Comments on: Financial Times 12,974 / Cinephile

By: Eileen

Eileen — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:17:57 +0000

Smiffy: excellent, though rather more esoteric!

By: smiffy

smiffy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:47:22 +0000

I’m not aginst the likes of ‘inside’ either, per se. Everything in moderation.
I think Eileen alludes to one practical constraint. I imagine that experienced solvers, would soon get familiar with, and be on the lookout for, such devices. But a proliferation of them may strike newbie solvers as unduly obtuse or impenetrable, and serve as a turn-off.

The examples I used were purely theoretical, but the permutations are abundant (probably excessively so, hence what are the limits?).
As a sillier, more ego-centric example: if we allow ‘outwit’ to indicate twi, then why not Smiffy (= ms)? That would allow….Smiffy gets so upset with, for example, Gaufrid (4)!!

By: Eileen

Eileen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:17:39 +0000

Did you make those examples up, Smiffy, or have they appeared? I think they’re brilliant: I really like that kind of clue – once I’ve got it!

By: Gaufrid

Gaufrid — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:22:24 +0000

Hi Smiffy
I quite enjoy the ‘outwit’ type cluing provided it is kept within reason, ie indicating an anagram of part of the word or something equally straightforward such as ‘overtime’ for ‘emit’.

The first puzzle I blogged here (also a Cinephile) used ‘inside’ to indicate the insertion of a letter into ‘wing’ which defeated me, but fortunately not Rishi who subsequently explained it to me. Perhaps using part of a word to define another word is going a little too far though I have mixed views on this.

By: smiffy

smiffy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:49:39 +0000

G’day all. My only slight criticism of this puzzle is that – with the aforementioned Greenham, NUS and tig – it does have a faint whiff of fustiness about it. Otherwise, ideal fare for a Wednesday.

I wasn’t quite so enraptured with ‘outwit’ in 20D. Probably a divisive topic, but my main concern is with such portmanteaux constructions is where does one draw the line on these things? If we turn a blind eye to ‘outwit’, can we logically feel indignant at more tenuous equivalents: e.g. ‘mangetout’ (=magnet) or ‘unfrocked’ (=fun)?

By: Eileen

Eileen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:53:56 +0000

Thanks, Gaufrid: that makes sense. Sorry the smiley turned out wrong!

By: Gaufrid

Gaufrid — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:40:16 +0000

Hi Eileen

NUS for National Union of Seamen is in Collins (at least it is in the on-line 5th Ed. that I consulted) but not in Chambers or COED.

Correction, NUS is confirmed in Chambers (1998) but not in Chambers (2008). Its removal is presumably due to the fact that in 1990 the NUS amalgamated with the National Union of Railwaymen to form the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT).

By: Eileen

Eileen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:20:12 +0000

Hi Gaufrid

Thanks for 8dn – I couldn’t get further than ‘mo’ for ‘little time’ and then had to go out. Apart from that, this was a very good example of a perfectly straightforward puzzle which was nonetheless very satisfying. I admired all the clues that you quote and I particularly liked SOPHISTRY, too.

I knew NUS was the Seamen’s Union but both Collins and Chambers gave only National Union of Students, with which I’m more familiar. ['With his wife Doris' sounds very endearing. ]

By: Octofem

Octofem — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:58:55 +0000

Agreed, Gaufrid. A fun puzzle to work. I was stuck on Greenham for a while too until I remembered Cruise missiles. I had been thinking of commonality rather than the London commons!