Comments on: Guardian 24,548/Arachne

By: Barnaby

Barnaby — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:28:05 +0000

Like Eddie, I’m an evening solver, so late to comment here. With the lowest possible grade in O-level Latin under my belt (was it a grade U?), I didn’t find it terribly difficult, though it took me a while to remember the full form of ibid. – like Mhl I became fixated on passim while knowing it wasn’t right.

I couldn’t justify 12ac or 27ac at all, though, before coming here.

By: Eddie Nabook

Eddie Nabook — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:51:59 +0000

I don’t do the crossword until the evening, so I’m late to the party here. But for what it’s worth, I thought 12 and 27 were very fair clues (in that I solved them!) and I didn’t get 5 and 16, but that’s because I didn’t pay enough attention to Latin at school. But I will know them for next time – which for me, at least, is part of the pleasure.

By: mhl

mhl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:06:56 +0000

John: indeed

Incidentally, in reference to JamieC’s comment #31, these have been such examples in fairly recent Guardian crosswords. None provoked any comment here, but I suspect there were many fewer people who were posting in general then…

By: John

John — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:58:27 +0000

Yes Mhl, I accept all you say. It’s a question of regarding each element of the clue as a separate cryptic entity. My comments arise from my particular liking for elegant clues in which both surface and cryptic meanings make sense individually, and, even better, where there is a connection between the two, but I accept that this is not always easy to do. Some setters, though, manage to achieve it most of the time. Some don’t.
Anyway, it makes for an interesting and stimulating discussion, which is what I trust we are striving for when we comment.

By: mhl

mhl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:39:50 +0000

John: I see what you’re saying, but I think the idea is that once you can accept that “he’s” can mean “he has” in some context you can use that to unpack that part of the clue independent of the rest.

I think the case of that type that causes comment most often is the number of different expansions that “setter’s” can have, even ignoring those that use the setter’s name:

* MY and IAM: everyone, I’d guess, is happy with these.

* IVE and IHAVE: I think most people are happy with these in any situation, but this is the case where you’d be worried about what the succeeding word is.

* IHAS, IIS, MEIS, MES, MEHAS, etc.: I still think these are fair on the basis that you can decode the “setter” and “‘s” separately, but I suppose many would object. (They’re not so useful in clueing, so less to come up anyway.)

By: George Foot

George Foot — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:22:53 +0000

I am totally amazed at all the nit picks and grumbles in today’s comments. If you all had your way crosswords would become nothing like so much fun. Much of the fun of solving crosswords is the way our language is twisted. Inevitably when our language is twisted some will find it acceptable and others won’t but there will never be agreement about the acceptability.

Ad hominem and ibidem appear in Chambers dictionary so as far as I am concerned they are part of the English language. The one recent clue I really had a complaint about was ‘Hump the bluey’, which I was much surprised to also find in Chambers. My complaint was not that it was used in the crossword, I love coming across new words and phrases, I have been using ‘Hump the bluey’ all week, it’s a wonderful phrase. My complaint was that where one part of the clue is unlikely to be known by the vast majority of solvers then the other part should be comparatively easy so we have a chance of working it out. I very much doubt if even the majority of clergymen can automatically quote John 5:8, let alone us more ordinary mortals, and then even when you looked it up it got you no nearer getting the answer.

By: Ian Hinds

Ian Hinds — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:50:15 +0000

I thought it was pretty challenging today. Particularly so were 5a and 24d. A lack of hyphens in clueing is now an ongoing concern.

By: John

John — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:45:44 +0000

One more go at this and then I’ll shut up.
It’s fine as an auxiliary verb, but doesn’t work as a transitive one.
You wouldn’t say “He’s his dinner” or ” He’s the whole world in his hands”. Nor would James Brown be making any sense with “Papa’s a brand new bag”.

Lighten up JamieC. Arachne’s (sic) been paid to provide a test for crossword solvers. I buy the Guardian with my hard earned cash. I, and you, are entitled to criticise if we believe conventions or rules are transgressed or credibility stretched. Where’s the rudeness?
The reverential tone often adopted by some bloggers is irritating.

By: JamieC

JamieC — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:12:44 +0000

John: Arachne’s gone to a lot of effort to put this puzzle together and all you can do is be rude about it

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:11:51 +0000

John, how about:

“He’s had his dinner”

and (get your tambourines ready) “He’s got the whole world in his hand”