Comments on: Guardian Prize 25,724 by Araucaria

By: brucew_aus

brucew_aus — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:58:06 +0000

Thanks Araucaria and PeeDee

Carried this one around for months and for some reason it just daunted me to start – eventually wore a couple of answers in November (ASKEW and JULIUS CAESAR) and it wasn’t until this month that I looked again to see the anagram of ELIZABETH BARRETT which led to BROWNING and the theme.

Still took a few days after that to finish and I now know several more poems (I read each one as they came up) of this poet. As I’ve said before and since this crossword – A not only provides one with an engaging cryptic challenge, but also often provides the opportunity to learn about some new subject whilst you go about it.

I like the fact that you can derive the answer from the clue (as in 34, 13 for me), get a start on a clue and use assistance to generate the answer (MUREX was derivable as a shell from the cryptic – but needed help to find the Browning link to porridge) and others where you can generate an answer then have to think how the heck it is right (as in the contentious 38).

Had no problem with DOWNLOAD and read it simply as a LOAD (large number) of DOWN (feathers) – hence DOWNLOAD that you might get from a computer ?

A really enjoyable solve once I got into it many months on ! And now I can move on …

By: Paul B

Paul B — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:51:15 +0000

In a Guardian Prize puzzle? You must be joking ‘Gerald’: they’ve always been like this, and long may it continue.

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:24:23 +0000

I get you. I thinlk you are describing the ‘trawling through reference material’ scenario I mention in the preamble. I think this can be a big problem with themes, they can be too obvious for some and all but impossible for others, just depends on peoples differeing backgrounds.

Having said that, some people enjoy a good trawl through Wikipedia. Horses for courses.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:04:08 +0000

Certainly, PeeDee. I do feel that one should be able to deduce some sort of answer from the clue, taking into account intersecting letters,and having regard for themes. Obscure words are expected. But a whole battery of arcane references requiring specific knowledge,oh no.I could do the same by producing a set of clues along the lines of say, pedigree dogs, celebrity, or neurology. One should at least be able to understand a solution after explanation. To be specific, having worked out Robert Browning, I just gave up. You see, I was probably in the woodwork stream.

By: PeeDee

PeeDee — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:12:20 +0000

Hi Gerald, could you give an axample of what you mean? Thanks.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:35:43 +0000

Waste of £2.10. Bought to take on holiday, shouldn’t have bothered. Crosswords should have clues, not retrospective justifications.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:40:32 +0000

It’s only me who’s quibbling and I’m stopping….
now.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:42:42 +0000

I wasn’t aware anyone had quibbled to be honest Rho, but in that case you’ll hardly be requiring my input on the matter, even though you were kind enough to request it. Do you know I’m almost quite upset?

But no biggie. I’m still excited by that Jolly Old Swagpothesis we’ve seen on the matter, plus your own elucidations: and if good old RCW likes those, then who am I, quite frankly?

Thanks indeed. I’m sure others too were glad for all the help.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:56:53 +0000

I thought JS got the first one right. But making all three interpretations the same, ie MAJOR, didn’t yield JOHN in the second one and didn’t place CALLAGHAN in the third as precisely as the rest of the PM clues. My reading gives three different interpretations of “most of 21″, none of which has anything to do with 21dn. Much more Araucarian. Thanks to JS though for the first one.

Now let’s have no more quibbling.

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:20:39 +0000

I thought Jolly Swagman @11 dealt with that.