Comments on: Guardian Quiptic 564 / Rover

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:25:04 +0000

The harder clues, but there were only a few, were definitely OTT for a Quiptic. But some of the easier ones shouldn’t be criticised for being easy. That is surely the point of this crossword?

Also, despite what some think, there is no law about having non-cryptic clues in cryptics in general, as I’ve said several times before. But in this case, the definition of the puzzle requires that there should be some. Indeed most Quiptics fail by not being as advertised wrt plain clues. So 2dn is totally acceptable here.

Just to make sure everyone understands, this, remember, is the definition of them…

“A web-only crossword, part-cryptic and part-quick.” (my emphasis)

By: Pierre

Pierre — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:50:23 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts on this one, odon. I know what you (and Paul B) mean – a bit of a mixed bag today, but come back next Monday and let us know what you think of number 565. Having solved a few past Quiptics in preparation for today, my sense is that they’re on the whole pretty consistent, so you’ll hopefully get something next week that’s ‘easy but good’.

By: odon

odon — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:00:11 +0000

I struggled with this. 13a was way over my head, while the solutions to other clues seemed too obvious.
I agree with Paul B – the unevenness of this puzzle was more bewildering than helpful. Would much prefer something “really easy, but good”

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:41:17 +0000

In theory the Quiptic, as a learning tool for inexperienced solvers, ought to be set by someone who knows his or her onions.

Of course, in no way do I mean to suggest that Rover (GRHS) was not among those who with consummate ease distinguish between their Cepas and their Fistulosums, but, in such an educational device, one would hope to see each clue-type thoroughly investigated for the benefit of the uninitiated.

Y’know, something really easy, but good.

By: Pommers

Pommers — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:10:34 +0000

Hi Pandean
You got it!
Was on the right lines but as a chemist I should have nailed it straight off! I too wasn’t happy about the second S but couldn’t see wood for trees. Don’t know about whether this is hard for a Quiptic as it’s my first but I think it’s quite a clever clue.
See you all again next week.

By: Pierre

Pierre — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:57:12 +0000

I think walruss makes a good point. I needed explanation to understand it, and while I’m not a beginner, let’s just say I won’t be putting my name forward any time soon to blog a daily cryptic. But it’s perfectly fairly clued if a touch on the difficult side; when I was a newbie, I would much rather have tackled a clue like this than some of the other indifferent or clunky ones that appeared today.

But since this blog is intended to help newer solvers, perhaps we’ll have a comment about this clue or some of the others from a first-time contributor later on today.

By: Stella

Stella — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:52:28 +0000

True, Walruss,

AS I said above, a couple of these clues seem a bit OTT for beginners.

By: walruss

walruss — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:41:57 +0000

Yes, but it wouldn’t be your first choice for a Quiptic, i.e. learner’s clue! Or would it….

By: Stella

Stella — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:35:45 +0000

Hi Pandean,

yes, that works better

By: Eileen

Eileen — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:54:03 +0000

Hi Pendean

That’s better! – it was the extra S that was bothering me.