Comments on: Guardian Prize Puzzle 25,334 by Araucaria

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:42:42 +0000

So let’s face it: Araucaria just made a mistake, didn’t he?
We’re all human.
But the editor should have seen it.
Ah well, he’s human too.

By: Biggles A

Biggles A — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:36:57 +0000

Thanks tupu,

Yes, I had seen the OED entry but the ‘historical’ and ‘occsaional’ notations led me to think it was just too abstruse.

By: tupu

tupu — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:57:50 +0000

Hi BigglesA and Peedee

Well spotted. It may well not be worth defending the clue, but A is usually very careful, and OED does note 1. that ‘apple’ has been used for the ‘whole eyeball’ and 2. that ‘eyelet’ can literally mean a small eye or something shaped like one (esp. such a marking on a butterly wing). It would have been simpler, if clumsier, if the clue had read ‘part of part of 25′.

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:58:43 +0000

Biggles @15 – correct, apple would be part of ‘part of eyelet’. The clue as it stands does not make sense, thanks for pointing this out.

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:49:23 +0000

Elspeth @13 – you are quite right, ‘maybe’ should be attached to head not BT, I will fix the blog.

Sil @14, thanks for the reminder, I had completely forgotten that one!

By: Biggles A

Biggles A — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:25:05 +0000

Looking at 15 a bit more carefully 25 is EYELET not EYE so if APPLE is part of an eye then a further step is necessary. Or 22 should be substituted for 25 in the clue.

By: Carrots

Carrots — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:41:02 +0000

You`ve said it all kids…I`ve nothing to add esxcept thanks Auri. and PeeDee.

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:14:47 +0000

Indeed, not the most challenging of Saturday Prizes.
Still enjoyable, though.

I agree with Elspeth @13 about ‘Maybe head’ as the definition by example in 22ac. In that clue we weren’t very happy with just ‘inverted’ to make clear that both halves of ‘parody’ should be swapped. Enigmatist did it much better in his recent Prize by using ‘when other halves remarry’ (even though we mildly citicised the use of ‘other’).

Thanks, PeeDee for your clear blog.
You say: “I got the feeling that Arucaria could have produced something much cleverer with this theme if he had really put his mind to it”.
Well, on January 19th of this year Cinephile had a puzzle in the FT, which you yourself blogged! Theme: body parts … which were, just like here, part of the solution, but to make it more challenging omitted from the subsidiary parts of the clues.
Your verdict then: “A super crossword from Cinephile, though a couple of words had me reaching for the dictionary”.
So, indeed, he had already produced something much cleverer.

Unfortunately, that FT puzzle was always haunting me like a ghost last Saturday.
Nonetheless, enjoyable enough.

By: Elspeth

Elspeth — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:47:39 +0000

For 22 across, I don’t think it means that BT are the head of communicators. I think the definition is “maybe head”, for which the solution is “body part”.

By: Davy

Davy — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:24:40 +0000

Thanks PeeDee,

I seem to have enjoyed this puzzle more than most commenters and like molonglo, HOUSMAIDS KNEE provided the key to the theme. LIGNUM was the last in and like others I put SELWYN without understanding where the transformer came in. Generally though, the puzzle was accessible and contained few obscurities. I particularly liked MACHINE GUN which misled me for quite a while. Thanks Arry.