Financial Times 16,511 by JULIUS

23 comments on “Financial Times 16,511 by JULIUS”

1. Like PeeDee, I got on much better once I’d spotted the theme – lots to enjoy as you’d expect from Julius – so thank you to him and PeeDee

2. A pleasurable solve that exercised the old grey matter to just the right degree. As an LFC fan, my eyes zoomed in immediately on Salah in 14d which was my FOI. Hope I’m not similarly upset at season’s end! Thanks, Julius, for such satisfying word-plays and PeeDee for the blog. I very much enjoyed 10ac.

3. I enjoyed this, though I thought the writers were rather a disparate bunch  – there’s not a lot in common between Colin Dexter and Lee Child.

   I was a bit unhappy about UCL “bisecting” NEON: Chambers says that “bisect” is to “divide into two (usu. equal) parts” (as in bisecting an angle, for example). I suppose the “usually” lets Julius off the hook, but perhaps “splitting” would have been a better choice.

4. Had the same concern as Andrew on “bisecting”. The crossword as a whole was excellent though. Thanks to Julius and PeeDee.

5. I had no problem with UCL bisecting NEON. 1a looked CHAIN LETTER  only because it fit and i didnt have 2d in

   Then I saw RUTH RENDELL, followed by LEN DEIGHTON and JOHN LE CARRE and i was a in a position to see COLIN DEXTER.

   IAN RANKIN  less known but parsing simple. Which left..”Is there a mystery writer LEE C…. and my wife supplied the answer.

    

   Wonderful stuff DAHLing

6. Thanks for the blog PeeDee, and thanks to those who have commented. I’m very fond of Berlin – no city I know can have changed quite so much in my lifetime – and I’m a sucker for older movies set in the city, hence I found myself watching Funeral in Berlin (again) early in lockdown. As the opening credits rolled, the Len Deighton embed came to me immediately. I couldn’t think of a suitable definition though, hence the random(ish) group of undefined writers.

   Best wishes to all, Rob/Julius

7. Thanks, PeeDee, for the blog.

   I’d done about half of this before any themed answers emerged. Then I spotted LEE CHILD, followed quickly by LEN DEIGHTON [like UNKINDEST and ARSONIST, cleverly hidden] and the rest followed fairly quickly and satisfyingly.

   Lots of great clues to enjoy – many thanks, Julius.

   With Puck and Eccles, it’s like birthday and Christmas in one as copmus [almost] said elsewhere.

    

    

8. Andrew – for bisect the OED has

   2. To cut in two, divide into any two parts.  This meaning has been around since 1780.

   Chambers only gives (usu. euqal) in brackets.

   It seems a bit desperate for criticism of the clue.

9. Chuffed to have completed this without sight of the special instructions, which didn’t appear in my on-line version. Colin Dexter was the key, appropriately.
   ‘Carr’ & ‘colter’ were unfamiliar as well, amplifying the smugness.
   I liked the female fire-setter. I of course approve of gender-neutral clues and doubtless the preponderance of male over female arsonists is overwhelming, but still.
   Thanks to all. A grand puzzle.

10. I just looked up bisect in Collins. It specifies splitting into two equal parts (maths) as its first definition and splitting into any two parts as its second definition. Coming from a maths background, I was aware of the first and just (wrongly) assumed it had taken that meaning from general English. Whoops!

11. Fairly difficult for me, but great fun, with some nicely concealed ‘lurkers’.

12. Thanks Julius, PeeDee

    Nice bit of extra difficulty.  Colin Dexter almost last in and favourite clue.

    I see PeeDee has generously provided the ‘to’ in 9 down.  I’m a little surprised it’s not in the clue, after the shuddering over leading trumpeter.

13. Hi James – is that ‘to’ 3 down?

    Personally I can’t see what people find so upsetting about many devices such as “beginning French”, “opening show”, “top hat” etc.

    There again I don’t have much faith in Grammar in general.  Grammar seems to be books full opinionated rules about how English ought to be used, not how it actually is used.  I can see that back in the day education was the preserve of the higher classes, and various venerable gents decided that the “correct” way to use English was, after all, the way they spoke themselves.  Back then the superiority of the higher social classes was taken a a natural truth, and it seemed a perfectly reasonable way to have behaved.  They were not going to have their fishmonger’s speech given the same weight as their own!  A travesty!

    Right now I think that the continued belief in the self-evident truth of books on English Grammar (and similarly opinionated books on what is permissible in crosswords) as a kind of religion.   Fine if you believe it all, but that doesn’t mean anyone else has to believe it too.

14. @James

    it’s a fair cop, guv

15. Hi PeeDee.  Yes, 3d.  I apologise for recruiting you in support of my point. I knew you didn’t mean anything by putting ‘beginning to’ in the blog.  It was just an officious dig at Julius.

    But is this a point of grammar? If so, it’s not a nice one.  ‘What’s the capital of France? F’ is a joke that any English speaker can understand. ‘What’s the first commandment? C’ is not funny.

16. I didn’t consider this assembly of writers disparate particularly since I possess volumes by all but Deighton. But I see I will have to add him to my collection and watch that film too, Julius, though my own penchant lies more towards French films noir and Simenon.

17. Many thanks Julius, great fun looking for authors, and a nice tricky puzzle.

    I was particularly pleased to see John Lee Hooker.

    James@15, that’s a convincing example, i must remember it. On my puzzle printout I had scribbled a little “to” as an insert into 3d.

    Many thanks PeeDee

18. Hi James – that is a good example, but I prefer to remain a non-believer.  This way I can enjoy both the “correct” clues from the strict setters and the “incorrect” clues from the libertarian setters.  Otherwise I have to be unhappy and grumble half the time.  If enjoy a puzzle that doesn’t conform to some rule or other then it is the rule book that goes in the bin not the puzzle.

19. Having solved 7d and 8d, and having read all his books LEE CHILD was my first themester. Knew them all, and read all but one of them. I’ve seen Ian Rankin on several occasions in what was once my local, until they changed my favourite drink for a cheaper brand. I now drink elsewhere, but haven’t for almost 4 months.

20. Thanks Julius & PeeDee.

    I too was confounded by the non-symmetric bisection.

    In 23 across “artist” is part of the wordplay but not the definition.  According to Wikipedia, Amati is the last name of a family of Italian violin makers who lived at Cremona from about 1538 to 1740.

21. Thank you psmith, fixed now.

22. Thanks Julius and PeeDee

    Didn’t find this one as hard as this setter can be.  Was on to the writer theme very early on when the IAN RANKIN trick jumped out at me after getting SALUKI.  Saw JOHN LE CARRE but had no idea of how it parsed until coming here – didn’t know the blues guy or the US-spelt plough.

    There was an interesting variety of clue devices and enjoyed finding the rest of the authors.  As for 17d, I think that copmus@5 has an interesting take on the bisect discussion where a part of UCL, namely the CL part, bisects NEON – and not all of it does – but have to take on trust that all of it was intended to be included.  Hmm … but maybe not !

    Finished with COMPLIANT and CHANCERY up at the top and then down to that NUCLEON as the last one in.

23. This was particularly challenging for us Yanks! Several of the British crime/spy/thriller writers were mysterious…

Comments are closed.