Comments on: Financial Times 13,294 / Cinephile

By: Radler

Radler — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:51:09 +0000

Sil, I think it's the for/put combination that indicates the hidden answer. It's rather like the more common construction “helps to make”. Cinephile is saying “in order to get (for) phrase include (put) definition ”

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:12:57 +0000

Well, Gaufrid, fine by me, but a bit stretched, isn’t it.
And what about the combination for/put?
Or is there no link (which is IMO rather unlikely)?
Anyway, it is at it is (gosh, 5 two-letter words in a row … )

By: Gaufrid

Gaufrid — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:58:40 +0000

Hi Sil
Regarding 22ac, I parsed the ‘for’ as ‘to the extent of’ with ‘extent’ meaning ‘amount’, therefore ‘an amount of’ or ‘some of’.

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:47:24 +0000

Thanks, Gaufrid, for the fine blog.
Not a very hard crossword, and once the theme was spotted (via 1,5ac) the grid was quickly filled.
Even though we had never heard of some of the names: Antony Sher (we thought “that must be one from the days of Cinephile”, but no it was a widely praised contemporary one), Nagio Marsh (and Alleyn), Wimsey.

As you said, some rather nice surfaces this time.
We did like 18ac, 19d (BIKINI) and, yes, even 23ac, of which Agentzero states that only Cinephile gets away with a clue like this – a thing that I could have said (and did say in the past), must I must admit: I did like it his time (maybe because of the surface).

Some things that were on my/our list have already been said (the star of 26ac, the anagrind of 24,27ac).
But we weren’t very pleased by seeing YEARNING clued as “I wish!”, but indeed, it is typical Cinephile (making himself frequently the subject of a definition), but it’s not quite right, we thought.
The first answer we found (22ac, EMETIC) is the only one that’s still a bit unclear to us. The definition is there, and it is clearly a hidden answer, but where is (or what is) the ha-indicator in this strange clue (“For (?) … put …”) ?

By: Agentzero

Agentzero — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:19:03 +0000

This was a slow start for me, but it picked up once I figured out the theme.

23 across is the sort of clue that only this setter would try, or get away with!

Tom, I thought 12 across was surely meant as a reference to the poem.

By: JamesM

JamesM — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:54:34 +0000

Gaufrid

Thanks for a meticulous (and I imagine difficult) blog. In regard to the asterisks, I think one is the author, two is the detective. Probably 26A should be two!

Beat I can do. Regards

JamesM

By: Gaufrid

Gaufrid — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:51:47 +0000

Hi verbose
I think the anagram indicator is ‘for turning’ and the ‘that’s not much’ indicates the reduction of ‘one’ to 1. The additions were a way to allude to Maggie Thatcher and to make the anagram less obvious.

By: verbose

verbose — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:09:43 +0000

Thanks Gaufrid. Re 24,27a: I don’t understand the anagrind. Why “not much for turning”? “Turning” could be the anagram indicator by itself. What does “not much for” signify in this instance?

By: Tom_I

Tom_I — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:38:10 +0000

Re 12ac, is there a sideways nod towards Ogden Nash’s poem Reflections on ice-breaking?

Candy
Is dandy
But liquor
Is quicker.

By: Gaufrid

Gaufrid — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:20:23 +0000

Hi ChrisM
You are probably right about the actor though I have never heard of him (film and stage are not my forte). My parsing was based on the fact that actresses are now often referred to as actors.

I did wonder about 26ac being a misprint and that a single asterisk indicated the author and two asterisks the character.