Comments on: Inquisitor 1161 – Nicknames by Ifor – Saturday 23rd January 2011

By: nmsindy

nmsindy — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:09:08 +0000

Yes, this was a very good puzzle – I too found it quite tough though not spectacularly so but got there in the end apart from the final step. I’ll have to admit I’ve never watched the programme and knew nothing about it tho I had heard of it. I found Declan and Anthony but not the surnames, none of all of this would have have known to me without the help of Wikipedia. A great début in the series and I hope we will see more – BTW it’s not the first Inquisitor where material had to be removed from clues before solving, 1144 used a similar device. Thanks, Duncan, for the great blog as always and Ifor for the puzzle.

By: HolyGhost

HolyGhost — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:45:08 +0000

Re: the wordplay at 6d.
A clarification from Ifor (the setter) via Duncan (the blogger):
‘About the clue to PRIAPEAN – my intention was that “English good in appearing” implied replacement of G by E before anagramming. Unfortunately the conflict between inserting “is” for the syntax and “are” for the surface prevented me from doing either.’

So, both of us were wrong …

By: Ali

Ali — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:49:10 +0000

Thanks for the excellent blog Duncan (as always!)

Like Scarpia, I came a cropper on this one. I managed to fill most of the top half and eventually cottoned on to the names theme, but the bulk of clues just got the better of me, particularly the downs, and I eventually got distracted by this week’s puzzle!

Now that I’ve seen the solution, I can only tip my hat to the setter. A brilliantly worked theme and excellent grid construction.

By: HolyGhost

HolyGhost — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:22:22 +0000

Yes, quite a toughie, this one. (And all the better for that, at last, in my opinion.)

Managed to solve quite a lot of the down clues, and felt happy with my across entries (about half of them) without really knowing what was going on. Slightly hindered by the missing bars which I always seem to resolve very late, but when I did, I realised that EFTS had to be the entry at 36a, which gave me JORD- to be removed from the clue coupled with -AN from the next one … and I saw the light. (Knew of all the celebs, but had to Google ANT & DEC to find full names – leading to pleasing highlighting.)

Some removals affected the definitions, some the wordplay, and some the anagram indicators (e.g. ‘pie’ at 39a) – all very good stuff from Ifor.

Don’t really go for the composite anagram at 6d: I read this as a misprinted clue that should be “English no good in appearing hopelessly …” with ‘English’ cluing the extra E in the wordplay. Mike Laws – please confirm, or explain.

By: Hi of hihoba

Hi of hihoba — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:31:31 +0000

I agree with Duncan that this was a beautifully conceived and constructed puzzle. Hard too!
I really thought that I wouldn’t be able to solve it, especially as, due to some misconstrued down clues I had “I mangle Brits. Get me out” as the phrase!
Light eventually dawned via Cher and a re-examination of my extra letters.
I take it that the omission of “of here” is compensated for by the appearance of OZ in the grid.
I’m ashamed to say (as an ex Chemistry teacher) that I didn’t understand the reference to “No. 20 periodically” in 26A until I read this blog! I also hadn’t understood why “red” in 11A meant anagram. So thanks for the clarification Duncan.

By: Scarpia

Scarpia — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:29:06 +0000

Thanks Duncan…and well done for cracking this one!
I found this very tough and it ended up as my worst ever attempt at an Inquisitor.I didn’t even manage half the puzzle.
Like you I got some of the acrosses without being able to quite fit the wordplay – now I see why.
I don’t usually like puzzles with a celebrity theme but the ones in this puzzle were certainly well known enough,even for me.So no complaints,I can’t even blame the missing bars for my failure.
A very clever puzzle but a bit above my ability I think.