one (SACK the wine) being a true alternative definition.
Here’s another: Nick Cage can stir porridge inside big house in the States (6)
All parts except “inside” are synonyms of prison. I’m not really sure of the point of this clue. Most double and multiple definitions come from the same origin making them for me not even really cryptic. So you can add multiple-definition clues to my list no-nos.