Guardian 26,159 / Puck

48 comments on “Guardian 26,159 / Puck”

1. First-class puzzle solved over lunch; SUCCEED and COLOSSI were particlularly fine. Re the unknown ‘hugger-mugger’, I note from ODO that cabals were such a feature of the 16th and 17th centuries that several expressions of this type jostled for primacy. Businesses today can of course hide behind expressions such as Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility!

2. Agreed, a super puzzle and challenge.
   Agreed, too many good clues to select favourites.
   Agreed, parsing some of the solutions was tricky: 6d posed a gritty conundrum.

3. Eileen

   Thanks for a blog to match the excellent crossword.

   A minor point, but in 7/16, I do not think there is any need to treat ‘on’ as you suggest: a HUGGER MUGGER is someone who mugs – hits on – a hugger, so that the clue is a definition and literal interpretation.

4. Thanks Eileen and Puck

   An amusingly clever puzzle.

   I’m afraid I forgot the Johns, Biggles etc. link. I had first wondered if there was a town of Baderbecker in Germany before the answer hit me.

   I became aware of 6d having recently seen The Riddle of the Sands on TV.

   I am clearly a bit thicker than usual this a.m. but I am still not wholly sure about colo(n). I began to think it must be Colo(rado) and that ‘state’ was missing or buried in the clue. Of course the answer itself was clear enough.

5. tupu @ 4 check out the punctuation mid-clue!

6. Thanks, PeterO @3: that makes sense as a construction – but I thought ‘hit on’ meant something rather different?

   tupu, I’m sure you’re not being thick! [I spent some minutes trying to find a dessert beginning with COLOSS 🙁 ]

7. Thanks ulaca and Eileen! 🙂

8. Well done, Eileen! My, that was fun, but I needed your help with parsing COLOSSI (missed the 🙂

   Re HUGGER-MUGGER these alliterative phrases often have no derivation but creep into the language uninvited simply because they are nice to say. (Niminy-piminy, okey-dokey etc)
   The earliest reference I could find was John Skelton’s Magnyfycence, 1520.

   We’ve also got huge, middlemost and smallest in here. Perhaps I’m missing something, too.

   Cracker, Puck, thank-you.

9. Thanks for the blog, Eileen. (And sorry to have been absent lately!)

   Lovely puzzle — thank you, Puck!

   I missed some of the parsing, and the reference to the four Johns.

   Lots of great clues. As ever, the enjoyment was enhanced by the blog.

10. Most enjoyable, and thanks to all concerned. I spotted the John theme; is there another I haven’t noticed?

    I’ll take the Mozart, thank you Eileen.

11. Thanks, Eileen

    Pretty straightforward but very enjoyable puzzle from the púca. More good clues and great surfaces. We’ve had a good week, haven’t we?

    LOI was ERSKINE CHILDERS, which took all the crossers for me to spot (and because it was the last I didn’t stop to parse it). The KYRIE is part of the ‘ordinary’ of the regular Latin mass, and not just the Requiem, but this word helps the surface. On a somewhat related tack, GERUNDIVES are a Latin grammatical peculiarity, to be sure, but not entirely unfamiliar. Ask Amanda!

    Difficult to choose a favourite, but I’ll plump for COLOSSI because of its clever construction.

    By coincidence, mrpenney remarked yesterday that English setters regularly use very few of the American two-letter state abbreviations – and here comes Kentucky.

12. Hi Gervase

    I agree – a very good week!

    The point I was making is that a GERUNDIVE is a verbal adjective and so is ‘undeserving’ – but it’s not a gerundive! As you point out, Amanda [and Miranda] would know that the Latin gerundive is [Chambers] ‘a Latin verbal adjective expressing necessity, such as amandus [= deserving or requiring to be loved]’.

    Re KYRIE: I nearly gave the link to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRp-zigMK1k, which is what my choir are working on at the moment but, in accordance with the clue, I decided to stick to Requiem masses that we’ve sung.

13. Thanks, Eileen. I do like Puck’s puzzles, but his clever misdirection often catches me out. Took a while to finish this one, but I thought it was great fun. I would never have got ERSKINE CHILDERS without a wordsearch, however.

    Didn’t spot the BIGGLES theme, but then again I didn’t go looking for it (but I did wonder whey there were so many JOHNS in the clues …)

    Without getting into an arcane discussion about gerunds and gerundives, some people would argue that the gerundive does exist in English. ‘Chewing gum in public is disgusting.’ Gerund. ‘Chewing gum is expensive these days.’ Gerundive, some would say (‘gum that is fit to be chewed’ if you want the Latin equivalent). And while I’m off on one, ‘My finding this crossword difficult is not a surprise’ and ‘Me finding this crossword difficult is not a surprise’ are both correct, and I shall not be told otherwise.

    I’ll just go and find where I left my coat. Thank you to Eileen for an excellent blog of a fine puzzle. Who’s Amanda, btw?

14. Eileen @ 13 Thanks for the link to the Gounod. Definitely something that the Cecilian Singers here in HK might think about doing.

    On a gerundive note, ‘mutatis mutandis’ came up in the quiz on Wednesday and caught many teams out.

15. Thank goodnes for string matching gadgets! One thing we can always be sure of is that when all the experts agree that a puzzle is wonderful then the less talented majority will have really struggled. Nice to see the needs of the majority being ignored, again.

    It started badly with 1ac. A vaguer combination of definitions one couldn’t hope for. ‘Flying ace’, there have been many, and this one didn’t even exist, not that you would suspect that from the clue. ‘Tennis champ’ again there have been many. ‘Town’ there are millions of the things around the planet. And appologies to the denizens, but it’s not exactly one of our more well known towns is it? One can work backwards from the answer easily enough, but a clue is supposed to lead you forwards with some degree of accuracy, this one merely leads you into a combinatorial mire.

    And then the list just goes on.

16. Second PeterO @3.

    Puck likes to do stuff round the edges. Gee whizz!

17. Hi K’s D

    YOu’re dead right about chewing gum – thanks for that! And I agree about me / my. [I promise to introduce you to Amanda.]

    Hi rhotician

    I’d spotted that – but the Gs in the bottom row are not contiguous. And there are still lots of other double letters: COLOSSI, HEADCHEESE, MIDDLEMOST, DURRELL, BALLROOM, LEE TIDE, SUCCEED, FLEETING.

18. Derek @ 15 – I can see your point about some of these clues, notably Biggleswade and Erskine Childers. I needed all the checkers for the former, and agree that it falls into the category of obscure town, even though I’d heard of it, being brought up not a million miles away. To me the clue is ‘saved’ by Biggles, since nearly everyone in the target crossword group will have heard of him and he gives you a way in (and a penny drop moment en route). As for the latter, if he had not been one of the better known OBs of my old school, I’m not at all sure whether I’d have known of him – and I think you’d have to be Benedict Cumberbatch to get it from the wordplay!

19. An introduction to Amanda would be welcome, Eileen – but is she fit to be loved? And is Miranda fit to be seen?

    I’ll definitely get me coat now.

20. K’s D @13: Interesting point about ‘chewing’ having a possible use in a sense analogous to the Latin GERUNDIVE. But whereas it’s possible to make a gerundive from any Latin verb, the same interpretation is not true in English. A ‘changing room’ is not a ‘room fit to be changed’! It probably does work with those verbs in English that can be used ergatively, i.e. the subject when the verb is used intransitively can be the object when it is used transitively. Thus: ‘Dinner is cooking’ v ‘I am cooking dinner’, which leads to the possible pair – ‘Eating apples is nicer than cooking apples’ v ‘Eating apples are nicer than cooking apples’. But I’m not sure that ‘chewing’ falls into that category. It seems to me that a more accurate interpretation of ‘chewing gum’ is that ‘chewing’ denotes ‘for the purpose of chewing’, rather than ‘fit to be chewed’, which does make it equivalent to ‘changing room’, ‘driving school’ etc.

21. I am now completely out of my depth and the coat is not only found, but donned. Like Captain Oates, I am just going outside, and may be some time.

    Good weekend to all.

22. Derek Lazenby @15: I sympathise. I certainly don’t finish all the Guardian puzzles (and really struggled with Paul’s yesterday), but I found this one relatively easy – i.e. it took me less than an hour. I think the moral is that we all find some setters easier than others.

23. Thanks, Puck for the fun and Eileen for the blog. Your recent explanation of to ice came in handy!

    Lots of good clues. COLOSSI, GO-GO DANCERS AND BALLROOM DANCING were favourites.

    HUGGER MUGGER took me straight to the graveyard scene in Hamlet, my favourite play. and BIGGLES(wade) brought back happy childhood memories.

    Kathryn’s Dad @21, don’t forget to come in from the cold!

    Giovanna xx

24. Excellent stuff all round – thanks to Puck and Eileen.

25. HEADCHEESE was completely new to me. I didn’t believe it till I googled it.

26. Maybe I was just on Puck’s wavelength this evening but I found this to be one of his easier puzzles. I enjoyed the puzzle but entered COLOSSI and SUCCEED from the rather obvious definitions so the cleverness of the cluing was wasted on me.

    With just the B checker at the start of 1ac I was another one thinking “Bader” but once the G checker from 2dn was in place the answer became fairly obvious. That’s what checkers are for. However, I missed the Biggles/Four Johns connection in the puzzle. WIGGLE WAGGLE was my LOI.

    Further to Trailman@25’s comment about HEADCHEESE I knew it so it wasn’t a problem, and unless my memory is playing tricks on me I first heard it in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

27. Could no one in the US have come up with anything less unappetising than HEADCHEESE?

    I suppose as they called their mountains The Rockies that gives us a clue…

    Thanks everyone.

28. Dummy of the day: having made a vertical mark for the hyphen in 18d I proceeded to read the D as a P and sidetracked myself trying to fit Parnell in, thinking there’s got to be at least one boring writer of that name.

29. Re ‘rights’ I had expected to see RR, and not RS. I’d no idea who the answer was either, so I had to wait for the checkers.

30. Another wonderful crossword. (What a week)

    Of course I didn’t notice the theme. (Do I ever) I even remember commenting to myself (I know that’s worrying) “Why only 4 Johns?” and at this stage I had BIGGLESWADE in place. How thick can I get?

    Come on DL @15. It wasn’t that hard. Everything was fairly clued. How do you know that you are the majority? Does the “normal distribution” not apply to crossword solvers? Or are the posters on here an unrepresentative sample?

    However be consoled as after a week as “good” as this we will be punished with a month of so-called “easy” puzzles 😉

31. @30: Have you been reading carefully enough? Over the years we have been told by Admin that there are many many more readers than posters. Why? Well those that have occassionally made a post have almost always said they were afraid of posting because they didn’t think they were good enough at doing crosswords to talk to “people like us”. Frequently what got them to finally post was as a celebration such as “and after all these years I finally finished one!”. Can you imagine that? Plugging away for years without ever finishing one? Does the consistent tale told by these occassional posters not tell you anything? So yes, the posters here are a very unrepresentative bunch. People here can therefore, quite unintentially I’m sure, get to be a bit Ivory Tower-ish in their outlook, just because they are all experts (or expert-ish) and are habituated to talking here to their equals. Which is of course why I sometimes deliberately wind things up (well apart from releaving the enforced boredom of the collapsed vertebra of course!). Have you really never noticed how similar in ability most people here are (apart from me and a very few others)?

32. Disappointed that no-one groaned at my ‘Riddle of the Sands’ quip @2. Like Kathryn’s Dad, I’ll get my coat and relinquish any thoughts of giving up the day job.

33. Thanks all
    I didn’t embark on this until evening and due to the NE corner it lasted very nicely until bedtime.
    As several have already said, there were lots of excellent clues.My last in was headchheese and I am still not quite certain whether I can find valid reason to object to what seems to me to be an exclusively US word.
    I enjoyed 1d.

34. George, pearls before swine? Well, of course not. But I would encourage anyone who has never heard of Childers to Google him.

    I would also commend to everyone a comment in the other place by aztobesed at 1.36 pm.

35. Thanks Puck and Eileen

    Funny how we’re all different – I found this one of the hardest Puck puzzles that I’ve done … taking a number of sittings to finally finish with GERUNDIVE, HUGGER MUGGER and GENRE (last one in) as the last to yield.

    It was a solve clue by clue with holes in every quadrant even when 75% done. Still lots of very clever clues in surface and cryptic thinking made it a pleasure to finally crack.

36. It was hard because many definitions of parts of SI were somewhat cryptic, rather than literal. One can get away with that in the G, but it makes a puzzle very tricky, and this was, therefore, an apt Friday number.

    Thanks to rhotician for the link to the comment by Azto, whom we at 15/2 now rarely see, in which the clue for LUSITANIA seems very good.

37. Thanks Derek for putting in a word for those of us that struggle with these fiendish crosswords.! I know before I start I won’t complete any of them but the challenge is exciting. Reading the blog and comments afterwords is a delight and so educational. Thank you all.

38. Of course Derek you realise I was playing devil’s advocate to an extent.

    It was of course an averagely difficult puzzle. However my point was that it was a corker and very fairly clued.

    Don’t forget that we have all been there. I personally went years before I finally completed a Guardian cryptic. (An Araucaria!) It was quite a long time before I repeated this feat but gradually I got there. Now I fail to complete about once a year on average. But take heart. I’m sure you realise that it really is only practise and not great intellect that gets you there. Without doubt puzzles like this are a great help. The odd clue which seems impenetrable suddenly becomes clear and that’s an important step.

    This week has been exceptional in that we have had 4 above average puzzles in a row which is great for some solvers. However it’s still enetertainment for the majority of solvers surely.

    You can appreciate that a lot of us are sorely disappointed when for days on end the “Guardian” is done and dusted in 20 minutes!

    I take your point about the fact that there are a lot of lurkers on this board as there are on most. But the reasons for not posting are many and not contributing don’t necessarily imply that the person can’t finish the puzzle. Quite the opposite in many cases.

    Amyway I didn’t mean to upset anybody so let’s all enjoy “The Pirate” this weekend. I have high hopes.

39. To add to what Brendan said, I’ve been crosswording for over 40 years and I am still defeated by about 1 in 10. Sometimes I just can’t see it, sometimes I get bored (often by puzzles with ludicrously long clues), but I’m always learning. The resources of the internet weren’t available for the first 25 years of my puzzling. That makes a huge difference, especially this blog. As for this puzzle I found it really enjoyable, and annoyingly for Derek, “Biggleswade” went in as I read it!

40. I totally agree with Derek @31. I principally visit fifteen squared to obtain an explanation of those clues I could not resolve. On average I probably complete about 20% of puzzles and am able to fill maybe half of 70% but this puzzle beat me. I only managed to solve one clue – 26 across. To have this puzzle described as easy, IMHO, places a commenter firmly in the ivory tower. I sometimes wish that Guardian crosswords have ratings like Sudoku puzzles, so that I can judge at the outset if a puzzle solution is achievable for me. There is nothing so disappointing as spending an hour trying to complete a crossword and then later, on reading the solution in fifteensquared and finding out that the clueing was exceptionally complex or the vocabulary so obscure. Can I also request on behalf of the “Derek Faction” a reduction in some of the boastful language used here by some, it is very distasteful.

41. I too use this site to unpick clues which I have found difficult. I’m not wild about the tone of some of the comments (“aren’t I clever?”), which is why I prefer the more relaxed and free-flowing comments on the Guardian site with its spoiler embargo.

    Recyclotron: difficulty is often in the eye of the beholder. I tend to shy away from Pasquale because I can guarantee there will be words I have never encountered before, but for the rest it’s always an excitement and a challenge.

    Your Sudoku comment is interesting and relevant – while the * and ** puzzles are usually straightforward, those at the upper end can be a mixed bunch! and sometimes I’ve sailed through a ***** while the *** has defeated me completely.

42. Unfortunately I don’t think you can rate cryptic crosswords as you can sudoku puzzles, because solvers can be more or less in tune with the setters.

    It’s true that there are some smug comments on this site, but so be it. I’m definitely not up there with the quickest solvers.

43. I am an American, and I have never heard HEADCHEESE used for brawn — or anything else.

44. As somebody who spent a couple of years reading the blogs here before posting, I have sympathy with both sides of this argument, and I have definitely learned a great deal from reading the comments of our more learned friends.
    Like Brendan above I took a long time to start finishing regularly, and I still fail to finish one or two most months. I agree that rating is impossible to do objectively, and I often find my experience of a particular crossword at odds with the blogger and/or the first few comments. This is often just down to which subjects the more esoteric words are associated with and how they are clued. This time the only really unfamiliar word was HEADCHEESE, which was clear from the wordplay. I can’t remember why I’d heard of ERSKINE CHILDERS but it is the sort of name you remember and I couldn’t think of anyone else for the E… C…S I had at the time.

45. Sue and I started with the Telegraph (purely for the puzzle) a good few years back now.

    I haven’t analysed how many Guardian crosswords leave me with one or more clues unsolved, but it could be anywhere from one in five to one in ten I’d guess.

    Then again, neither do I keep a tally of the number of times I’ve cheated by using a crossings checker or anagram finder. To tell the truth, if I did, the number of puzzles I complete with no help at all might well turn out be less than half.

    I’m still chuffed I can do them at all though, and hope it continues for a long time.

    Best wishes to all solvers, new and old.

46. A little note re the HEADCHEESE: it’s a quite regionally-specific word, associated mainly with the deep South. So “in LA” has to be taken as Louisiana, not as (the maybe more obvious for most readers) Los Angeles.

47. I’ve posted a comment in General Discussion.

48. PLL: thanks.

    I read that “brawn” is only a variant of “brain” in that context, but for all its factual bluntness, I still find that less retchworthy than HEADCHEESE, with its connecting of our anatomy with that of our fellow mammals, and the arguable consistency of the particular organ contained therein.

    (I think that’s enough from me on that, really).

Comments are closed.