Anyway after a very wet and windy firework week away I’m back, sorry about that!

For those that like to see these things I do here’s a few of the Plymouth entries http://www.fireworks-forum.org.uk/threads/plymouth-2012-champion-of-champions.17246/page-4

Nothing wrong with the occasional difficult puzzle when they’re as inventive as this. Thanks, Nimrod.

I have read all the comments here, and deep inside I can understand why Nimrod may infuriate solvers. I once called one of his puzzles “a setter’s crossword”, causing a stir that I won’t forget as long as I live – Flash (who blogged) was almost driven to tears, even the always reasonable Eileen thought that something wasn’t right.
It has all to do with the fact that, very often, Nimrod’s puzzles are hard to get into.

As I said, I didn’t do this crossword yesterday.
But after reading the blog, I thought: let’s see what this is all about.
I printed off the puzzle and, with the solution at hand, started reading the puzzle.
So, I cannot say anything about the process the solver’s gone through, I can only say something about the fairness and/or quality of the cluing as such.

Just like others, I wasn’t very taken by 11/12ac, but I accept Nimrod’s view on that clue.
I can see the setter sitting behind his desk spotting Odeon Blindness, wanting to do something with it. And he did. And for many it didn’t work. What else would have worked then? I don’t know either, although for the second part something with Eliot Ness sprang to mind.
In 1ac (SKYLARK) I wasn’t very happy with “Across”, but it can be justified (see Jolly Swagman’s comments).
And in 16ac I was wondering about the second “it”, but again, it can be justified.

And?
And nothing!
The rest of the puzzle is immaculately clued.
There is no reason whatsoever to have doubt about the quality of cluing.
I know, looking at clues the way I did (not really solving) makes a huge difference, but it also made clear that there was nothing unfair going on here.

John’s outrageous post is – at least for me – fully understandable.
It can hurt indeed.

I wrote this post because it did hurt me too.

Best,
Rowly.

John H. refers to ‘this blogger’s rubbish’ (not a way of talking about the setter that I would have used) and is unhappy that the blogger does not encourage the setter more. I would like to point out that the blogger does it for nothing and of course doesn’t expect to be paid. The setter is paid (not a lot, I know, but he is paid) and so one feels that he is doing a job at a price and if there is any criticism to be made then it is necessary to make this.

Because the setter is a professional as opposed to the blogger, it is hardly the blogger’s task to provide what he or she thinks are better versions of the clues. If this were possible, the blogger would be a setter.

“Just because you can’t be bothered to try and parse a clue …” well that’s not true, of course. I try very hard to parse the clues. It’s just that sometimes, for whatever reasons, I fail. And if I do fail then I say so.

As to the actual criticisms I made, we still haven’t heard what an off-street cinema is, nor have we heard what the answer is about that apparent inclusion the wrong way round. If I was wrong, then fine, point out how and I’ll hold my hand up and say so (as I did over ‘barb’). I still don’t really like Kylie’s stripping to the waist but it can be justified I suppose, so perhaps I was a bit extreme to call this ‘tenuous’. I haven’t now got the clue to hand but it seemed to me that ‘on divorces’ as a way of splitting up ‘on’ and then using the letters, was ungrammatical and that a slight improvement would have been ‘on divorced’, although so far as I remember that didn’t fit with the surface. Perhaps John H would like to explain how the clue can be justified. Obviously ‘on divorces’ gives o and n, but my problem is that I can’t see how o and n are then inserted.

John H suggests that the blogger ‘Never offer(s) anything constructive …” but apparently hasn’t read the preamble to the blog.

Contrary to what some others have said, I think it’s good that there is a range of difficulty in the daily cryptics. What’s important is the quality of the clueing, and JohnH is one of the best, imho.

We expect Nimrod to be a challenge and this lived up to expectations. Some of the clues were very inventive and kept us guessing but actually when we checked here and read all the comments we realised that the it was us that was the problem! We really like the challenge of trying to parse the craftily constructed clues as they seem to wake up more grey cells.

Please Nimrod keep going! Each day more of our grey cells need stimulation to keep them alive.

John – thanks for the blog. We also would have needed the support of other solvers on this one if we had been blogging it! Blogging it to meet a deadline is not easy.

Actually, in addition to comments 1,2,5,6:

#3 – “… I found some delight in the clues, with what you can call VERY inventive devices…”
#4 – just saying it was too hard for him – so neutral.
#7, #8 neutral
#9 finally a specific criticism.

You got off lightly compared with certain other setters who are regularly trolled on here by other setters .

OTOH maybe you don’t want to hear the message (which I agree with) that, fine as your puzzles are, they are usually too hard for a daily cryptic. They need a slot like the G Saturday prizer used to be.

20a – actually I quite like that device
1a – 50-50 – but at least it’s obvious what to do – so fair if not elegant.
12a – lets the whole puzzle down

Is “On his blindness” an ode in any sense of the word?

I’ve never heard it called that and I’d rather think it’s not. Not all poems are odes.

Like the ODEON part but that could have been used on many of the real odes.

Otherwise lots of fun to be had – particularly liked 28a.