Comments on: Guardian 24911 – Boatman

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:15:24 +0000

Yes, Michael, some of the Compilers have certainly left comments here from time to time.

We may never know how many may have looked in without leaving a comment but the Temptation must surely have arisen …

By: Michael Briscoe

Michael Briscoe — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:54:19 +0000

As a relative newcomer to this great site, may I ask if there is any evidence that the compilers look in and comment on the comments?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:55:37 +0000

Uncle Yap

Please ask Geoff if you can do the blog EVERY DAY.

Your apeed of appearance is a wonderful example to every other blogger.

However, I suggest that a special exemption should be made to allow Eileen to continue to do the Rover puzzles.

By: Uncle Yap

Uncle Yap — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:28:04 +0000

Thank you everybody for pointing out the errors in my blog. I have since corrected these errors so that the archived copy is free from flaws. What a wonderful language English is; this non-native continues to be fooled time and time again.

It’s a pity I could not come in earlier as Tuesday is my Hash day when I leave the house just when most of you are waking up, solving and commenting and by the time I return (full of the golden elixir we call beer; must compensate for the loss of bodily fluid expended during an 8km run all that needed to be said have been said.

Maybe I should ask Geoff to change my weekly blog to Wednesday.

By: slipstream

slipstream — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:07:31 +0000

I really enjoyed “some buffoons even” = UFOS.

I’m celebrating that I got all but three unaided. And thanks for the blog — the parsing of the clues is quite helpful.

By: Dave Ellison

Dave Ellison — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:42:50 +0000

Sil @ 42: “I just think that Boatman didn’t have his cleverness fully under control this time.” That’t the feeling I had, too, just a little more polish needed to turn it int a brilliant one. I enjoyed it on the whole, however.

The “Could” in 19d – I think not all abeliae (abelias ? help, Eileen) are honeysuckles, so maybe that is why it is there.

Tom @ 19: Thanks for the respect. I must admit I had a chuckle at the name LongTimeReadingNonContributor, on the way to Russel’s Paradox. I regard most of the comments on this site in the same vein as those of the theatre critics etc in other pages of the Grauniad – how was it for me?

By: Bill Taylor

Bill Taylor — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:23:26 +0000

Zan — excellent! I thought it had to be Jesus or Christ and “E” did come to mind. But “Es,” plural, didn’t occur to me. So I’ve been running ever-more obscure deities through my head since then. I can stop now!

By: IanN14

IanN14 — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:21:13 +0000

smutchin @ 41,
I totally agree with you about Paul’s comments, and your second point, but you could be describing far too many of the clues in this puzzle, enjoyable though most of it was…
And to anyone complaining about the complaints, try asking some of the setters if they think some of these clues are perfect, and if they’d be confident using such imperfections themselves.
The ones that try hard to avoid them should be given credit, that’s all…
(You never seem to get them in the Independent).

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:27:38 +0000

With Boatman’s not so very recent (excellent) Dead End Crossword still lurking somewhere in my mind, I was hoping to see (or sense …?) another Masterpiece.
One thing that has to be said straightaway:
Boatman is a highly original setter and tries to be inventive as much as he can.

He tries to tell us little stories, but – in our opinion – he uses sometimes too many words to do that (to make the surface even better than it probably would be without
these ‘extras’).
Result: things like ‘Could’ that is of no use in 19d, ‘Some buffoons even’ (20d) that doesn’t feel right, the misleading word “on” in 10d.
I agree wholeheartedly with IanN14 (#12) on these points.
As I do on 22ac, where certainly “way” looks odd – unless ‘way to be complete’ would be the (unlikely) definition in the mind of Boatman.
And what about that “or thus” in 17ac : proper English?

We didn’t get some answers in the SE, including the spoonerism.
And 23ac (SEAMAN) which is indeed an extremely well hidden answer.
In that area of the grid we did find RIDDLE, but ‘resurrected’ as an anagrind did raise our eyebrows, as did ‘abstract’ in 3d.

Finally, some words on 8d (which turned out to be EATS).
First we thought, it was one of these Guardianesque frivolities that would lead to STEW (SET* + W[ith] out (on the outside)), but then we rejected that because Boatman could have said ‘with’ instead of ‘without’. Then we had another try and came up with SATE (an Indonesian meal, very popular and common in Holland, just as (un)special as F&C), which would be completely defendible (SET* around (=without) A) – but again no.

I don’t want to be too negative about this crossword, because it was surely a good one.
I just think that Boatman didn’t have his cleverness fully under control this time.
Even so, more please.

By: smutchin

smutchin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:19:26 +0000

Paul B has hit the nail on the head as usual. There’s plenty to like here, even with the imperfections.

Re 14d – if “see” is to be taken as a verb, then there is a redundant article in the clue. Misleading is fine but this is having it both ways, which isn’t fine.