Guardian Prize 27,878 by Paul

46 comments on “Guardian Prize 27,878 by Paul”

1. Re: 9 across. Is it P is for Paul, or the other way around?

   Thanks both.

2. This required a few sittings to see it with fresh eyes, but it all yielded eventually. Getting the long ones in early helped.

   Favorites: THERE, SWEET PEA, ROARING TWENTIES, AULD

   Quibbles: “unfortunately” is superfluous in 26, 6; the Spoonerism in 27a is weak.

   Overall a pleasant challenge. Thanks to Paul and PeeDee.

3. Thought I’d rather breezed through this, only to find I’d bunged in palm for balm, that’ll learn me! And forgot rail the bird, hence a did-not-parse. Had the same ? re 26,6 as Dave in NC, but didn’t mind the two-by-one letter swap/swop in the spoonerism. Sweat pea was cute, as was the surface for auld. Lots to like, thanks P and P.

4. Thanks Paul and PeeDee. I chipped away at this for a few days before it eventually yielded. I think it took a long time because so many of the definitions weren’t just synonyms. Instead of guessing the answer and then working out why, the wordplay had to be deciphered first. For me this made it a very satisfying puzzle to solve, my favourite was the misdirection in 19, 17 (which I did actually think of before I managed to parse it)

5. I enjoyed this. But didn’t solve 2d. I think i ran out of steam after managing the last third quite quickly after a few days staring at the clues and grid without inspiration.
   Did not parse “batting average”.
   An enjoyable challenge.

6. Good work PeeDee for deconstructing 19,17. Relieved 10a wasn’t a platypus ‘cos it wouldn’t have fit!, liked 26,6 with the seafood. Lots of lemon 14a in our garden, which the bees like, but didn’t get around to putting the sweet 20a’s in this year.

   Much better challenge than another, which I’m sure there’ll be much comment on, thanks Paul.

7. That is, thanks Paul for this prize x-word.

8. Thanks Paul and Peedee

   I don’t remember much about this one, but two things came back when I read the blog.

   Isn’t it always “A call of nature” for having a wee?

   You have to take the very widest definition of “seafood” to include eels. The most exact is “shellfish and crustaceans from the sea”; some include sea fish, but, after a quick Google, it seems only the USDA goes as far as including freshwater fish, such as all the eels that humans eat.

9. I enjoyed this. My favourites were SWEET PEA, WHEEL CLAMP, BATTING AVERAGE, INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE.
   New word: ESTER.

   Thanks Paul and peedee.

10. Thanks to Paul and PeeDee. Typical Paul solve for me, started off quite slowly but then unpacked quite steadily, The NE was last to fall with activate last one. Another fan of industrial espionage and the call of nature, and thanks again to Paul and PeeDee.

11. Typical Paul solve for me, too. A case of read through all the clues and get an average of 0.6 answers in first pass but have one or two ideas on others which gradually cement over different visits.

    My favourites were EFFACEMENT and THE CALL OF NATURE for which the way the clue was worded I thought fair enough to have definite rather than indefinite article.

    Thanks to Paul for another well-judged prize offering and to PeeDee for the expert parsing blog.

    Although Paul’s puzzles go down well with many, I do like to see variety in setters for the Prize because I think most solvers are on wavelength of different setters so nice to see Philistine in the slot today.

    Enjoy a nice cool (for the UK based at least) weekend.

12. Many thanks Paul and PeeDee.  I really liked this, especially 25a ROARING TWENTIES which I thought was a great &lit.

13. Largely good; I liked the simple AULD and GAIN WEIGHT.

    I thought 19,7 was a bit convoluted and the Spoonerism was daft.

    Thanks Paul and PeeDee.

14. Loved the Spoonerism; there are some miserable bu**ers out there! What’s not to like? Never forget this is a hobby or pastime done for FUN!

    For me, as with almost all Guardian crosswords regardless of degree of difficulty, this is what it is all about. I appreciate 15^ exists to discuss the finer points but variety is the spice of life and some of the more critical contributors seem to be…well, missing the point.

    Thank you again, Paul, for giving us all – free of charge – a pleasant and rewarding mental challenge to be dipped into whenever and wherever we want. Thanks indeed to all setters and bloggers.

15. I thought some clues rather clunky eg 18, 8, 14, and 19/17.

    Liked auld very much.

    Paul every fortnight seems a bit much given the range of guardian setters

16. Perhaps not the best Paul -indeed I don’t seem to be enjoying his puzzles as much as I once did which doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying any of them, if you see what I mean. Case in point was THE CALL OF NATURE which went in straight away, and SNAFU which went in quite a lot later. The Spoonerism took me far too long but I thought it rather good once I’d got it.
    Thanks Paul.

17. I have a pretty relaxed attitude to the construction of spoonerisms, not minding, for instance, if the swapped letters aren’t pronounced the same in each location (who was it, a few years back, who had ‘binger gear’ > ‘ginger beer’?).

    But I do think that each iteration should be a plausible expression in its own right. I cannot imagine a ‘sensible’ sentence that would include the phrase ‘flop tight’. For that reason I think that 27 simply doesn’t work (along the lines of ‘fraction’ = ‘one over the eight’ earlier this week.

    So for me it was another of Paul’s “that‘ll do“ clues.

18. I seem to remember this was a start-stop solve with (unusually for me with a Paul) a few going in on the first pass and then a few more – and then grinding to a halt until the next day when MrsW got ROARING TWENTIES then 12,1 and 19,17 – both of which I liked – went in. It seemed considerably more approachable – and enjoyable – than this Thursday’s offering from Paul. Thanks to him and PeeDee.

19. Tim @14 I think the word you are looking for is Whingers. Some people have to complain just for the sake of it. But I agree, it’s just a crossword and supposed to be enjoyed for its own sake.

    Thanks P and p for what was a fair puzzle and blog.

20. Tim @14 and Roberto @19, I don’t see much whinging on this site, although there is the occasional comment that appears to come from a miserable [fill in the blank]. What I usually see is a community of crossword enthusiasts sharing their views about the strengths and weaknesses of each puzzle. It’s a process I enjoy almost as much as the puzzles themselves.

21. Thanks PeeDee and Paul,

    I found this tough but satisfying to complete. I say ‘complete’, THE CALL OF NATURE was provided by one of my teenage children, she proffered the answer straight away on a single reading of the clue and the letter enumeration. No crossers (there weren’t any), no looking at the clue or the grid. She doesn’t even like crosswords!

    Being less talented but more disposed to like crosswords I plodded on. even with this good start it was a slog but I thought many excellent clues. Several have already been picked out here, but I will just add my personal fav was the quite straightforward (once solved) ESTER. the surface reading just draws one in to believe the ‘badger’ is the black-and-white nocturnal mammel, so I am thinking of [b]rock or [m]ustelidae or something along these lines. Also greatly enjoyed the simplicity of THERE and POSIT and the hidden letters of ANIL — I had to look twice then 3 times to realise they were actually there in cuLINAry

    Thanks Paul and PeeDee and all learned contributors, esp Tim @14 – well spoken (or typed said his inner pedant)

22. The problem, or maybe a better word is challenge, with Spoonerisms is that, to use a computer science term, our brains are not indexed to retrieve the sought terms automatically. This just adds another level of complexity to the solving activity, although when the answer is found it always seems to be peculiarly obvious. I don’t particularly like them, because the search space, absent crossers, is so large, especially when the term to come up with (e.g. flop tight) isn’t a “thing”, as Simon S @17 indicated.

23. I was pleased to finish this in a single sitting, though some needed quite a bit of thinking about. I thought 22d was not quite right though no one else seems to have queried it: ‘letter box’ doesn’t mean ‘post’. I see Peedee fudged it by explaining post = ‘put in letter box’, but “put” in the clue is the definition, not part of the word play, isn’t it? Also, I think ‘the engineers’ might have been fairer for THERE (15a).

    Btw, Peedee, small typo in 26, 6: ELL for EEL

24. “I need to respond to a call of nature” surely? It also fits the wordplay better (although “oink” and “woof” are sounds produced by domesticated animals!).

25. …or “answer” rather than “respond to”?

26. muffin @ 24

    I think I’ve only ever heard ‘the’ call of nature.

27. muffin – is there really an official version of this phrase? If it were a quotation from Shakespeare or something then perhaps you might have a point, there is some authoritative reference that it might be misquoted from.  But it’s just an informal expression – there isn’t a “correct” way to say it.

    FWIW – the phrase took on its euphemistic meaning in the 18th century – two quotes from then (both using the):

    Shew me a city so macerated with expectation – who neither eat, or drank, or slept, or prayed, or hearkened to the calls either of religion or nature, for seven-and-twenty days together, who could have held out one day longer – Tristram Shandy

    and

    The calls of Nature are permitted and Clerical Staff may use the garden below the second gate – Tailor and Cutter Magazine

28. mmm – never for me, Simon S! … though Google seesm to disgree 🙂

29. PeeDee @27

    I’m just reporting my experience. I’ve never heard anyone referring to “The call of nature”. Have you?

30. If I play the two versions though in my head they both seem equally plausible to me.

    But more to the point: the English language isn’t composed of the life experience of just one of us but all of us.  Individually you (or me or any other one of us) has only heard a small fraction of the English that gets used in the world.  If I all I needed to do was look into my own memory to determine the content of the language I could have saved a fortune on dictionaries.

31. Fair enough, PeeDee.

32. Tim @ 14 It’s only free to people who don’t bother to pay for it and you seem to be claiming the moral high ground by moaning about moaning, posters here are generally interested in words, wordplay and the usage of language; it’s natural that clues will engender varied responses and why shouldn’t people express them?

    Thanks to Paul and PeeDee.

33. Having slept on it, I withdraw my acquiescence! There are lots of “calls of nature” – Paul himself has given two examples – so “THE call of nature” doesn’t make sense; there’s no such thing. The clue is an adequate one (not to my taste) for “A call of nature”.

34. hi muffin – if that doesn’t make sense then can I go to the theatre several times each year?  According to your reasoning there are lots of “theatres” so “THE theatre” doesn’t make sense;  there is no such thing.  Another little nap required?

35. Another way to look at this: would anyone really say “I’m going to a toilet” ?  You would be far more likely to hear “I’m going to the toilet”

    “The toilet” doesn’t mean that there is only one toilet in existence, nor does it necessarily mean that you have a specific toilet in mind.  You might not even know if there is a toilet at that location yet.  It indicates the intended action in the abstract.

    In the same way “The call of nature” indicates a desire to pee in the abstract, not a specific instance of the urge at a specific time.  Singular and plural doesn’t really come into it.

     

36. Morning Muffin, your post @ 33 suggests that you are now confusing the definition with the wordplay! If you want something to distract you from the ‘the / a’ topic I was intrigued to note that a quote PeeDee used appears to be attributed to a magazine not then published (‘Tailor and Cutter Oct 1852’ – magazine appears to have been first published in 1866!

37. Hi Robert – that is fascinating!  Good to see that I can rely on the Internet for some accurate information!

    I will have a look in the OED and see if they give any early citations.

38. The OED gives the same T&C quote dated 14th October 1966, so clearly a mistake in the article I originally looked at.

    The magazine itself looks fabulous – a little gem for anyone interested in retro fashion (both the clothing and the publishing).

39. Hi PeeDee, Doesn’t it just! I spent far too long last night ‘leafing’ through past copies online (and learnt a few words from the tailoring lexicon too).

    It amused me that the erroneous citations often referenced ‘The Dictionary of Clichés’ by Christine Ammer (shouldn’t that be ‘A Dictionary’)?

40. [PeeDee – probably not worth bothering. A certain contributor here invariably hijacks the day’s comments with a quibble – usually vacuous. It happens so regularly that it seems intentional. I learnt years ago (literally) not to rise to the bait – it wastes too much time. More irritatingly, and sadly, his need to do this sometimes undermines, and drowns out, the good work of setter and/or blogger. Some, new to the phenomenon, take him seriously enough to embark on epic colloquies which only end when somebody (probably a fresh voice) bothers to produce an unassailable proof that he is wrong. By then, a super puzzle, deserving of praise, has been unfairly maligned. If you remember hedgehoggy – well, this is the drip-feed version. At least hh was honest about it ….. and has gone away!]

41. I rarely comment on the Prize Puzzles but felt I had to pop by to sing the praises of ROARING TWENTIES which is an &lit of the highest order imho. Really enjoyed THE CALL OF NATURE – it wouldn’t have crossed my mind to question it. Though, like Tony@23, I couldn’t see the need for “box”. “Put one in mail” might have been better.
    All in all, another fine offering from Paul. I really don’t know how he keeps doing it. Stonkendous!

    Heartfelt thanks to P and P.

42. [me@40 – I think our friend started contributing here around the time that Araucaria left us. Heaven knows what quibblorrhoea might have ensued. Or whether the dear Rev would have lasted as long as he did!]

43. Hi William – live and let live is what I think.  The quibbles (whilst not always accurate) are on-topic and not disrespectful to the setter, I don’t mind answering the points raised, I got to find out about Tailor & Cutter magazine in the process. What harm does it do to anyone?

44. Apart from everything thing else, where does it say that an ester is a ‘fragrant’ substance? Not in Collins, that’s for sure. Poor.

45. Jaydee, their fragrance doesn’t define esters but it is their most remarked attribute. ‘Pear-drops’ comes to hazy recollection. Bad luck if you didn’t do a bit of Chemistry though, as you can’t find that out till you’ve already got the answer. Then again, you can’t look it up in a dictionary till you’ve got it either, so what’s the odds?

    “Esters with low molecular weight are commonly used as fragrances and found in essential oils and pheromones” is the third sentence in Wikipedia.

46. PeeDee – Well, you’re a better man than I, but I think I already knew that; I’m not sure I’d have the selflessness, even if I had the time, to commit to fifteensquared as you do. All of you (bloggers and, especially, Gaufrid) do a wonderful thing here. And I might have been unfair in some ways though I do recall threads relating to praiseworthy puzzles where the quibble has taken over. In those cases (admittedly a minority) the setter is being disrespected – especially when s/he has clued fairly but the refusal to drop the quibble goes on and on…
    Sorry, maybe it is just me. And maybe I’m a camel. And it only needs a final straw….
    On balance, I think you know best. I’m grateful to you for taking the time and trouble to respond.

Comments are closed.