Comments on: Guardian 25,830 / Boatman

By: Neil White

Neil White — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:30:19 +0000

Sorry to be so late after a long absence. Thanks for the discussion.
But what about “Christmas Lunch”, which really incenses this pedant?

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:15:42 +0000

We initially thought of ‘Bramley’ as the answer (which it wasn’t, of course – just a wild guess based on the surface of the clue). But indeed, Boatman should perhaps have taken ‘Bramley’ instead of ‘Pink Lady’ – much better!

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:26:19 +0000

Sil, you’re quite right there’s nothing &lit about it. On reflection what I didn’t like was the fact that to appreciate the surface I needed to know that Pimk Lady is an apple (as well as a cocktail!). I think Bramley would fix the clue. No redundancy, no need for brackets. And the surface is better as Bramley is the best known cooker while Pink Lady is regarded by some as a good eater as well.

By: Steve Uglow

Steve Uglow — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:06:03 +0000

As a teacher of criminal law and a pedant, an alibi is proferred as a defence to a criminal charge. The accused is saying “I did not do it as I was in another place”. As such, it’s not an excuse or justification as you don’t need to excuse or justify an act that you did not commit. It’s an excuse when you put forward a defence such as self defence, duress or insanity.

Not that crossword setters should worry about matters…

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:53:30 +0000

Rhotician, for me the clue isn’t &litish at all – I do not look at it that way. I agree that “Pink” can be seen as superfluous within the construction, but I think it can be justified too to see “Pink Lady” as a WHOLE – even more after putting this apple in brackets. Looking at it like that, “Pink” is not a superfluous word, and the clue perfectly all right.

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:43:13 +0000

Nice to see objections to the abuses of “common usage”. But when the abuse is a technical term, it’s amazing the way people shut up and keep quiet. See you all at the next technical term mistake discussion guys?

By: rhotician

rhotician — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:13:12 +0000

Sil, I’m not confused. I think the clue is confused, without being confusing! The &litish surface does not quite justify the flaws in the cryptic construction, namely that ‘Pink’ is superfluous and the definition is very obvious.

By: Eileen

Eileen — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:44:57 +0000

Hi all – or anyone who’s still there.

I’ve been out for most of the day since posting the blog and was amazed to see the number of comments in my inbox when I got home – and then disappointed to see so many of them concerned with stuff that, as people have said, has surely been recently done to death.

Thanks, Sil, for your comment. That’s exactly what I meant by ‘Pink’ being there simply for the surface. I did know that Pink Lady was a variety of apple – but not a cooker!

By: Sil van den Hoek

Sil van den Hoek — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:13:45 +0000

Rhotician, do not confuse cryptic construction with surface!
It is just “(Pink Lady) the ultimate” ie the last letter in (Pink Lady) as a whole (Y). For some, ‘Pink’ may be superfluous, but by putting the apple inside brackets, Boatman made his intentions perfectly clear.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 22:58:39 +0000

The suggestion in 13ac that Pink Lady is the ultimate cooking apple takes the theme a little too far.

However, I was reminded of a puzzle a while ago based on ideas associated with the word swinger and I must say today’s confection is better executed and much more agreeable.