Financial Times 17,222 by NEO

25 comments on “Financial Times 17,222 by NEO”

1. Mostly enjoyable and nothing too taxing. I don’t think ugly is plain. Isn’t plain in the middle of the spectrum, and ugly at one end? Being called ugly would be rather harsher than being called plain. We’re all familiar with “writer” for “pen”, but “author”? Hmmm. Suspicion for nuance is stretching things a bit. And “garden” for “hoe” is a bit loose. I was unaware that lolly is money, and that RV is a bible. And it took me a bit of reserach to get TROLLOPE.

2. I see what you mean about FISH FINGER when the clue is looked at more closely but ‘Something digital in cod?’ seemed OK as the def for the “finger of a fish” = FISH FINGER.

   I agree with GDU @1 about ‘plain’ and UGLY which aren’t the same to me. PEN for ‘Author’ at 19a seems OK if both are regarded as verbs, ditto for ‘garden’ and HOE at 3d. If you can find the 1980’s BBC TV series “The Barchester Chronicles”, an adaptation of Trollope’s “Chronicles of Barsetshire”, it’s well worth a look, particularly for the performance of Alan Rickman as Obadiah Slope, who gives new meaning to the term oleaginous.

   Thanks to Neo and Cineraria (Sorry to be a pain, but an A has been inadvertently missed at 18d)

3. Agree with WordPlodder @2 on “author” and “garden” as verbs. I also think “plain” and “ugly” differ too much in meaning. I was going to mention the missing A in 18d too, as it happens. I did raise an eyebrow at 1a but just felt Neo was trying something a little different, nowt wrong with that.

4. 1a:
   I am in agreement with Cineraria. Something is missing. Or we are missing ‘something’.

5. WordPlodder@2, I guess “something digital in cod?” works about the same way as “money to buy diamonds?” does farther along. I was thinking that a more conventional clue might read:

   Something digital in code? Not quite snack

6. Re 1A I agree that there is no real definition. “code – not quite” does indicate “cod” but where is the definition? Re the comparison to 4D, this does have a definition in “sucker”.

   I’m also in the “ugly” is not “plain” camp: but as I am in the opposite end of that spectrum, what would I know?

7. WordPlodder @ 2, yes I’m happier with pen/author if thinking of verbs.

8. I had a tick for the surface of 25, Or was it a slip?

9. copmus, I think that 25A was pretty obvious from the clue and Cineraria’s explanation. I’m not too sure what your comment relates to…

10. Re 15a, Chambers gives “plain” as, among others, “deficient in beauty; ugly (euphem)”.

11. A departure from this compiler at 1 ac surely, in the direction of The Guardian, unfortunately. There is effectively no definition, for me, although, as with some of the efforts we see in that organ, we can see where we are being led. There is at least one surface that doesn’t make much sense too.

    With ANCILLARY, per conversations here, I suggest that the result of the anagram has to be ANCILLARYTOM for the structure to work, which it does.

12. Well, I liked that one. Refreshing. And in any case, fish do have fingers. I have some in mt freezer.

13. Re 8d : in French MAL is generally an adverb {badly} and the adjective MAUVAIS is the adjective {bad}. However I must admit that there are examples of MAL being used to mean bad, e.g. PAS MAL which means not bad {or not badly}. Of course the confusion of adjectives and adverbs occurs frequently nowadays, as in “How are you?” – “I’m good, thanks”.

14. I usually have a good old check on those, Bob, as I’m no polyglot, but as long as they can mean whatever it is I want them to mean, they’re in. I took QUE away from MARTINIQUE somewhere recently, and that was a similar thing. As for PENs etc, it’s just a dance around the parts of speech to (try to) get them to work, when they’re not swans..

    Thanks all, especially Cineraria for the blog.

15. Neo at 14 : yes, I don’t object to your clueing of 8d, I’m only pointing out that a more literal rendering of “bad French” would be MAUVAIS. PEN for “author” doesn’t bother me either! The pleasure of lots of nice surfaces would be denied to you as setters, and to us as solvers, if we all got too pedantic about clues.

16. Thanks Neo for an enjoyable crossword. Most of this went in easily but I resorted to a word finder to solve TROLLOPE and SCUPPER. My top pick was BANANA SKIN followed by G-STRINGS. I thought UGLY was a bit harsh for plain but I never question such definitions because they always get verified in Chambers or Collins. Besides, setters need not make everything obvious since these are puzzles after all. Thanks Cinearia for the blog.

17. Thanks for the blog, really enjoyed this , GREEN WOODPECKER ( Prof Yaffle) and ANCILLIARY are very neat.
    Like Tom@10 I think PLAIN is used as a euphemism for UGLY, when describing someone people more likely to say (s)he is plain rather than calling them ugly.

18. Roz. I hope you don’t mind me saying but I was sort of glad when I saw your spelling gaffe @17, as I often mix up ‘auxiliary’ and ‘ancillary’ to get ‘ancilliary’. In your case, quite possible a slip of the finger.

19. Hovis too many i’s and l’s , I do not type much at all but I have noticed my spelling is much worse than when I write.

20. I still maintain I’d be less upset if someone called me plain rather than ugly, but who am I to question the mighty Chambers? I guess that’s why they label it a euphemism.

21. Thanks for the blog.
    Plain is not synonymous with ugly.
    OR = soldiers always makes me cringe.
    Drill = PE isn’t really acceptable – I did PE for all my years at school and it never included marching, presenting arms, standing to attention, or standing at ease!
    Apart from the above, this had some clever and original clueing.

22. Didn’t bother me as much. Those synonyms are close enough for jazz.

23. Plain is a very well used euphemism in my circles. If my wife described her niece plain I’d know exactly what she meant.

24. Thanks Neo and Cineraria
    26ac: The relevant definition in Chambers 2014 for drill as a noun is “a training exercise, or a session of it”.

25. I suppose Joan above is upset at OR for its apparent snobbishness.

    Common as muck in crosswords, so it is.

Comments are closed.