This page is for the discussion of general crossword related matters and other topics of interest.
Comments posted before 19/1/2021 can be found here.
This post is now closed. New comments can be posted here.
104 comments on “General Discussion”
Comments are closed.
Postmark@ 157 on the previous page
That’s a neat trick, though I couldn’t work it out at first because when you said hold up ten fingers, my thumbs were on the outside, palms facing in. You could confuse a stupid person like that
Tony Collman @1: (hey – how special are you with comment No. 1! If past experience is to go by, you should sit at the top of this page for several months). It did strike me that my instructions were somewhat ambiguous but then mot people visiting this are able to turn, twist, reinterpret and generally slice and dice almost anything that’s written so I felt fairly confident readers would be able to make sense of it. Do stupid persons visit Fifteensquared???
PostMark, well, I’m here…
Actually it reminds me of that trick where you tell someone, “I bet I can make you turn your hands over without touching you”. They, of course will deny it, so you tell them, “Ok, hold your hands out”, and when they do, you immediately say “No, other way” and describe small circles with your extended firefingers. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred they will turn their hands over in response. QED.
Cellomaniac and any others who have been sufficiently intrigued to pop over and visit this: A couple of paragraphs of context and then my father’s poem as requested.
My father came of age immediately post-War and was of that generation that, inspired by the war and the first Labour Government, chose to give themselves to public service. He rose through the ranks of a Midlands local authority to become responsible for the delivery of pretty much all services from infrastructure design and construction through street cleaning and waste management to the provision of sports facilities. The presence of dog waste on a football field occasioned the – to be fair, perfectly understandable, complaint from a councillor which – as can happen in local bureaucracy – ended up being elevated to the very top and my father’s desk.
The poem was written in 1983 as a memo – a few of the recipients didn’t really realise it was verse! And that’s how I reproduce it here. Which means the occasional need to reappraise as one reads but the meter and rhyme work pretty much all the way through. There are a couple of references to local geography and one to China where public conveniences were going through a revolution. (Seriously! In Beijing, the early 1980s saw diligent efforts into maintaining and beautifying existing toilets. Hundreds of small toilet facilities were rebuilt by the Construction and Sanitation Ministries, all without a standardized government design and with builders taking chances with architectural expression. They are regarded as extremely attractive with modern day tourists who are unable to read signs now stopping in front of these old public restrooms to take pictures. There’s a thesis written about Chinese restrooms here!)
Anyway, here it is:
“Allow me to address you, Peter, further re the dog excreta on a football field wherein a player fell. It’s all there in your May 5th Salwarpe Valley audit which I myself have got aboard. It must, of course, be quite appalling to feel one’s face in foulness falling but feelings for this felled footballer are tinged with, if one may call a spade a spade, that certain doubt that “crap’ll catch a cretin out”.
The Council’s now agreed to Signs to Dog Owners along the lines that pets should never foul the pitches and even go one better which is the building of a ‘doggy loo’ to be actively thought of too. Though heading for the sort of thing that’s presently rampant in Peking, it may look visually more sound than fencing all around the ground (the option you, yourself, commended). I must admit my own thoughts tended towards the obverse: why don’t we ban players – let the dogs roam free?
But first, upon a note of caution, can I suggest a prior precaution? Whilst doubtless dog-dirt is a bane, is the culprit species canis? After all it’d be absurd if it turned out the offending turd was spraint of otter, scant of mink or some other spoor that you can think of, not forgetting in the least, the fewmets of a Questing Beast (or, like abuse of Norbury House, the droppings of some human louse). My information’s all third hand – I’ve never seen nor smelt it – and I advise you start collecting clues for testing so that informed views of scientific nature can support the anti-canine ban against those who, no doubt well-meant, produce the specious argument that friendship with Man’s furry friend of such longstanding should not end.
Specious since it’s clear Mankind should kill all animals he can find so dominance can’t be undermined.”
The closing triplet is a little dark and hints at his feelings about the wider environment. He was a fairly early Gaian, I think.
Hope you enjoyed. PM
PM @4: Superb
essexboy @5: thanks for taking the trouble and pleased it was worth it.
Very amusing. Thanks PostMark.
We often comment on coincidences in crosswords, such as the same word appearing in different crosswords in the same week, or recently, the same day. I would like to know just how statistically improbable such coincidences are, or are they like the Birthday Paradox, where in a class of 30, it is more likely than not that two people will share a birthday?
Petert @8: are you thinking of HIGH POINT and PREFECT out of interest? I’ve remarked on such coincidences before – I find them intriguing. Others have made it clear it’s of no relevance whatsoever to their solve and disapproved of the comment. You may have seen from yesterday that my moniker has come up 2 or 3 times since early October which I feel is statistically more often than it should. I don’t tend to do the Telegraph these days but do recall an occasion when the same word appeared there and in the Guardian and Indy both. Sorry though, can’t help you with the stats.
Postmark@8 My thoughts were initially sparked by the recent double dose of EPSOM SALTS, but we have been awarded two ROSETTES recently as well as the examples you quote.
Oh yes, of course. Forgot about those two.
PostMark@4, Thank you – your father’s memo is brilliant. He must have been an interesting man to grow up with. And thanks for the further link. It reminded me of the old cliche about Science degrees – BS (obvious), MS (more of the same), and PhD (Piled higher and deeper).
cellomaniac @12: delighted you saw my note and came across. (Nice that a couple of others popped in too.) And really glad you enjoyed it. William’s contribution yesterday made for a nice rhyming couplet but Dad did come up with something a tad more complex. Yes, a smashing chap who managed to combine deep intellect, scholarship and erudition on the one hand with mischievous wit, kindness, warmth and a willingness to listen on the other. I aspire to the second bunch, given that I fail miserably to qualify for the first!
Many thanks for reproducing it in full PostMark@4 – I too had wanted to read it. I fear you wouldn’t get away with it in Local Government these days, sad to say. I take my hat off to your dad. Thanks for the Loo link – may give it a miss now as it is TFIF drink time. I shall raise a glass to PM Senior.
I enjoyed that. I feared it might be unrefined doggerel, but it’s great. Chapeau! TILT “scant of mink”.
But how spooky that – and impossibly related – we get “You could confuse a stupid person” from Tony Collman@1 and “crap’ll catch a cretin out” from Pére PM.
Mark – many thanks for sharing that with us.
JerryG, Pauline, Alphalpha and hatter: thanks to all for taking the time and I’m glad it proved worth it. Alphalpha: I’m delighted your expectations were confounded but can understand why you had them in the first place. Like father, not son!
Not sure that anyone’s noticed that “confuse a stupid person” was a ref to Pete and Dud, the YouTube link being behind those words ..
Tony Collman @18 Thanks for that. I had missed it. Very funny
Thanks PM, that was very funny and entertaining
The online print version of today’s Azed doesn’t have any clues, which makes it tricky.
I seem to be spending a lot of time recently hanging around these particular street corners and I am moved to clear the throat, remove and massage the head-wear, make circles in the litter with the big toe (eyes downcast) and ask (this may be a very stupid question but how stupid on a scale of 1-10 and why?) why are the Times and Sunday Times crosswords outside the purview of 15^2?
Alphalpha @22
The Times puzzles are not included in our portfolio because they are blogged elsewhere: see here. If you look at the ‘About Fifteensquared’ page you will see that this site came about because of the Times blog.
Hatter
I feel the need to clear the air. You did so with Welbeck yesterday evening but I feel we exchanged cross words. I have enjoyed our relationship here and do not want it soured by misunderstanding. Three points:
I had no idea it was Holocaust Remembrance Day. Due to lockdown I am confined largely to home, see no-one other than immediate family and am limited in the news to which I am exposed. I take no daily paper so see the BBC News and headlines on the internet. Neither Tuesday night’s TV news nor any headline I saw this morning alerted me to the day. The first reference I saw was on the Internet this evening. I am not surprised Van Winkle was aware of it and you had your Guardian TV schedule. Ignorance is no defence but I was unaware.
As, indeed, you might have been unaware of the late interaction between VW and I from theTuesday blog which carried over well into today. I had not got involved in the AFRO debate but did take exception to a poster who I felt was being insulting to the community as a whole, though he has since said this was not his intention. As per usual it was not what he was saying so much as the way he was saying it. I took his message to mean that those of us who did not share his perception were proud Boys/Girls. At 10 this morning VW posted, as I saw it, in support of him. I expressed my disappointment and it rumbled on thereafter.
So, when VW came in this afternoon asking me, as I perceived it, out of the blue how Wiggers’ post could be justified/defended I assumed he was calling me out and continuing the debate which, frankly, I didn’t want to do. I had skimmed Wiggers comment which appeared at about the same time as mine shortly after 9 this morning (before VW had come in to the previous day’s discussion and my subsequent interaction with him). I didn’t really see what he was getting at, thought it was a slightly heavy handed reference to the previous day and it barely registered with me. So, not appreciating the significance of the day, not wanting to prolong argument with VW and not wanting to get dragged into more debate along the lines of yesterday (which is in keeping with my attempts to reassure JinA and trishincharente that it’s not there all the time), I tried to deflect. In a classic case of hubris, I was actually feeling rather pleased with myself for commenting on nothing more than Wiggers’ ability to view his screen from another angle and not getting into what I, I repeat, saw as simply reopening the door to yesterday’s argument – which I had barely closed! (BTW, I think VW and I managed civil interaction so I’m not trying to accuse him of anything in this. We just rarely overlap in views.)
Anyway, then your thunderbolt arrived and I found myself being accused of treating Holocaust Remembrance Day lightheartedly and possibly – not sure if I read this right – making offensive jibes. Which isn’t how I saw it at the time. Apologies for a lengthy explanation – which will have either bored or amused anybody else who’s taken the opportunity to read it even though it wasn’t addressed to them – but I hope you can see how the misunderstandings have arisen. ‘Nuff said.
PM
Mark – thanks for taking the trouble to “clear the air”. I wasn’t at all cross with you, because I was pretty sure that you hadn’t clocked that it was Holocaust Memorial Day, and if all I’d had to go on was VW’s reaction to Wiggers I’m not sure I would have either.
Like I said before, the only reason I was directing my disappointment at you was because yours was the only head above the parapet. Would I have been so upset about the very witty observation on the black squares in the grid on any other day of the year? We’ll never know, will we.
I did quickly read the early morning interaction on the previous day’s Vlad blog, but must admit that I didn’t appreciate that it took place after the infamous #28 post on today’s puzzle – you have enlightened me there. (You are a bit harsh on yourself with talk of petrol on fires though: I thought you were perfectly reasonable on the Vlad/Afro contretemps.) Your interventions with JinOz and TinChar with regard to tactfulness and respect were appropriate, and it’s unfortunate that you were undermined by something inflammatory that, as you have explained, you were barely aware of.
I can get upset about racial discrimination (not silly stuff like shock=AFRO=criminal); sexism (when I mentioned my then partner on another forum a few years ago, people started calling her Mrs Hatter; I objected that I didn’t want her to be defined in terms of her being my partner; I don’t think they really got it); and genocide (my brother who lives in Germany took me to see a Jewish cemetery near him; overgrown, uncared for; rows of gravestones covering less than half of the area that the Jewish community had bought for future use; the kind Nazis had saved them the bother of using up the rest of the plot); and obviously Luton Town. Otherwise any arguments about crosswords and stuff, although daggers might seem to have been drawn, are only superficial.
Sorry if I gave you a hard time tonight. As I said to Wellbeck on the Guardian thread, it was getting too heavy and I would prefer to keep it light. But some things are too serious for being lighthearted about.
[Apologies to anyone else on this thread who hasn’t the faintest idea what we’re talking about. Please ignore.]
Having failed miserably on Vlad’s Jan 26 crossword, I did not read the blog. Then the comments on Qaos’s puzzle led me back to what I will call (I hope not disrespectfully) the “Taffy tiff”, and I have a personal view to express.
I come to these crosswords in part for the intellectual stimulus that keeps my brain alive as it ages, especially in this period of covid-deprivation, and in part for the temporary escape it provides from the increasingly stressful real world out there (covid, Trump, Brexit, racism, the rise of xenophobic nationalism, etc., etc.). We all have to pay attention to these things, but it is healthy to have a break from time to time.
When someone challenges a clue as being intentionally or negligently racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive, it brings me back to that world I was seeking temporary escape from. Worse still, as is often the case, if I find that the clue didn’t strike me as offensive, but on reflection I agree with the objection, the commenter (intentionally or not) makes me feel guilty about my failure to spot the offense. And so the brief respite from that outer world is shattered.
I think there are many fora for the discussion and healthy, constructive debate of issues of importance in our society. I would respectfully suggest that Fifteensquared, which celebrates the innocent fun of wordplay in our beautiful language, is not the best (or most effective) forum for raising such issues.
Good outline, cellomaniac @26, of the ethical dilemma. Escape, yes. My dad, a born provocateur who happened to love cryptics, called them mental masturbation. But when issues arise one has to face them, there is no neutral ground really, with the biosphere on a knife-edge, so I wouldn’t want 225 neutred. My boundary is the personal rather than the idealogical. So some time ago when someone suggested that a poster (with whom I was disagreeing) went elsewhere, I said No, don’t exile, embrace and engage.
cellomaniac@26 – a complication is that the Guardian crossword is perhaps unique in being locked in to the famously progressive editorial standards of the newspaper that it accompanies . This is why some of us consider that the occasional slip is worthy of comment on this site. And these comments have always assumed an absence of intent and made no claims of racist behaviour.
My experience is that when such comments are made, the troubles have started when people respond with accusations of virtue signalling and ulterior motives rather than a pat on the head and a “never mind”. It is a puzzle why a handful of people are so vituperative in their expression of offence at those taking offence, especially when the initial comments are usually expressions of concern and not disgust.
Failure to master link presentation. Clicking on the bit in blue in the preceding comment takes you to the Guardian feature on crosswords and editorial standards.
I do sympathise with cellomaniac @26, but I think GinF has provided the perfect riposte: “when issues arise one has to face them” and “don’t exile, embrace and engage”. The AFRO situation the other day is a good illustration of this: the blog was invaded by someone who had been rudely rebuffed on the Guardian crossword page’s comments and came here scattering insults indiscriminately – it didn’t help that he was accused of ‘virtue signalling’. He eventually calmed down and apologised; I wonder if we’ll ever see him again?
Van Winkle @28. Well said. I think the linked article has appeared here before, as it was certainly not unfamiliar to me. The stand out examples (MICROCEPHALIC and CRIPPLE) are salutary. That the first was given a seemingly jokey but utterly cringeworthy cryptic definition should make toes curl, and the latter, as the then readers’ editor pointed out, could have been defined in terms of a disabled ship rather than a disabled human without any loss to the solving community. It just takes a little thought.
sheffield hatter
You will NEVER see me again on this site.
I’m sure you’ll be delighted with that result.
Anna – Oh dear. I missed you when you went last time and have enjoyed your company much more since you returned and we have interacted more. As always, you would/will be welcomed back.
Anna – I am very far from being delighted with that result. Your contributions to the site have been amusing, apposite and informative and I was always pleased to see your name amongst the comments. It was disappointing to see the words virtue signalling in your post the other day, but I was careful not to criticise you by name because I thought it entirely possible that you had not understood the origins of the phrase and were simply copying others who had used it previously and had escaped criticism. It is a nasty phrase and is used “as a sneering insult by those on the right against progressives to dismiss their statements as grandstanding“, which I am sure is not what you intended.
Do please reconsider.
Anna, I think we hope that you reconsider. A very unfortunate series of events led to a general imbalance of humours, with people getting choleric then melancholic. Hopefully, before long, everyone will return to their usual sanguine and phlegmatic selves. Your wealth of knowledge is a real asset for the group. We need our resident linguist. I always look forward to your comments and we are missing you already.
Anna. Yes please reconsider. We would indeed miss your insights.
Me @34 That was supposed to say ‘we all hope that you reconsider’.
Gaufrid@23: Thanks for that – I knew it was a stupid question. I have been doing the Sunday Times xword for ever and only became aware of the “Times for the Times” site recently – after having encountered 15^2 in fact so for no good reason I have them the wrong way round in terms of, erm, sequence.
Thanks as always – don’t know how you do it.
Anna I’d like to add my hope that you reconsider – I really enjoy your contributions. I’d consider myself somewhere to the left of Lenin politically and historically I’ve used the phrase “virtue signalling” for people from all parts of the political spectrum. But, it does seem to have been adopted by those on the populist right so I’m on the lookout for a new neologism
Anna @31 – of course I join others in urging you to stay – but I’m puzzled as to why it was sheffield hatter’s comment that tipped you over the edge,
I don’t reckon to look at the Guardian crossword thread, except when I’m blogging, when I often drop in, just before posting my blog, to see how the puzzle has gone down there. When I did so on Tuesday, I was surprised to see the reaction to AFRO, which I had parsed without thinking – ‘criminal’ being such a common anagram indicator and ‘shock’ a synonym for hair. (After later research, I found the most recent clue for AFRO = shock here, just last month).
I had steered clear of subsequent discussion but, because it was my blog, my inbox was inundated with comments, right up to this morning.
I think that, as PostMark has indicated, on this site’s Guardian thread, there have been attempts (e.g. what I called elsewhere the perverse and provocative ‘alternative parsing’ for AFRO – see above) to cause dissent on this site. I think / hope these have been largely dismissed.
As has been commented on many times, this site does have a reputation for being one of the more reasonable and civil websites – I don’t contribute to any others and so I couldn’t possibly comment 😉 – but I do hope Anna changes her mind.
It has been suggested that I should face up to issues when they arise, and that I should embrace and engage. Herewith some context:
My professional background was labour and human rights law, and my politics are decidedly left of centre. I was a university administrator responsible for employment and academic equity, human rights, freedom of speech and academic freedom issues. I spent my entire working life facing up to issues, embracing and engaging. For example, I frequently found myself mediating between pro-life and pro-choice student groups, and Jewish and Palestinian rights groups, all advocating their right to freedom of expression while denying their opponents’ concurrent right.
As you can imagine, the job was stressful and I found relief in my outside activities, playing string quartets and playing in a community orchestra, curling, and doing crosswords – all activities that did not intersect with the pressures of my job.
Then along came covid, and my musical and curling social lives have been put on hold for the past year and the foreseeable future. That leaves crosswords and other solitary activities. Fortunately, 225 partially turns crosswords into a social activity. I enjoy the cut and thrust of friendly argument over wordplay grammar and syntax on the site, along with the personal anecdotes and (especially) the puns and links to the Two Ronnies and Pete & Dudley, etc. It all makes me feel part of a community. But when the discourse turns to the rightness or wrongness of people’s (which necessarily includes my) responses to sexism, racism, etc. in the crosswords, it takes me somewhere I do not wish to go, and I object to being told that I have a duty to go there.
Incidentally, I am not objecting to political references and themes in the puzzles. As long as the wordplay is clever and fun, the subject matter doesn’t matter. After all, Araucaria’s most famous clue, THE OLD VICARAGE GRANTCHESTER was political. And Brendan’s cathartic post-election puzzle was a thing of beauty.
So I’m sort of feeling like Anna now, wanting to get back to simply enjoying cryptic crosswords as innocent fun. But, and I hope Anna considers doing this, I will drop in from time to time to see what’s happening, and will reengage when virtue signalling, political correctness, wokeness and Proud Boys are not topics of the conversation.
Bye for now.
cellomaniac @40: understood, but haste ye back – and Anna too, ça va de soi 🙂
And there was I thinking that Gaufrid had chosen to start a new page when he did in order to draw a line under the AFRO thread.
cellomaniac @40 (and Anna again): this is a sad day to be bidding au revoir – but not goodbye I hope – to two friends. (And probably also, having committed what I suspect was an innocent but almighty faux pas with which I can sympathise, Wiggers). Cellomaniac – you were outspoken when I chose to depart the site for a while and I return the sentiment. I understand and empathise with your feelings. I have been there.
But, truth to tell, I did miss the site. The positives drew me back. Initially via the Indy/FT and then back to the G with a modified name and a modified perspective. Suffice to say, the only thing that has got me truly personally riled since I returned was the recent Proud Boy slur referred to by cellomaniac. (And, to show I can empathise with VW et al, I guess that’s how some others feel when they are labelled snowflakes or whatever. It adds another – unpleasant – layer to the cut and thrust.)
So I hope you both miss the site and come to realise that it can continue to play a part in your lives. Which means you will continue to play a part in ours. No disrespect to any other contributors who may read this but you are both distinct and strong characters who bring something very individual to this site in terms of both cruciverbal contribution and wider interest/knowledge and we will be the poorer without you. And, having been there, I suspect you will end up feeling the poorer without us. So take your time and then do reconsider. As eb says, hast ye back. 😀
PM
Thanks for the thoughts, essexboy and PostMark. I have enjoyed your comments a great deal over the months, and I will undoubtedly be back when the Guardian page has returned to fun, pun and play. Meanwhile I am doing as you did, PM – the FT page is free of the controversies that have marred the Guardian one (although, because fewer people participate, it also has less of its breadth of experiences, wit, and playfulness), so I’ll participate in that page for now.
[Cello: in case you pop back. I can certainly vouch for the Independent: some super setters including several from the G under other names; ditto one or two posters you will recognise (admittedly inc me!) and I’ve not encountered much controversy – yet. Your qualifier is correct, though. Considerably less interaction between posters so fewer discussions/threads and no running jokes. The FT is excellent; I don’t tackle it regularly though so our paths will cross infrequently if it becomes your staple.]
PM@43: thank you for your concern but I have no plans to go anywhere just yet. I have only recently caught up on all the fuss and then I spent some time reflecting. I have resisted the temptation to change my moniker to “the infamous #28” (thank you, Sheffield Hatter for, the suggestion) following my comment on Qaos 28,353. Was it a faux pas? Maybe. Was it innocent? Definitely not. Would I make a similar comment in similar circumstances? Almost certainly. I am not saying I am “right”, only that I wish to be afforded the opportunity to ridicule the ridiculous. I struggle to do that with tact and respect. By the same token, I am happy, even delighted, when people take exception to what I say. It generates heat, but hopefully also some light.
I share your, and others’, disappointment at seeing Anna and cellomaniac declining further engagement. I share some responsibility for that and I am sorry for it.
I was recently sent a list of anagrams of writers to solve and was surprised how much harder it was without enumeration. Do cryptic crosswords always include enumeration? I have a vague memory of trying one without in the dim and distant past.
Wiggers @46 – a quick check of the site policies will confirm that these pages do not offer you the opportunity to ridicule the ridiculous. I doubt that anyone posts without believing what they write, so that even if you think they are misguided the happy response would be to explain your alternative view, not insult their position.
In the two relevant events of this week, no-one has put a case as to why it would be unreasonable to express regret that the Guardian should publish a clue that could straightforwardly be misinterpreted as asking the solver to equate criminals and black people or a grid featuring Nazi insignia on World Holocaust Day. I would be interested in hearing these arguments. But all we get back are sarcasm and accusations of virtue signalling, wokeness and a strange desire to wish offence upon oneself.
As Vic and Bob said
Sorry. That was a failed attempt to insert a link.
Van Winkle @47. Though I agree to some extent with the sentiments in your first paragraph, I would take issue with your assertion that the clue ‘Shock for a criminal’ could straightforwardly be misinterpreted as asking the solver to equate criminals and black people. You are an experienced solver of cryptic clues, and you must surely see that even a complete novice would struggle to make “all black people are crooks” out of that. In that Vlad thread @112, our respected fellow commenter essexboy set out quite clearly why the interpretation was wrong and why there was no need for anyone to feel the need to apologise to Taffy in particular or the world in general. There have been plenty of other responses that weren’t “sarcasm and accusations of virtue signalling”.
As for the supposed SS insignia, Wiggers has taken some responsibility for the fall out from that, and I don’t think anything more needs saying. The idea that anyone in this community, or the Guardian newspaper itself, should feel the need to express regret for the use of a particular grid on a particular day is outlandish in the extreme.
Like everybody else I deplore the attempts of those on the right to depict those of us on the left as humourless, over-sensitive, dismissive of others and over-concerned with minutiae and internal arguments.
Petert @52. Was that Reeves and Mortimer?
Sheffield hatter. Yes it was. The catch phrase seemed appropriate
sheffield hatter @51 – I set out my solving experience in comment 114 on that blog. Solving the clue requires spotting two crossword cliches, but if you only spot the first “Shock for a criminal” straightforwardly becomes a misinterpreted cryptic defintion asking for a “haircut that a criminal might have”. I consider this at least as straightforward as being expected to identify “criminal” as an anagrind, which doesn’t make any particular sense as an instruction to reorder letters. I only saw the anagram after apparently solving the clue and a “surely not?”.
And here I can draw a big circle and meet up with cellomaniac. The reason why snowflakes like me raise these issues is not because we wish to see racists everywhere but because of the reminder that there are people in this world who would take great delight in setting a clue in this way, breaking into our innocent fun, perhaps even reminding us that we are not ourselves completely free of racist thought. The situation was perhaps even better exemplified when Tramp inadvertently led solvers to believe they were being asked to imagine John Barnes and slaves were associated.
And I still don’t see how it would be outlandish (let alone extremely so) for me to wish that the Guardian hadn’t published the SS grid on World Holocaust Day. I am making no claim that it should under no circumstances have happened or that apologies might be necessary from anyone. Just that it was an unfortunate coincidence and if someone had expressed sadness on fifteensquared about it, my reaction would not have been to ridicule them.
Van Winkle @55 Setters should think about the possible implications of clues ? Yes
It’s not a good idea to make jokes about the Nazis on World Holocaust Day? Yes Suggesting that the silly idea that the Guardian published an SS grid (as jokingly broached in said silly joke) actually happened? Overstating your case, I feel. Sorry to break my own injunction to let it lie.
petert @56 – the joke was based on the fact that the symbols actually were in the grid and the contributor satirised the purported snowflake reaction to this fact. I am making no case that the grid was an outrage – just that if someone had remarked with sadness on the coincidence in the comments, I would have sympathised with their sadness, but the joke have already preordained that the appropriate reaction would be ridicule. Without the scene set by the satirical mugging, there would be nothing worthy of comment here.
Rip/Peter,
You appear to be the width of a fag paper apart on the salient points.
I wasn’t the least bit offended by Wigger’s ‘joke’, unfunny as it was. Very much into military history myself, more WW1 and have ‘done’ Ypres, Verdun and the Somme in that order, alone. Prefer to let the enormity sink in quietly.
Absolutely, definitely he did not make it specifically because it was said day.
Regrettably mud is thrown in both directions these days and to be honest I can’t from that one comment put him in any far ‘camp’, more that he’s weary of the arguments. The Gauss curve of modern politics is regrettably becoming flatter for all manner of reasons. I really do despair at times. I class myself as a New Labour (aka F off Red Tory Scum), slightly left of centre rationalist. I saw some merit in some of Corbyn’s stuff, but he was ‘weak’ and arrived with too much baggage. The Blues played a blinder in the last election. I hate them for the Pip stuff and overdoing Austerity but do not believe they are in any way shape or form ‘evil’. Different cheek, same arse.
Thank you for your steadfast resolution, it’s quite heartening that people do try and remove the casual ingrained nastiness from daily life and when I think back to the accepted norms of the 60s/70s to now I shudder to recall how abysmal society could be then, accepting that life was still hard for the native British too. ( ‘If you want a N for your Neighbour, Vote Labour’, ‘Rivers of Blood’, ‘No Irish, Dogs, Blacks’ etc).
Chip away, it does make a difference. Thank you for seeing my viewpoint on the Afro business.
Seasoned campaigners were very quick to shout that ‘Criminal’ was a very common Anagrid. I didn’t even know it was called an Anagrid FFS! You have your own cliquey world here with its own lexicon. I’m looking for ‘hints’, nothing more, nor less. So if I see ‘Shock’ that is a hint, ‘for a’ when the answer is 4 characters is a no brainer, ‘Criminal’, the solution. As others have pointed out, ‘Shock of hair’ is another ‘in’ device, yet this was also rebutted as an Afro is as far away from a ‘shock’ (long, unkempt, straggly) as can be imagined.
I’ve made my point and apologised to those who were tangentially offended when not the target. I was absolutely stunned when Anna called me a virtue signaller, it seemed so, so unlike her. I’d loved her wisdom and obvious love of crosswords and languages. Also, in my defence I did not accuse Eileen of anything whatsoever, it was the casual (potential) nastiness of the clue I objected to.
Someone later mentioned that it was good I was not around for the Welch debate! Wish I was. I usually counter that with Georgie Porgie. A dissolute, gluttonous, promiscuous, entitled, rake who was infamous for making huge bets and demanding payment of his winnings yet forgetful when he lost. As a British King to be, Hannoverian, Royal I quickly defused any claims of being anti English.
Peace folks.
Vigilance too.
No more Cripple etc clues. Thanks for the link. Someone mentioned it should have been edited (the Afro stuff). There is no editor quoth someone else. That link suggested there is. Maybe that was where I should have sent my ‘petition’.
Anyways. Am done with this. Will pop in for the solutions, and maybe scan the chats.
I hate FB (long since left) and most social media with a passion. My recent experience in here reinforces that. Anonymity breeds toxicity – Note to self, you joined in.
In my defence, I’ve been an avid follower of the Lincoln Project, so was ‘triggered’ can we say, when similar vitriol from there came my way here. At least nobody said lock/string me up.
Taffy: No way in a million years would any crossword compiler use ‘criminal’ as a definition for AFRO in the way that you have suggested. Even if the idea was to equate people of darker skin with crimiality, the word Afro does not denote an African person: it is the name of a hair style. (It can also be a combining form as in Afro-Caribbean, but that would never appear on its own as AFRO in the grid.)
A more likely answer when the definition is, as it was not in this clue, ‘criminal’ (and I write this with no personal animosity or prejudice against the Welsh people) might be TAFFY, but again no setter in the Guardian would do that because it is blatantly offensive. The clue for AFRO was not by any stretch of the imagination the remotest bit offensive, and I can understand the animosity and disbelief of those who expressed their incredulity at your suggesting that it was, though not necessarily for the way they expressed it.
I would like to take issue with you about your reference to SS insignia and the grid on Holocaust Memorial Day. Of course there was no intention to offend, by either the crossword editor or the setter of the puzzle on the 27th. There were no SS insignia in the grid, merely blacked out squares in a symmetrical pattern, as always. Of course Wiggers had no idea about HMD when he made his jibe so humourously, and he has expressed his regret for his part in what happened subsequently.
It was nevertheless very upsetting. I know because I was very upset. And you do not make things any better by saying that you weren’t offended because you’re “very much into military history.” As if the insignia of the SS were equivalent to those of the Coldstream Guards. Vigilance, indeed.
My Dear Mr Hatter,
“It was nevertheless very upsetting. I know because I was very upset. And you do not make things any better by saying that you weren’t offended because you’re “very much into military history.” As if the insignia of the SS were equivalent to those of the Coldstream Guards. Vigilance, indeed.”
I know my two pips and Nulli Secundus, would never equate the two. Ever.
I’ve stood at Mametz, Thiepval, Menin Gate, Tyne Cot and Douaumont.
And cried. With absolutely no shame at all. Seeing the graves of kids of 16,17,18 does not make one remotely proud of their sacrifice. It’s harrowing. Douaumont especially, as inside the memorial are massive heaps of entombed bone fragments. There you go, some virtue signalling.
Your argument is spinning around a bit here. You say Wiggers’ jibe was made ‘so humourously’, but the infamous Godwin’s Law is well understood. When you drag in anything from that era to make your point, you have instantly lost the argument and in this case, given the timing and context, a lot more on top.
I too could have chosen to vent my spleen in a similar manner, but it was not relevant. I was being accused of modern day, left/right wing ‘crimes’ and responded in a similar vein.
Quite why this was not challenged is beyond me……
“Was it a faux pas? Maybe. Was it innocent? Definitely not. Would I make a similar comment in similar circumstances? Almost certainly”
I was prepared to let the SS shit slide (and believe me, I’m very woke to the SS, very much get their culture) as it was clearly aimed at snowflake me yet ridiculously contrived in the context of the grid, but at the time I too didn’t know the significance of the day.
Yet you now chose to upbraid me when Wiggers states clearly that ok, maybe I got the day wrong, nevertheless you ‘lot’ can just lap it up.
Why I hate social media. It’s rarely social.
With that I will definitely sign off from here. Shame as there are definitely some sharp minds here, funny folks too, compassionate…the cats’ eaten the rest of my Thesaurus.
P.S. I still forgive Wiggers his initial faux pax. His response was a sit back and reset moment. Would recommend that maybe ‘Uncle Adolf’ is not the first port of call when making a point, it’s a bit Katie Hopkins and she couldn’t….. ‘Insert something very simple here’, let alone figure out Afro. One who very much would make the criminal connection when told the answer. Unquestionably. QED. Where I started and where I end.
This will only mean anything to Terry Pratchett fans, but the discussion re “afro” reminded me very much of the book “Carpe Jugulum”.
We need to recognise why things are bad and poisonous, but the pendulum may have swung too far when we can make patterns out of *everything* and seek to find offense where it’s very unlikely to exist.
We’ve encountered Vlad as an excellent setter for a long time; is he likely to try to slip in a racist message to one of his crosswords? No, of course not.
In “Carpe Jugulum” the patriarch of the vampire family pointed out how silly it was for vampires to cower just because someone was holding up two candles in the shape of a crucifix.
So he taught them to recognise dangerous religious symbols that could be made like that.
The trouble was that, by the end, they could see dangerous religious symbols in absolutely anything if they looked hard enough.
Can’t we stick to the real battles that need fighting?
Fussing about this clue can only add weight to the arguments of people who talk about “snowflakes” and “virtue signaling”. Getting agitated about something that obviously wasn’t meant badly enables them to lump this perceived offence in with actual offences and say that people are too sensitive and minimise other offences.
Maybe we need to choose our battles and this isn’t a hill I’d be prepared to die on.
PS
I’ve also seen a really good message board dragged down by random new posters who are not invested in it but just like being keyboard warriors.
I hope this doesn’t happen here.
Reflecting on recent discussions, here and on some of the daily blogs, I conclude the week with a feeling of sadness. I acknowledge I open myself to accusations of naivety but I feel the site is losing some of its innocence. (And I draw on the phrase used so much post 9/11). There are huge iniquities, imbalances and oppressions in the world. Many wrongs. And they need to be righted and all of us to play our part. And it is clear from comments on this page that contributors are fighting those battles in the workplace, within friendship groups, in the political arena and so on. I applaud and support that.
I’m another for whom crosswords and this site have been a bit of an escape. I’m not being an ostrich; I know the evils are present in all fields of human activity – for example, I have watched YouTube videos on subjects as diverse as bushcraft, cooking, flash floods and life on Svalbard and encountered comments beneath from racists, xenophobics, religious hate groups, misogynists. And it’s right that those elements are confronted, countered and called out. Somehow, however, I want to cling to the idea that there can be some spaces where the vast majority of people are not seeking opportunity to push hate agendas. We live in a world of conspiracy theory but I cannot believe that the Guardian setters and editors have been recruited to a subversive effort to infiltrate hatred into the puzzles.
I completely agree with Van Winkle’s phrase “the sadness of coincidence”. I honestly do believe that the Afro’s, Slaverings, grid appearances etc deserve that observation but certainly without attribution of intention and I would go so far as to say generally with only mild admonition for insensitivity. When the touchy subjects are lavatorial or political, sure I suspect setters enjoy pushing the boundary and chancing their arm. I doubt many setters are thinking “how far can I make this racist before lots of people complain?” On Tuesday, we were some 50 comments in when the alternative parsing of Afro was introduced; no one had complained and the clue had been highlighted three times as a favourite construction. The alternative parsing then submitted was described as “Clever but not remotely funny” which attributes intent. Since Vlad didn’t compose it to be parsed that way, it was neither of those things. Which led to defence of the clue and thus to escalation.
I would modify StoneRose’s closing line and opt for choosing our battlefields. It’s not unreasonable to start with an assumption, based on historical observation, that Guardian crosswords and this community that discusses them, are for the large part innocent and well intentioned. As the articles on crossword psychology mentioned recently, we’re here for the buzz we get from words, puzzles and conversation stemming from them. If we have agendas of our own, on the whole we pursue those in other areas of life. Unless the setters and editors simply eliminate from the list of acceptable solutions, and from every sanctioned clue, any word or device that could be interpreted as having the potential for contention, we will always encounter situations where some readers will perceive grounds for criticism. I believe we can avoid much of the bad blood if we do others here the honour of attributing these to the sadness of coincidence rather than intent to offend. We might then avoid the escalation that has characterised the blogs in question.
“I believe we can avoid much of the bad blood if we do others here the honour of attributing these to the sadness of coincidence rather than intent to offend.”
Better phrased than I could have wished of constructing.
Yes, very well put, Mark.
This was also well said and apposite:
“I’ve also seen a really good message board dragged down by random new posters who are not invested in it but just like being keyboard warriors.
I hope this doesn’t happen here.”
Of the many possible reactions to the afro clue, these two seem to have been the most common:
1) Oh dear, there’s an unfortunate implication in the clue.
2) I didn’t see anything in the clue, and I’d prefer not to look beyond that where clearly nothing was intended
These two positions both seem to me to be reasonable, and unassailable. It’s no good those in camp 2 saying there is no implication, because it has been spotted independently by many people. Camp 2’s position is subjective, and safe on that ground (except the issue of intention, which is irrelevant). So why all the trouble? Isn’t it only when people go beyond explaining their own position, and try to undermine others’, by imputing motives and contriving arguments that are often mere sophistry? Nothing is more likely to inflame a row among intelligent people than being told what you think using illogic.
For what it’s worth, I am in camp 1. I think it’s a shame that it’s not possible to comment on things like that here without giving the majority the willies.
As an aside, on the SS point: I have been watching back episodes of Friday Night Dinner with my family. It is a British sitcom about a Jewish family that always gets together for Friday dinner. In one episode it is a son’s birthday. The dad gives him a book (it is declined) about the SS. It a funny scene, written by a Jewish writer.
Whether jokes referring to Nazism are in bad taste depends on the joke (unless they are all in bad taste). If it is in bad taste, does it make any difference what day of the year it is? If it’s not in bad taste, I can’t see that it’s made so on one particular day. That would seem to imply that we only need to remember on memorial days.
James: I’ll reply to your last paragraph as I was the one making the fuss about this. I think I said that it was a bad joke anyway, but it was made worse by the coincidence of the particular day on which it was made. Partly this is because I would have hoped there would have been some raised awareness of the holocaust because of the memorial day, so it was disappointing that hardly anyone knew. Subsequent discussion seems to have focussed on the coincidence of the day rather than the bad taste, which of course is not linked specifically to the calendar.
James:
“Of the many possible reactions to the afro clue, these two seem to have been the most common:
1) Oh dear, there’s an unfortunate implication in the clue.
2) I didn’t see anything in the clue, and I’d prefer not to look beyond that where clearly nothing was intended”
I would suggest a third reaction (mine) which was your 1) Oh dear…etc, followed by your 2) I didn’t see anything in the clue…but then: then and I have given consideration to it, but see that clearly nothing unpleasant was intended”.
So please may I be in camp/reaction/whatever 3?
Because I did look beyond – I can face up to things and don’t turn my face away – and accepted the innocence.
I am forced to write this notice as I see that one person in particular has been continuously telling untruths about me. I have rarely felt so outraged and wronged in my entire life; if I were a man, it would definitely be pistols at dawn.
I have never called anyone a virtue signaller. If you would care to revisit my comment, @ 50 on last Wednesday’s Guardian Cryptic blog … :
I don’t understand the need some people feel to see alternate parsing in clues, just so they can imagine something they can be offended about. Is it a form of virtue signalling?
I think there was another case recently, when someone was offended over something quite innocuous.
… you will see two things. Firstly, that I asked a question ‘is this a form of virtue signalling?’. It’s a question, not a statement. And secondly, it was a general comment on what I see as a growing trend, and not (I repeat NOT) directed at anyone in particular.
That did not stop Taffy claiming that I had called him a ‘virtue signaller’, and this being taken up as accepted fact and repeated many times by himself and others. When it again appeared @ 30 on GD, that was for me the Final Straw. And yet it was still being repeated even as late as @ 58.
When I asked that question, I was wondering quite literally if these people are trying to show themselves as being virtuous, indulging in a form of ‘holier-than-thou-ness’. I had no idea that the phrase Virtue Signaller even exists, let alone know what it means or by whom it is used. Remember that I have lived abroad for over ten years – I am not current with modern jargon. Nor did I understand a large part of the vocabulary that appeared in subsequent posts. What on earth is a Proud Boy or a Proud Girl when it’s at home?
My own politics are, to use bodycheetah’s words, also ‘to the left of Lenin’. I would rather slit my own throat than be thought of as a ‘rightwing activist sneering at leftwing individuals on culture war topics.’
I did say that I am never going to participate on this site again. I even wrote the adverb in capital letters. I cannot go back on that. Nobody would ever take me seriously again if I did. I am simply not going to take the risk of being further insulted now or in the future. I do this with a heavy heart as I am a lonely person and the blog did at least give me the chance to ‘talk’ to another human being during the day.
I am therefore bowing out and I will not react again. And I’m wagging my finger very strongly indeed.
StoneRose: I think the first two paras of mine @59 put me pretty firmly in your camp 3 too. I can remember solving this clue and thinking that ‘shock’ was a poor definition for AFRO but it never occured to me that there was anything offensive about the proximity of the word for a hair style often worn by people of African cultures (and also by Eric Clapton, for a short time, and Leo Sayer) and the overused anagrind ‘criminal’. Like you, I thought about this carefully and considered that, although the person claiming to have seen the implication seemed genuine, he was definitely mistaken.
It’s a case of “sorry you took offence” rather than “sorry you were offended”.
Anna @70
Even if Anna doesn’t return, I for one would welcome future contributions from PostAnna.
Anna – In the Vlad thread the other day, you wrote: “I don’t understand the need some people feel to see alternate parsing in clues, just so they can imagine something they can be offended about. Is it a form of virtue signalling?”
I agree this does not amount to accusing anybody of “virtue signalling”, and I apologise for carelessly adopting Taffy’s casual allegation in that regard. When I first picked up on the use of the term (in my post @69) I wrote: “if there is to be a discussion it would be better not to use the term virtue signalling”. I used the word “use” here because (as I wrote on this thread @33) “I thought it entirely possible that you had not understood the origins of the phrase and were simply copying others who had used it previously.” I based this on my understanding that you lived in Finland and could easily have not picked up the usage of the term from US and UK usage.
I can fully appreciate, as another on Lenin’s left, that once you had been apprised of its use by reactionaries to silence progressives, being accused of using this term was very upsetting for you. I apologise once again for any part I played in causing that upset – I thought I had been careful to express myself in a way that would not be seen as accusing you, but evidently I failed in that objective.
It seems to me that Taffy, and others like him, are (as StoneRose said @62) “random new posters who are not invested in [the forum] but just like being keyboard warriors.” If valued members of this community feel they must leave the site as a result of the actions of people like that, they have won.
Please don’t let them win, Anna. You *can* go back on your “adverb in capitals” and we *will* take you seriously. If you don’t appear again, I for one will miss having your finger wagged sternly in my direction.
I’m afraid to say that the recent controversy has made me look at grid patterns in full Dan Brown mode. What were the four diagonally descending H’s about in Vlad’s puzzle, this week? or the opposing arrows in today’s Guardian prize (like Dad’s Army opening credits)? Are there a limited number of grid patterns, and has anybody ever used the pattern (as opposed to a Nina) as part of a theme?
essexboy@ 72 and Anna@ 70 or we could welcome Annanother1 ?
@StoneRose
The two positions I described are simplistic. They were used to illustrate the pointlessness of the arguments. They are both tenable, and because of that, people have resorted to false reasoning and imputing motives in trying to dislodge others from sensible opinions.
I think you’re saying that you spotted the unfortunate implication but think it’s better to let it go because it was obviously inadvertent. Who could object to that? If only that had been the general response. Instead, the most common defence to criticism of the clue was denial and attack. The denial relies either on how the clue parses (when the implication is in plain English), or on lack of intent. But I’m not aware of anyone in camp 1 expressing an opinion that it was not done inadvertently. The thought of any setter, let alone one in the Guardian, let alone Vlad, who strikes me as a cross between Marina Hyde and Bob Mortimer (i.e. utterly sound and funny), doing anything like that on purpose is ludicrous. If the crosswords were anonymous, we could discuss the words as coming from the Guardian. We have a name and a person for the Guardian to hide behind, but the words are still coming from the Guardian.
@Sheffield Hatter
I think denying the plain English implication of ‘hair for a criminal: afro’ by saying afro is a neutral term for a hairstyle is, to put it mildly, a weak argument. I may have misunderstood StoneRose, but I think he is not denying the implication, only saying, so what, it was an accident?
You are also saying that people were wrongly offended by the clue. At one stroke, you are both speaking for the feelings of others (who said they were offended by the clue (as opposed to just saying it was a dodgy clue)?) and cutting them down for it.
Anna
Yes, you wrote an adverb in capital letters, but your blood was up. You were outraged. Of course you would still be taken seriously.
You’ve said yourself that you will miss the daily chats if you bow out, but what about the many people on here that think of you as a friend? Your leaving would hurt us as well. I like to able to think that I’ve got a friend in Finland. As several people have said, your insights are highly valued and we don’t want you to go.
By the way, I love that you are to the left of Lenin politically as well as on the map (I know you’re also up a bit).
James: You have misquoted the clue. It is not ‘hair for a criminal’, it is ‘shock for a criminal’. My first reading of the surface was as a semi-straight definition, so a possible answer would be JAIL (or GAOL). Then I thought of a hardened criminal who might be expecting to go down, so BAIL would be a shock (which would make the clue more humeous, but still unlikely). I decided to leave the clue until I had a crosser or two, at which point an anagram of FOR A seemed more likely, with ‘criminal’ the obvious anagrind (though I was prepared to consider ‘shock’ in this role if a four-letter criminal occurred to me). Since AFRO is a possible (though in my opinion slightly inaccurate) synonym for ‘shock’ and not by any stretch of the imagination either defined by or alluded to by ‘criminal’, I went with the obvious answer and obvious parsing.
Even Enoch Powell would have struggled to suggest that an Afro hairstyle is typical of criminals, so I thought that the misinterpretation of the clue was fanciful. I am surprised that an experienced crossword man like yourself would describe it as a “plain English implication of ‘hair for a criminal: afro’. ”
Or has your inaccurate recall of the words in the clue led you to a false conclusion?
You have also misunderstood my distinction between “sorry you took offence” and “sorry you were offended”. The former does *not* imply either that the person did not feel offended, or that they were wrong to take offence, only that no offence was intended. I would not used your term “people were wrongly offended”; I would say that, because of a misunderstanding on their part, they took offence where none was intended, and where it was reasonable to believe that none could be taken.
James @76: I’ve been seeing where you’re coming from in your thread and appreciate your contribution. I noted in my own reflections on this a little earlier, “The alternative parsing then submitted [for the AFRO clue] was described as “Clever but not remotely funny” which attributes intent.” The quote within the quote is what Taffy put down after submitting his reading of the clue. That is not, in my book, an acknowledgment that “…the thought of any setter… doing anything like that on purpose is ludicrous.” I certainly read it as an accusatory comment and the defence of the setter/outrage than anyone could defend the indefensible etc escalation began. The “cleverness” was on Taffy’s part to see an interpretation that had clearly passed many of us by (here and on the G site) and which we seem to agree was unlikely to have been in the mind of the setter. If Taffy had made his observation on the parsing and ruefully reflected on (Van Winkle’s phrase again) “the sadness of coincidence” I suspect the temperature might never have got so high.
Anna @70: I took some pleasure from seeing your post – it meant you were still glancing at the page which means you’ll have seen how much many of us want you to stay. And I loved the ‘pistols at dawn’ and ‘wagging my finger’ comments because those are parts of the Anna I’ve come to know and love! (Though I should warn you, hatter has access to a firing squad with which he threatens appalling punsters and he’ll probably bring them along so you might need more than the one pistol).
Let me assure you, you would still be taken seriously. I don’t know how to take you any other way than seriously. Most regulars will know of your integrity and authenticity and a decision by you to return would be welcomed for your usual contributions rather than taken as evidence of a lack of steadfastness or commitment to your word. And, as one who has stomped grumpily away from this site (that’s my take on me, not on you), I know that I didn’t end up feeling that I’d won in any way. As I said in an earlier approach to you, I missed the site and you have acknowledged that you will. This week has seen a lot of bruising for people who, I suspect, are not generally accustomed to being bruised. Snowflakes in our own right and using the original sense of the word. Perhaps this is where it’s a good thing we have pseudonyms because it’s them that have fronted the flak and, behind them, we can recover our sang froid (almost an oblique humours reference) and return to the field. Personally, I think you could walk straight back in as Anna on Monday and no-one would blink an eye. (That said, of the postulated new monikers, PostAnna would make me laugh every time you appeared and be a compliment of the highest order but Annanother is delightful!).
Mark: I have read and very much appreciated yours @63 but haven’t had the opportunity until now. I looked back at Van Winkle’s post that you refer to; here is what he wrote: “… it was an unfortunate coincidence and if someone had expressed sadness on [here] about it, my reaction would not have been to ridicule them.”
Good sense, as you have said, and deflationary. But the expression “the sadness of coincidence” seems to be yours, or at least I am giving you credit for it until proven otherwise!
Petert @74. I think there was a reference to those aitches that you have spotted in the Vlad grid in a crossword a few months ago. I have only a vague memory of it, but the clue clearly referred to the H-shapes in the grid, as I recall.
The arrows in today’s grid clearly refer to the four nations of the UK defending their vaccine supplies against our “friends in Europe”, as the prime minister calls the EU. And jolly successfully, if I may say so.
@James76: yes, that’s exactly what I meant.
“a cross between Marina Hyde and Bob Mortimer (i.e. utterly sound and funny)”
I really hope Vlad reads that. I felt so sorry for that setter with all of that kerfuffle going on when I absolutely believe they’d just meant to produce a good clue.
But, if I were Vlad, the description of me as that cross would have me floating on air!
On a different tack…
Anna, please don’t go.
You’re on of the people that lured me in to posting because you made it seem so interesting.
And I am a very timid new poster, so wouldn’t write anything if I wasn’t strongly moved to do so.
StoneRose @83: I don’t know whether you’ll see this as good or bad 😀 but you’re well on your way to becoming an established contributor to this site. I enjoy your posts on the daily blogs and your input to this discussion has been thoughtful and positive. No more timidity please! And your moniker gives me yet another opportunity to air essexboy’s delightful creation as I congratulate you on your medial majusculation. 😀
Mark – Thanks to you and essexboy, the foremost hits on Google for ‘medial majusculation’ are now to this site!
sheffield hatter, the clue has ‘[word meaning hair] for a criminal’. You can’t avoid translating shock to hair, because that is required for the solution. So the clue can be read as ‘hair for a criminal’, as Van Winkle also spelt out @55. My point is that having understood shock to be hair, it is the literal/surface/plain English reading of the clue that causes the problem. It has nothing to do with the cryptic construction, which part is the definition, which the anagram indicator, whether shock really equates to afro etc. Those are all red herrings.
Of course when you first read it, shock doesn’t look like it means hair. You need to solve the clue, and then look at the clue again. Maybe that is what makes some think that the clue’s critics are being perverse. But reading the clue again is not perverse, and the shift from ‘shock for a …’ to ‘hair for a …’ is tiny. Cannot your objection to my having ‘misquoted’ the clue be taken as admission that ‘Hair for a criminal’ would have been objectionable? If it would have been, then the clue as it is must be subject to the same objection. The fact that shock is used explains why anyone (including solver, editor and setter) might not notice the troublesome interpretation, but it doesn’t make that interpretation forced or unreasonable.
You say it is a misinterpretation. Yes, but what of it? It is a simple misinterpretation easily made by many people that relies on no leaps of imagination, only the literal meanings of the words in the clue.
ENOUGH! The troll has achieved his desired objective – to create unrest and dissension amongst regular contributors to this site. Please don’t feed his ego any further. The circumlocution that this has created has bloated the site.
PostMark @84
Gosh, thank you!
I see it as good: very much so ?
I suppose that I see message boards as a little like real life conversations.
So, I hover on the outside of an established group and try not to be too pushy.
Then, if I really want to make a point or a joke (or if Basil Brush or the Wobbled come up) I can’t help myself!
Bah!
! not ?
People like me need a preview function
…but then we’d be deprived of The Wobbled 🙁
James: I do not follow your reasoning at all. If you have solved the clue by identifying the anagrind ‘criminal’, the anagrist FOR A and the definition ‘shock’ the clue itself has been shorn of its “plain English” reading, if it ever had one. The only meaning ‘shock for a criminal’ ever purported to have was the ludicrous one that I momentarily pondered (see #78); once the clue has been solved by discerning its cryptic meaning, it no longer has any “plain English” meaning.
You then propose the existence of another clue, the one that you mistakenly substituted for Vlad’s, ‘hair for a criminal’ and suggest that it would have been objectionable. It is unlikely in the extreme that such a clue would have been written, as the whole point of using ‘shock’ in the first place was to direct the solver away from a solution involving hair. Once the solver has detected that FOR A constitutes the fodder, the use of two words, shock and criminal – either of which could potentially be the definition, because both of them could potentially act as anagrind – seeks to further mislead. This could not happen if ‘hair’ were really to be substituted for ‘shock’.
You say that “a simple misinterpretation [can be] easily made by many people that relies on no leaps of imagination, only the literal meanings of the words in the clue”. This might seem very reasonable on the surface – a bit like a crossword clue – but there is a lot going on that is not on the surface. Like your assertion that “the shift from ‘shock for a …’ to ‘hair for a …’ is tiny”; no, it is not tiny at all. It requires inserting a different word ‘hair’ back into the original clue which has been solved with ‘shock’ as the definition. Yes, shock has the meaning of hair, but in the original clue ‘shock’ was deliberately chosen to have a potentially misleading meaning (cryptically) and it also gives a different “plain English” reading than ‘hair’. That is a big shift, not a tiny one. And it is unreasonable to suppose that the setter or editor could anticipate that a solver would do such a thing. It is way outside the normal solving process, as you must recognise.
Sorry Admin @87, I must have been typing when you posted that Stop!
I will stop now.
sh@85: eb deserves the credit; I’ve just shouted about it! I was late to the convention but I’ve noticed there are quite a few of us. I also note those who’ve opted for the totally lower case convention and do my best to observe their preference – except when auto-capitalisation frustrates/averts my intent.
On the subject of pseudonyms, I noticed a late contributor to today’s G thread has posted as Rochdale Fan (2-1 today). I don’t know whether s/he intends to update week by week (which is against the rules but would possibly be nodded through as an exception?). If so, one can only hope they have a good season!
Admin @87 (and others who have contributed): bloated, yes, but, in amongst the molecular dissection of a particular clue by a few posters, there has also been some quite insightful discussion on the perennial subject of ‘sensitivity’. Bruises abound but there’s been a good opportunity for both sides of the debate to open up their feelings and their perceptions. Maybe I’m trying to draw a conclusion that fits with my innocent aspirations for Fifteensquared but I feel there has been a gradual acknowledgment of mutual understanding and any future readers of this page will conclude there is the possibility of either reconciliation or, at worst, cohabitation.
PostMark @94
I said enough, and I meant enough. We should not let trolls influence the content of the site, yet you seem to wish to continue the debate, which I said is closed.
I don’t know what your “innocent aspirations for Fifteensquared” are, but I have a very clear agenda, that is to keep it civilised, polite and confrontational free.
essexboy @90
“…but then we’d be deprived of The Wobbled ?”
I know.
I meant “The Wombles”.
My best friend and I actually saw them in concert!
Sorry Admin.
I didn’t realise we were supposed to stop posting.
Comments from the G… In chronological order.
Nope, not for me. At all. Of all the hints that 13a could have used, that has to be the worst, so quickly lost interest. Quite a few enjoyable ones, but not in the mood so did a mass reveal and will have to wait for 15 squared to put me straight on quite a few.
13a a bit dubious
I don’t feel comfortable with this.
Yes. Scans fine, but poor judgment I’d say.
13a is not ok…
It surely isn’t – Come on Guardian wakey wakey !!
Not so much the answer to 13A, per se, but the implication of the clue is bit iffy.
Totally agree with all the objections to13a
Although I really struggled with this one – perhaps the school day has distracted my concentration today – the parsing and definitions are impeccable – although I agree that 13 could have had a different final word (e.g. “wrong-‘un”, which is not perfect but I’m sure there are others) without losing its fluency but being more appropriate. Thanks Vlad.
13 across is unforgivable. There are other puzzles.
I put in the answer to 13 without a thought but having noticed objections, I looked again and I think you have to look more carefully at the implication of the clue, taken together with the answer. Together, I think there are grounds for objection. It’s not the answer per se, which is acceptable.
Couldn’t do most of this one at all, so consider me Impaled. One of those I did get was the now notorious 13a, which I don’t think is offensive how the clue actually works, but might be considered so if read as a CD… I foresee an interesting argument on 225.
I am not offended by it, being a bald old white Victor Meldrew kinda guy, and I don’t think anyone who knows me would accuse me of virtue-signalling, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the problem with this clue. Having read the interview with Paul in the blog, about how he strives for meaning in the surface of the clue, and then seeing how that was done today so well for example with 1,15, I find it disingenuous to turn a blind eye to the issue here. And there were many alternatives too. The best I could come up with was ‘Rewired for a shock’, which goes down the misdirection route and is in my view much more neutral. ‘Prepare for a shock’ would also work. (Hope that’s not too much of a spoiler)
Whether PC refers to Politically Correct or Police Constable, surely you’re aware of racial profiling?
Found this a struggle and resorted to Crossword solver to dig me out of a couple holes. Some parsing still to do. And I’d have preferred 13a to have been different. I’m not offended on behalf of myself or others. It just leaves a bad taste. Words don’t float divorced from meaning and implication: Even in cryptic crosswords they are more than just a string of symbols.
We may not have heard anything from “people who are most likely to have strong feelings”.
I therefore have the strong feeling that Vlad should have used xxxxx’s MUCH better “Prepare for a shock” and spared us all the hot air.
Never heard that synonym of 13a before. The surface reading of a clue and choice of indicators absolutely matters – when writing a clue, the setter is certainly thinking about every word carefully and taking every opportunity at clever interplay between surface and wordplay. So it’s hard to believe (and even and insult to the setter) that they didn’t realize (or intend) the problematic reading of it that others have pointed out.
As for people saying “if you have a problem with the clue then you’re just looking to be upset about something” that sentiment is so lazy and dismissive. Don’t assume you know the intentions of others (also, pro tip: I’m not aware of anyone who interacts with the world this way. why would anybody WANT to be offended…?)
Also, offended is not the right word, I would say it is in poor taste
I agree. There are countless alternatives. I don’t think for a second that there was any ill intention from Vlad, but it was clumsy. That shouldn’t have got past the edit. The very nature of cryptics is to search for meaning and it doesn’t take very long to find something rather distasteful in that.
I’m not offended, because I believe none was intended. Though I’m also in the privileged position of being a boring old white geezer, cosseted from generation after generation of systemic abuse.
I’d be genuinely interested in the opinions of any black contributers.
Definitely a bit chewy this one – no bad thing
13a could have easily been avoided, and should have been in my view
Setters spend ages working out meaningful surfaces and the going through possible connotations is part of the process. Not wrong, but just avoid it, simples
Thanks for the challenge Vlad
“Thanks for the comments.
xxxxxxxx: ‘Don’t assume you know the intentions of others . . .’ Some irony here, methinks, considering the rest of your post.
Vlad”
“Vlad
January 26, 2021 at 9:40 pm
Thanks to Eileen for the blog and to others who commented.
Obviously no offence was intended in 13ac and to find it relies, I would have thought, on an unlikely interpretation of the words. Then again, context and intent seem to be largely disregarded nowadays.”
All from the Guardian, apart from the last which was from 225.
More importantly, they were unique users. Twenty of them out of 128 comments, which did have multiple posts.
All of the same mind.
Afro and Criminal should not have been anywhere near each other in the clue/solution.
It’s 5 words, “shock for a criminal/afro”, 21 characters.
To not see how this could pan out was… “Disappointing”.
For want of repeating myself. We live in a multi-culti society. London is a big city. It is also, I believe, the only major capital in the world in which the ‘natives’ are outnumbered by the incomers. Hence why one learns to not be an unthinking x. Everything above pretty much alludes to “Why didn’t you see this, it is so bloody obvious”. Category 1 as James said.
Just to reinforce and reiterate. I did not take offence and I was not offended on behalf of others. I just thought that in this day and age, with all that is going on outside the precious bubble of crosswording, the clue was… crass, in extremely bad taste.
Finally…… intent and innocence are absolutely no excuse, whatsoever, in legal terms.
“You may be of impeccable character and not have intended to kill someone, but we’re here because you did.”
Think on that.
Anna, as mentioned before, I was absolutely stunned when you used the terminology that you did and understand that you a) are not of the rabid right and b) didn’t know it was one of their premium bullets of choice. It was so unlike you and given your professed politics, nowhere where you wanted to be. I’m very sorry it all got out of hand and I apologise for the distress it has caused. I have already made my peace with those who assumed I was having a go at them. Never assume anything.
Please come back here. It’s where you belong.
StoneRose @97
No need to stop posting. I was just trying to halt the discussion which a troll had created, about a Vlad clue, that was getting out of hand.
Apologies Admin, was doing my research before I posted.
You can consider the Troll no platformed henceforth.
Good luck to all. Peace and Vigilance.
x
Taffy @98
I have let your comment stand, just in case someone might be interested in reading it (but I doubt it). However, it just reinforces my belief that you are trying to create divisions on this site and to cause dissension amongst regular participants.
You have obviously not read my comment #87, or have chosen to ignore it. I don’t wish to put you under moderation, in case you have something constructive to say, but I will do so if you carry on in this vein.
@Admin, had already apologised @100. Just wanted to let people understand the depth and breadth of the feelings on this topic from the G, hence missed @87.
Happy to be moderated. Will hopefully encourage Anna to return. That way she’ll be comfortable that anything I say should not upset her as you will have ‘parsed’ it beforehand.
Can’t wait for tomorrow, when all this kerfluffle (my neologism) is happily hidden from immediate view. May the next month’s General Discussion be in a much less sclerotic vein.
cellomaniac @104: I’ve been worried about whether I’ll get those in my legs when I get older! 😀