Comments on: Guardian 25781/Crucible

By: Pierre

Pierre — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:33:47 +0000

Since this has descended into bickering between the two of you and is just clogging up my inbox with your exchanges, I have asked Gaufrid to close this thread to further comments.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:13:11 +0000

Well, I think you might be trying to be just a wee bit too clever for your own good there, but since you ask, yes I do know. Which is why I tend not to rush to judgement in crosswording matters any more, unless I am completely certain that I have my ducks in a row.

Before, though I could always expect to be in the ball park on a fairly regular basis, as I should have realised there was absolutely no chance of my striking the ball all the time. And this is the simple, though magical formula I invite you to look at, young optician me lad.

Enjoy your Sunday roast.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:25:55 +0000

I did say @35 that the definition was “not good”. So, yes, I was a bit hasty. I’ll try to be more considerate. Nice expression ‘shoot your mouth off’. It can lead to shooting yourself in the foot. As you know.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 01:57:19 +0000

I guess all I’m saying is, be sure before you shoot your mouth off, as you did at #35, that something really is wrong. Maybe trust that the compiler knows more than you do, and enjoy the fruits of his or her labours before leaping to judgement!

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:05:53 +0000

(esp in the phrases widely read, well-read)
I think esp should say as. Still can’t find an example of how it might otherwise be used.
Like I’ve already said I’ve often seen embarrassed for RED in SI. Can’t recall seeing this kind of thing as a definition.
Parentage has nothing to do with it. I tend to consider single clues in the context of the style of the whole puzzle.
And I’m not really criticizing the clue, just musing.
STUD I could have criticized, but I was too pleased with myself for solving it easily when others clearly had difficulty.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:08:18 +0000

No, Collins supports Crucible, who has, as you may have noticed, set a cryptic puzzle (not that it makes any difference): ‘adjective (2) having knowledge gained from books’. So you are quite wrong to criticise the setter for that definition.

Re your personal crises vis Araucaria, all the best. I think you would do well to consider each clue on its cryptic merits, regardless of parentage.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:44:47 +0000

Read(7) for LITERATE would not be good in a “straight”, non-cryptic crossword.
I think Collins tends to support my view that this is not a “straight” definition.
I could quibble with a few other clues in this puzzle. This is actually the one I find difficult to justify. It’s something I can’t put my finger on.
But I’ve resolved this personal crisis by reflecting that if the puzzle were Araucaria’s I wouldn’t have thought twice about it, beyond admiring the surface and the wordplay.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 01:24:36 +0000

Straight def, as advertised. If you don’t like it, that’s fine: write in to Collins, rather than the compiler.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:30:40 +0000

Hmm, hmm, and thrice hmm. But we’re heading into General Discussion, where I do not wish to go.

Suffice to say that, judging from posts here and in the other place, at least three clues in this puzzle some found difficult to solve or parse. In the specific case of read=literate I do not say that the compiler is being unfair. I can’t really say why I didn’t like it. Is it a definition or a cryptic definition or what?
I dunno.

By: rowland

rowland — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:42:21 +0000

Red-faced is usually the term employed, or something else similar, but Paul B is right about the dictionaries. If they say READ can mean ‘literate’, then the compiler can use it fairly? I would say so.

Cheers
Rowly.