Guardian 26,803 / Picaroon

65 comments on “Guardian 26,803 / Picaroon”

1. Thanks Picaroon and Eileen.

   Yes, that was absolutely top notch, too many favourites to mention here as well.

2. Totally in agreement with Eileen about the effervescent quality of today’s offering. My favourite little gem is 13d. Love them all. Many thanks to Picaroon and Eileen.

3. Thanks for blog,Eileen. Yes this chap is the bees’ knees at surfaces ,wit etc etc.Hurrah!

4. Yes, great stuff with humour and challenge in equal measure. My favourites were FOREGO (my LOI), SMIDGEON, A PRETTY PENNY and WORDSMITHERY – a lovely word and clue. Overall, pretty well everything a cryptic should be.

   Thanks to Eileen and Picaroon.

5. Excellent puzzle. for the first time in ages I genuinely struggled and struggled – true – but got there in the end – nope! Could not for the life of me get FOREGO, despite the even letters, so thank you Eileen. Just another among many brilliant clues. Well done, Picaroon.

6. As others have said, this was a lovely puzzle with great surfaces and bucketloads of wit. Favourites included STYROFOAM (brilliant clue), HINGE, ROCKY MOUNTAINS and WORDSMITHERY. Many thanks to Picaroon and Eileen.

7. I was so excited to think I had solved a second crossword this week (still being such a newbie), so was a bit crestfallen to realise that I had incorrect fill-ins for 11 Ac and 3 Dn.
   Admittedly “Tryer” for 3 Dn did not quite ring true, and even though there was a “Romeo Project” that I found on google which may have related to “Romero” at 11 Ac, I kind of sensed that it was not quite right.
   Never mind, close but no cigar as they say. Thanks to Eileen for sorting me out, and to Picaroon for s fun challenge.

8. Of course meant “a fun challenge”.

9. Thanhs picaroon and eileem

   Great puzzle

   However, I have seen eYESight broken down this way at leazt once before, albeit with a different surface.
   Can someone tell me where the border between originality and plagairism lies.

10. kevin @ 9: Interesting question. I don’t imagine that compilers would ever intentionally plagiarise a clue, but there is presumably no way for them to tell whether a particular formulation has been used before. Great minds think alike?

11. Thank you Picaroon, we are being spoilt having another of these puzzles so soon, and thank you Eileen for the blog.

    So many favourites, in particular FOREGO (last one in), TOYER, SMIDGEON and A PRETTY PENNY.

12. Hi Julie in Australia @8

    As I said above, Picaroon is a top setter, so, if you’re coming that close, as a newbie, I’d say you’re doing pretty well, so no need to be crestfallen. 😉

    Kevin @9

    I’ve heard another top setter, Anax, talk of clues being ‘discovered’ rather than made up. It’s not surprising that people who spend their lives playing with words should make the same discoveries. I recognised that wordplay, too, but didn’t mention it: it quite often happens that we see the same trick within a week, which rules out plagiarism – and if the setter has come up with a different surface, there needn’t be any such suggestion.

13. Sorry for the cross, drofle @10 – I spent too long choosing my words and didn’t refresh!

14. Another excellent puzzle if a little easy by Picaroon standards. Last in was SATINWOOD, favourite was SMIDGEON.

    kevin @9 – these are the 12 previous instances of EYESIGHT in the Guardian archive. So it is a chestnut, but plagiarism is a strong word and compilers often discover the same device independently, and expecting familiarity with over 145000 clues in the archive is asking a lot!

    Orlando 21753 I mention sound and vision
    Chifonie 22383 Rowing team without a word of consent makes sense
    Logodaedalus 23046 Ability to see very well inside the boat
    Paul 23064 Perceptive faculty of English, however, maintains relief expired?
    Rufus 24154 Sense there’s agreement among a number
    Gordius 24402 Sense sign of agreement in the crew
    Orlando 24622 Reportedly, I refer to the faculty
    Rufus 24976 Sense agreement in the crew
    Rufus 25024 Pupil power I mention in speech
    Gordius 25686 Faculty of approval in boat race crew?
    Gordius 26037 Military order (excluding front rank) that makes sense
    Logodaedalus 26229 Perception is sure to break up a rowing team

    Thanks to Eileen and Picaroon

    PS I also found this one, same device as 25 but not as clever:
    Gordius 23345 Child swallows a fly, which is no big deal

15. Eileen @13 – not as long as I did, so apologies to both of you

16. But you were working much harder, beery hiker! Many thanks for that – no apology necessary!

17. More surprisingly, none of A PRETTY PENNY, ECONOMICS, HEBRAIST, ROCKY MOUNTAINS, TOYER and WORDSMITHERY has a previous appearance in the Guardian, though Araucaria (24956) clued HEBRAISM as “Border in which support is for case of Old Testament speak”

18. You’ll notice that in several of those clues, it is indeed YES inside EIGHT, but (almost) all of them find a way to phrase it differently. So it’s the same device, but (to an extent) differently disguised.

    Exception there: Rufus, who seems to have plagiarized himself.

    See, here’s the thing: for some words, there are only so many ways you can clue them. (Of course a THEIST just got home from a HEIST. What else could it be?) And for others, the wordplay is so good that it bears repeating. (Of course David CAMERON is into ROMANCE novels!) But you can still be clever by writing the devices into good clues.

    ~~~~

    As for the crossword itself, enjoyable. I finished it but only with some effort. I was worried that I’d have to know what the heck MOT stood for, but thankfully not. (What does it stand for?) And ROCKY MOUNTAINS took far longer than it should have–I had the “mountains” half for ages, but…oh, never mind.

19. beery hiker – this really is a Labour of Love! By the way, did you see the poser I set you within my blog of the Picaroon Prize puzzle last week? [But I wasn’t being serious. 😉 ]

20. Tried inserting DOG in 25a as the biter but that made no sense. At length remembered that I have been in Scotland and the little bastards came to mind immediately.

    First mention of ECONOMICS in the Guardian beery? That is a surprise!

    Otherwise, I loved ‘reveal’ moments such as: “it couldn’t be STYROFOAM could it?”; “it couldn’t be ROCKY MOUNTAINS could it?” etc etc

21. Hi mrpenney @18

    You really need to know this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test for full appreciation of the surface of the clue.

22. @Kevin 9

    That’s a provocative and offensive question. Do you have any idea how much crossword compilers get paid?

23. urgh. 10a, 4d, then total blind spots. Even after looking, not sure I could have got more than half of these.

    beeryhiker @14 “Easy by Picaroon standards”? The mind boggles.

24. Eileen @19 – sorry I missed that, but I’m afraid I can’t answer it – it is much easier to list complete solutions and clues than it is to identify how the parsing breaks them down – I’d need to be much cleverer to work out how to automate that process. Can’t argue with EMMA, who has 25 appearances, but SHE is much more likely to be a wordplay component than a solution in its own right (and ET is very popular too). If there has ever been a book or film just called EXTRA, it would be a clear winner. My favourite clue for EMMA is this one from Orlando 26023 “Outer Mongolia supports Forster novel”…

25. Thanks to Picaroon and Eileen. I took a while getting WORTHSMITHERY (even after getting all the crossers) and SATINWOOD (new to me) but much enjoyed the process.

26. Well, I liked this too so I’m not sure I’ve got anything to add. I loved WORDSMITHERY and STYROFOAM though.
    Thanks Picaroon.

27. Thanks Picaroon and Eileen

    Another delight. Although at first look it appeared nearly impenetrable (just TOMORROW and ERNST on first pass of the across clues), it yielded beautifully and I even managed to parse them all (not always the case with Picaroon).

    Favourite of a great set was KEYNESIAN. Other compilers might have given us a different approach for DE-CAMERON, I think!

    Tiny, tiny quibble. The essence of the Renaissance was the rediscovery of Classical culture, so, initially at least, shouldn’t it be “regressive” rather than “progressive”? (I’m not being entirely serious here!)

28. muffin @27 – well there was this one from Bonxie 25845 Old tales by posh boy keen to depart for Spain

29. 11ac is of course grotesquely wrong. FOREGO means to precede. FORGO (without the E ) means to go without it to ‘leave out’ as in the clue. That is why a FOREGONE conclusion is a conclusion that has already been reached: it has preceded the present discussion. Someone who fasts has FORGONE food – that is, gone without it or ‘left it out’ as in the clue. Confusion between forgo and forego is a schoolboy error and a proofreader’s nightmare.

30. Crossbencher @29
    Chambers – forgo or forego
    Collins – forgo or forego
    Oxford – forgo (also forego)

    So not, IMO, “grotesquely wrong” or “a schoolboy error”. Picaroon’s definition is perfectly valid as it is supported by all three of the usual references.

31. Thank you Eileen. A lovely crossword. I see that if you peer hard enough you can find forego as a variant of forgo in the dictionary. Hm. I wasn’t entirely happy with reclining as a hint for a reversal of Mao in 18ac. I can’t see any connection between reclining and reversing. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as I am often wrong when things niggle me. Meanwhile, I’ll have a lie down.

32. Thanks Eileen and Picaroon.

    My fastest solve for a Picaroon (with ‘yardstick’ and Ernst as good guesses).

    ‘Audit’ seems to be another chestnut, so, over to beery hiker!

    Fav: 14d. Loved the great surfaces, throughout.

33. Tom Hutton @31

    I really liked ‘reclining’ as an indicator – it literally means ‘lying back’.

    Hi beery hiker @24 [I’ve been out] – I told you I wasn’t being serious! 🙂

34. Great crossword, thanks Picaroon for setting and Eileen for blogging.

    I must confess to being foolish… my penultimate entry was 14d (KEYNESIAN) – I read the clue (“… state in intervention in 4”) as meaning “state intervention in eyesight”. Which naturally I could not decipher.

    The clue, of course, was actually referring to 4d, not 4ac.

    Oops. That’s half an hour of my life Im not getting back.

    Really enjoyed it otherwise!

35. Eileen @33

    Thank you. I was just about to ask how on earth ‘reclining’ can indicate reversal and you’ve explained it in a nutshell! I got the word all right, but until I saw your post I was tut-tutting this one.

    Anyway, back to business. This was an absolute joy to solve, so no wonder (Eileen) you rave about today’s puzzle and Picaroon’s previous offering.

    I sympathise with Crossbencher @29 concerning FORGO and FOREGO, but Gaufrid @30 has explained how it is. I checked this myself just before opening this blog, and although I would never use FOREGO to mean FORGO, the dictionaries agree with each other, except only that FORGO is clearly preferred in some of them as opposed to presenting the alternatives as equals.

    I had no difficulty with any of the clues today, but I had to think my way through them all, so it was very satisfying. The variety and quality and of the clueing was top notch.

    Thanks again Eileen, and thanks to Picaroon.

36. It’s always nice when a reviewer of a book/play/concert etc has obviously enjoyed it as much as you did yourself. In the same way, it’s lovely to read Eileen’s blogs on Picaroon or Arachne.

37. Crossbencher @29 and Alan Browne @35 – I sympathise, too. I had exactly the same thoughts, so resorted to the dictionaries – and decided not to open that can of worms on the blog! We may not like it but, at least, Picaroon is exonerated. [Thanks to Gaufrid for the clarification in my absence.]

38. I thought I’d posted this earlier, but it seems not:

    An entertaining puzzle. I couldn’t parse 13d, though I did see TIN, so thanks for the explanation, Eileen. My favourite has to be WORDSMITHERY, among too many other lovely clues to list.

    Thanks, Picaroon and Eileen.

39. I actually wrote in FORGO absentmindedly, as I had already decided it was FOR EGO. It didn’t have enough letters though – I had the final O, so found I had written FORGOO!

40. Thanks to Picaroon for the puzzle, which I enjoyed more than Imogen’s yesterday (probably because I didn’t get a few of them), and to Eileen for her blog which I always enjoy.

    My only quibble was with the notorious FORGO v FOREGO, but Gaufrid’s heavy artillery demolished my objections.

    I can’t help regretting that these distinctions are being lost, but worse things are happening in the world!

41. Re forego and forgo: dictionaries are – or should be – descriptive, not prescriptive.

    The common usage they include just indicates how frequently those words are wrongly used, contrary to their logical and etymological roots.

42. A beautifully contructed puzzle as has been said.

    Also quite easy on Picaroon’s recent standards which has also been said!

    So why am I posting? Just to say thank you to Eileen and Picaroon.

    Thanks both 😉

43. I should have added; Fowler is prescripive, and his entry ‘for- and fore-‘ is quite clear.

44. Caesario @41
    I agree about “are”, but not about “should be”. I do wish that they would indicate incorrect usage as such! The closest they ever seem to get is “colloquial”.

45. Re forgo/forego

    Dictionaries are indeed descriptive not prescriptive (though some try to be the latter).

    They record usage, so if “the people” have evolved a particular spelling to be appropriate, then so be it, and I say this as a former student of languages and linguistics. One may deplore it, but the way usage evolves is not under the control of one or a few definers living in ivory towers.

    I think I posted quite some while ago about an author (sorry, all my books are in store at the moment) who posited that the roots of English grammar were defined by a small circle of grammarians who based it on their own circle’s usage and forced it into a Latin straitjacket, including, for instance, the future tense, which English simply doesn’t have.

    Language moves on faster than any single exponent of it. It’s as simple as that!

46. Simon S @45
    Heated disagreement (for once!) In France the Academie Francaise determnies what is and what isn’t correct (though even that seems to be losing jurisdiction). I think we need something similar – we need to preserve the fine distinctions that English allows. I would find it irritating (or do I mean aggravating?) if we lost these. In particular (as you may have noticed) I hate corruptions of precise scientific terms – I could give lots of examples.

47. muffin @ 46

    I agree with you heatedly in principle.

    But practice (or practise if you’re US-based) is different.

    Academic bodies, such as the AF, can prescribe as much as they like. But nothing, nothing, can prevent their rulings being ignored by “the people” on a quotidian basis.

    Spoken language preceded written language, which preceded printed language, which preceded dictionaries.

    I may not (= do not) like it, you may not like it, but it’s reality.

    As examples, I would refer you to the debasement over recent years of
    humanitarian (wtf is a humanitarian catastrophe? [how does it benefit humanity?])
    refute (not the same as reject)
    hopefully
    and others which escape me at the moment.

    Sadly, it’s unstoppable

48. Simon
    Might I just add “epicentre”? (There are more waiting in line.)

49. Thanks all
    I could not parse satinwood but entered it as the only possibility.
    Quite enjoyable especially liked 9d and 14d.

50. muffin @ 48

    definite heated agreement there 🙂

    Don’t bother with the rest, they’ll irritate me enough when they resurface of their own accord…

51. Neat theme, too, although I was surprised not to see “young” among the answers.

52. Not seeking either to prolong a discussion on a side issue or to have the last word on it, I would just like to say I had similar thoughts to what both Simon and muffin (@45, @46 and subsequently) have said on grammar and usage.

    As a lifetime student of language and linguistics I agree with what Simon says about the Latin straitjacket which, among other calamities, used to force upon our language a future tense that it doesn’t have. Modern descriptive grammars and dictionaries reflect the language as it is actually spoken and written, subject to skilled analysis and sifting of actual utterances and writings.

    I personally don’t think an Academie Anglaise would ‘succeed’ (in the sense of achieving anything useful), mostly because language will change anyway in spite of anything the academy says. However, I agree wholeheartedly with muffin concerning the desirability of maintaining all those fine distinctions that give the English language its richness. They are worth preserving, and it is always a pity when one is lost, but I don’t think we can or should try and ‘standardise’ it or legislate for it. FORGO/FOREGO is one small example, and I do my bit by preserving that distinction, but I can’t stop the tide, and nor can anyone else!

    Some of the examples you give (Simon) are among a large number of sloppy and careless uses of words that still count as incorrect – in my book and in authoritative references as well. By contrast, ‘hopefully’ (not a pretty substitute for ‘I hope …’ or ‘I hope so’) is now in the dictionary in its modern, informal sense.

53. muffin @46, seems to be a question now of knowing your onions…

54. I reckon to review the comments on my blog before going to bed and would really love to join in this discussion but it’s one that we’ve had many times before and that will never be resolved. I think there should perhaps be a separate thread for continuing discussion!

    As a Classicist, I still consider myself a pedant but, since becoming a blogger, I have slowly – a rather painful process – learned to accept the ‘descriptive’, rather than the ‘prescriptive’ [I’d prefer ‘definitive’] function of the dictionary.

    With muffin, I bitterly regret the loss of ‘those fine distinctions’ that impoverishes our language. To refute / reject I would add uninterested / disinterested among my own ‘favourites’. There are many others but I’m too tired now to call them to mind.

55. Caesario @43

    I’ll “ignore” Eileen and keep this discussion on the puzzle that instigated it. (Sorry)

    One last thing about Fowler and forego/forgo. My Fowler which is 1998 says The variants forego (for forgo) and forgo (for forego) are often found but are ill-advised. Still fighting against the fact that usage dictates but not exactly prescriptive!

56. Eileen @54 has a point – if there were a separate thread for such discussions we could always go back on to it without having to search through past blogs, perhaps there could be a “subjects” section under GENERAL DISCUSSION?

57. Eileen @54
    This is not off-topic, as posters are still referring to a specific example in this puzzle as well as others. Those who are not interested in a discussion will skim those posts, and probably stop checking the thread at some point the next day. Does it do any harm if it continues on a thread for a while, other than perhaps irritating the blogger concerned who does have to keep checking in case a new topic has appeared which needs a response?

58. I thought Eileen @54 was quite right to suggest that further discussion on the general topic that had started to develop (descriptive and prescriptive grammars and the preservation of fine distinctions in the language) should be taken to a separate thread. I thought that was what the General Discussion page was for, although I notice that it is hardly used. (Only three comments have been posted there this year – and they probably would have been better posted to the Site Feedback page.)

    Brendan’s post @55 is clearly ‘on topic’ for today’s page. I agree with jennyk @57 that while contributors still have something to say on 7A (FOREGO), or on others’ comments that refer to it, their contributions should be welcomed. The topic will peter out anyway at some point.

59. A quick search suggests no one has mentioned this, but am I the only one to have reservations about the use of ‘for’ in 16d (‘In a state, eastern US city’s up for housing proposal’)? It doesn’t seem to be functioning as either wordplay or connecting word.

    I was going to get involved in the for[e]going debate, but the data is equivocal and I thus remain disinterested.

60. ulaca @59

    I noticed the ‘for’ in 16D in the same way that you did but then forgot about it. I’m sure it’s just a ‘connecting word’ (your phrase) or a ‘filler’: without it the surface reading of the clue would not make sense. You could possibly make ‘for housing’ the containment indicator (instead of just ‘housing’), and if the setter thought this that would fully explain the clue.

61. I would always use forego. Really enjoying these Picaroons and as ever, Eileen’s spot on blog.

62. Thanks Eileen and Picaroon.

    Top class. No ambiguity. A good mix of styles. Some clever misdirection. A new word – HEBRAIST – and some wit.

    I’d go so far as to say exemplary.

    Pleased to say I found this much easier than the previous day’s Imogen so a chance to catch up on my backlog.

63. Thanks Picaroon and Eileen

    Am also another fan of this setter, have been since he joined the Guardian stable (was it last year?), and enjoyed this one a lot. Did finish it much faster than his usual offering though.

    Ended up in the NE corner with STYROFOAM, WORDSMITHERY and FOREGO as the last one in (as it seems it was for many others) – I could have marked those as my favourites, but it would probably have been just that they were the freshest in my memory on completion. The puzzle was full of excellent quality clues.

64. brucew@aus
    “… was it last year?”

    Like me, you’re losing track of time! Picaroon’s first appearance was four years ago (16/3/2012).

65. Wow … thanks Gaufrid.

    Wouldn’t have picked that it was that long ago !!

Comments are closed.