The use of “over”, the N, the Spoonerism, the use of ellipses, the order of words in 15ac and 22ac, that’s just a matter of taste.
Personally, I find that they make the crossword somewhat loose, where that could/should have been avoided. I was just questioning them hoping that people would indeed react. I included my feeling about them, others may think differently.

But I really do not understand how one can justify the lack of an anagram indicator in a clue like 19d. When you say that it had to be an anagram on the face of it [something we thought as well] and that it didn’t stand in the way of solving, well, that’s fine. The same for us. But technically speaking it is wrong, and don’t get how this clue could have gone past the editor. And yes, I admit, when something’s really wrong (like here), I am very reluctant to see justifications to save the soul of the setter.

You were about the only one to have an opinion on 5d’s ASLEEP.
That’s much appreciated, but see, even when just “off” is the definition I do not like the “has gone” bit at all. I think Gordius wanted to have an ellipsis here, at the expense of precision. Maybe I shouldn’t have said “crap”, but just “not my cup of tea”. Fact is, though, that I find this clue “nothing”, something that is floating in the air, extremely weak. Glad other people didn’t bother.

Thanks. I too am sorry. I have not expected you to change your mind over the anagram indicator, as I made clear, but I believe (perhaps wrongly) that you have misread the imperfections in 5d, and have possibly misunderstood the N in 17a. It is true that you admitted originally that you are uncertain about ‘over’.

I thought this was a site for reasoned collaborative discussion, and writing at length (500+ words) seems likely to generate some counter-argument.

We know where we are both coming from, and I hope it is clear that I find your structural fastidiousness instructive.

Re 19d. I only meant that as I (and apparently most others) found no difficulty in recognising it for what it was, I was not too worried about it. If it had been difficult to detect as an anagram, the matter would have been different for me. But I do understand your position and, at the same time, note that you enjoyed working on the puzzle.

re ‘a number’ – I took N to be a symbol for an indefinite or unspecified number for which ‘a (indefinite article) number’ seems to me a reasonable indication.

re 5d there is a problem but it is slightly different. I suspect ‘off’ (rather than has gone off) is the not wholly satisfactory definition. We can ask of a child ‘Has he gone off yet?’ meaning ‘has he fallen asleep’? The problem is that ‘to go asleep’ is not so usual. Go to sleep and fall asleep are the usual expressions. ‘Go asleep’ feels odd (though one finds it via google) while ‘go fast asleep’ seems better for some reason.

re 11a ‘over’. You are strictly right, but there is a link to, say, ‘topsy turvy’ which means ‘upside down’ (over) and is stretchable to mean ‘all mixed up’.

Like Mitch (#15) and Paul B (#37), I don’t think 6d is a Spoonerism, but ah well, we all know what Gordius meant.

I am very surprised by tupu’s reaction to the lack of an anagrind in 19d: “I was not too worried re the absence of an anagrind in 19d. Given the two juxtaposed halves of the clue, the answer more or less had to be an anagram?”
Let’s abolish indicators, right?
Come on, folks, this is just plain wrong and in no way comparable to what UY (#7) called a similar situation in today’s Cinephile. In thát clue wás something going on, enhanced by a powerful “?” at the end [which doesn't mean that I was happy with it, but that discussion took place in the appropriate blog].

Talking about anagram indicators, in what sense is “over” one (11ac)? I can’t find a meaning in Chambers indicating that points in the direction of jumbling around the letters. I think, “over” is more a reversal indicator and doesn’t work as an anagrind, too, eg like “about”. It doesn’t get a mention in anagrind lists on the Net either.
But maybe [probably?] I’m wrong.

I (= we) think that there was some awkward use of language in 15ac (PLANTER) and 22ac (TRASHED). “With no rear light” = “Light with no rear”? So, we take the whole thing “with no rear” as an adjective? And “What’s reflected in 29″? Can you really read this as “What’s in 29, reflected”? Yep, one may read it as “What is – when you reflect it – in 29″, but it does feel clumsy to us.

We didn’t like the “A” in “A number” either.
“A number” = N? Which number? We think, the “A” is only there for the surface, the clue wouldn’t read very well if you remove the “A”.

And then, two ellipses.
A really good ellipsis links both clues in a logical way, meaning: ideally the solutions are linked too.
But connecting two half sentences to make one, is legitimate too, I’ve learnt a while ago.
So, connect 24d and 26d, and you’ll get something that I would call nonsense.
4/5d is different, in a way the connection dóes make sense.
But now look at 5d: “… has gone off” = ASLEEP?
When I want to explain a Dutchman that he has gone off, I tell him: He asleep …. ?
And calling this a cd, like Andrew, well well – in our opinion it’s not cryptic at all.

But Andrew, that’s my only critical note about the blog!

The conclusion might be that I 22ac this crossword.
But as I started this post, we did enjoy solving it – funny, isn’t it?
It’s just that sometimes we long for crosswords with the wit and playfulness of the Guardian in combination with the precision of the Times.

Yes, most of the times Paul gets very near, and Crucible, and Boatman, and Orlando, and Brendan, and … and Neo and Alberich and … oh no, that’s another newspaper …

It was the first ‘Spoonerism’ that I learnt.

http://orwell.ru/a_life/ash/english/e_ol

Such a beast involves the transposition of various sounds or letters in a word or phrase, while true Spoonerism requires exchange of corresponding consonants, vowels or morphemes. And of course, in Crosswordsville, it was never going to be long before some ape labelled one as the other for convenience’s sake.

So, then: for ‘Spoonerism’, read ‘metathesis’.