The puzzle may be found at https://www.theguardian.com/crosswords/cryptic/28945.
Vlad seems to be becoming less thorny than of old, although I thought the wordplay to 22A PROOFREADING was on the obscure side, and at that presented obliquely.
| ACROSS | ||
| 1, 5 | MEAT AND TWO VEG |
Hopping mad — we get VAT on traditional British fare (4,3,3,3)
|
| An anagram (‘hopping’) of ‘mad we get VAT on’. | ||
| 5 |
See 1
|
|
| 9 | WORE THIN |
Now their work became less acceptable (4,4)
|
| An anagram (‘work’) of ‘now their’. | ||
| 10 | FIASCO |
One type of racing at venue for another — largely a shambles (6)
|
| A charade of FI (F1 ‘one type of racing’) plus ASCO[t] (‘venue for another’), minus the last letter (‘largely’). | ||
| 12 | ON AN EVEN KEEL |
Slightly backtracking, show deference to biblical couple going steady (2,2,4,4)
|
| A charade of ONAN plus EVE (‘biblical couple’ – in as far as they both feature in the Old Testament) plus NKEEL, which is KNEEL (‘show deference’) with the first two letters reversed (‘slightly backtracking’). | ||
| 15 | NEAR MISSES |
Escapes, just about, on hearing wife’s in the vicinity (4,6)
|
| Sounds like (‘on hearing’) NEAR MISSUS (‘wife’s in the vicinity’). | ||
| 17 | ADO |
Bill’s old trouble (3)
|
| A charade of AD (‘bill’ – Bill Posters will be prosecuted) plus O (‘old’). | ||
| 19 | BOA |
Neckwear could be junk, mostly (3)
|
| BOA[t] (‘junk’, Chinese) minus the last letter (‘mostly’). | ||
| 20 | IMMORTELLE |
Plant ground more millet (10)
|
| An anagram (‘ground’) of ‘more millet’, for an everlasting flower. | ||
| 22 | PROOFREADING |
Checking work from one of the Royals playing game? (12)
|
| PRO OF READING – the Reading Royals are a professional ice hockey team based in Reading, Pennsylvania. | ||
| 26 | IRISES |
They may be in bed — one’s about to get up (6)
|
| An envelope (‘about’) of RISE (‘get up’) in I (‘one’) plus (apostrophe) S from the clue. | ||
| 27 | DIDACTIC |
Like a teacher, used role-play at one college (8)
|
| A charade of DID ACT (‘used role-play’) plus I (‘one’) plus C (‘college’). | ||
| 28, 29 | TALK TO THE HAND |
‘That OK then?’ Lad rudely: ‘I’m not interested!’ (4,2,3,4)
|
| An anagram (‘rudely’) of ‘that OK then lad’. Not an expression that I knew. | ||
| 29 |
See 28
|
|
| DOWN | ||
| 1 | MOWN |
Admit money originally cut (4)
|
| A charade of M (‘money’) plus OWN (‘admit’), with ‘originally’ indicating the order of the particles. | ||
| 2 | AIRY |
Dangerous to leave hotel, which is spacious (4)
|
| A subtraction: [h]AIRY (‘dangerous’) minus the H (‘to leave hotel’). | ||
| 3 | ANTONYMS |
One fashionable piece of writing? Could be yes and no (8)
|
| A charade of AN (‘one’) plus TONY (‘fashionable’) plus MS (manuscript, ‘piece of writing’). | ||
| 4 | DEIGN |
Countryman’s pronounced stoop (5)
|
| Sounds like (‘pronounced’) DANE (‘countryman’). | ||
| 6 | WHINNY |
Nag’s sounding off — wife cross (6)
|
| A charade of W (‘wife’) plus HINNY (‘cross’ between a male horse and a female donkey). | ||
| 7 | VISCERALLY |
Cutting through corruption, start to speak to meeting in a deeply emotional way (10)
|
| A charade of VISCE, an envelope (‘cutting through’) of S (‘start to Speak’) in VICE (‘corruption’); plus RALLY (‘meeting’). | ||
| 8 | GOOD-LOOKER |
Sentimental slush — see right through the German beauty queen? (4-6)
|
| A charade of GOO (‘sentimental slush’) plus DLOOKER, an envelope (‘right through’) of LOOK (‘see’) in DER (‘the German’). | ||
| 11 | OVIEDO |
Poet taking sweetheart round Spanish city (6)
|
| A charade of OVIED, an envelope (‘taking’) of E (‘swEetheart’) in OVID (Publius Ovidius Naso, Latin ‘poet’); plus O (’round’). | ||
| 13 | ANABAPTIST |
Protestant archbishop’s first proscription overturned — past it sadly (10)
|
| A charade of A (‘Archbishop’s first’) plus NAB, a reversal (‘overturned’) of BAN (‘proscription’) plus APTIST, an anagram (‘sadly’) of ‘past it’. | ||
| 14 | LAVATORIAL |
Can you connect with this form of humour? (10)
|
| A play on ‘can’ as lavatory. | ||
| 16 | SEMTEX |
Half, nearly three quarters of words explosive (6)
|
| A charade of SEM[i] (‘half’) minus the last letter (‘nearly’) plus TEX[t] (‘words’), taking just the first three letters (‘three quarters of’). | ||
| 18 | STONE AGE |
United lifted in first leg a long time ago (5,3)
|
| STAGE ONE (‘first leg’), with ONE (‘united’) shifted up, in a down light (‘lifted’). | ||
| 21 | AFFECT |
Move French regularly interrupting at the back (6)
|
| An envelope (‘interrupting’) of FEC (‘FrEnCh regularly’) in AFT (‘the back’). | ||
| 23 | DRIFT |
Tenor Domingo’s initial break (5)
|
| A charade of D (‘Domingo’s initial’) plus RIFT (‘break’). ‘Tenor’ not as in Placido (even before he turned baritone). | ||
| 24 | ETNA |
Given up before, this smoker (4)
|
| A reversal (‘given up’ in a down light) of ANTE (‘before’). Recently, the volcano has been doing more than just smoking. | ||
| 25 | ACED |
Holed in one side, catamaran partly capsized (4)
|
| A hidden (‘partly’) reversed (‘capsized’) answer in ‘siDE CAtameran’. |
Thank you Peter O for the parsing of PROOFREADING. Didn’t stand a chance there.
All very fair. Liked ‘hopping’ as the anagrind and ‘mad’ in the fodder for MEAT AND TWO VEG, and the misdirect in ‘given up’ for ETNA. Favourite was DRIFT for the surface and the concise clue.
Anyone else try BAREDO for OVIEDO?
Be interesting to know whether US solvers parsed proofreading, and whether anyone else is au fait with ice hockey teams. Not this lad anyway, but not a worry. Otherwise, not too much gnarly Vladism here, although Eve and Onan make an odd couple! And not sure I’ve heard of Talk to the hand … someone on G mentioned needing to watch reality TV… that’d be why then. All good, ta PnV.
gif@2. I think PeterO might have had an ”in” on the ice hockey team as I think he’s stateside, and why we’re fortunate that he blogs early. If PeterO used the word ”obscure” twice, what hope do the rest of us have? ( I hope this isn’t going to provoke the usual discussion of what is defined as ”obscure”. Please.)
Yeah pdm, he’s on Long Island I believe.
“Talk to the hand” was early 2000s in the schools here, apparently imported from a US comedian, but I link it with Catherine Tate’s Lauren and Little Britain, as, working in schools, it was part of the armoury of kids being rude and refusing to cooperate with requests.
No way I was going to parse PROOFREADING, but the rest was OK. Onan and Eve are a very odd Biblical couple.
Thank you to Vlad and PeterO.
I had a lot of fun with this. Slightly maddened by 22 across which I would never have parsed. Thank you Peter O for putting me out of my misery. A poor clue in an otherwise impeccable puzzle.
[Sorry, PeterO. 1 x obscure and 1x oblique(ly). ]
Many challenging clues here, but I have to say that they did generate satisfaction when solved – except for one! Like gif@2 would be interested to know if any of this crowd knew the ice hockey team beforehand. For a single data point regarding relative obscurity: I didn’t, but I did know all of Qaos’s NFL teams earlier this month.
Pm@1 yes I tried Baredo too.
Peter, are you sure you’ve got the correct Royals team? Apparently it’s also the nickname of a UK soccer club – Reading FC. I think this is far more likely to be what Vlad is referring to.
Personally, being in Oz and not following sport, never heard of either of them.
Otherwise a fun but quite tricky puzzle.
No hope of parsing PROOF READING either with either ice hockey or English football (go the Lilywhites!). I also raised an eye at “slightly backtracking” even though I sort of got it.
No problems with TALK TO THE HAND (’cause the ears ain’t listening) and having read the comments here I wonder whether there’s a remote connection with Onan (who did a fair bit of talking to his hand) in ON AN EVEN KEEL.
Favourite was ANABAPTIST.
[You gotta be right Louise@9. Can’t wait for the UK solvers to wake up and give you the credit. ]
Ditto everyone else re PROOFREADING. Even if you have heard of one or other of the clubs (for me: Reading FC yes; Reading PA no), it is still a stretch to (a) know their nickname (for me: both no) and then (b) get the PRO OF bit. Good thing our son is a proofreader! We found this fairly slow going, though it all came out in the end. SEMTEX and STONE AGE both very nice. Thanks, Vlad and PeterO.
Tim C @10 I understood it was ‘interruptus’ rather than handiwork, to obtain his brother’s estate.
The Reading football team in the UK are known as the Royals, as Louise@9 points out, so not too obscure for UK solvers. The parsing of 14d defeated me, the connection between ‘can’ and lavatory eluding me. Otherwise, I found this fairly tricky. Glad I resisted the urge to put an unparsed ‘TIE’ in 19. Thanks to TimC@10 and Russtoo@13 for a schoolboy chuckle, and to PeterO and Vlad.
I didn’t have a problem parsing PROOFREADING and thought it quite clever (although I support the other blue and white hoops of QPR or KPR as Roz has renamed them). I liked LAVATORIAL, FIASCO, SEMTEX, DIDACTIC and NEAR MISSES.
Ta Vlad & PeterO.
Tomsdad @14. Fair enough – as far as it goes. But does anyone, anywhere, refer to a member of a fully professional sports team (soccer or ice hockey or…) as a “Pro of” that team? They are all pros (unlike, say, a golf club pro). So that is yet another step.
TassieTim @16: in the lower leagues, footballers can be classed as semi-professional or amateurs, so I think this clue is fine.
As always, lots to enjoy in teasing out Vlad’s instructions and connections. LAVATORIAL (‘Can you connect’ is splendid), SEMTEX (lovely deletions), ACED (for the cunning hidden definition, let alone hidden solution), ETNA (nice play on smoker) and MEAT AND TWO VEG (for the anagrinds as noted by pm@1) were my favourites.
Over and above PROOFREADING, I have two quibbles: describing Eve and Onan as a ‘biblical couple’ is decidedly misdirectional at best if all they have in common is appearing in the same Bible and ‘work’ as the anagrind appearing after the fodder in WORE THIN does not work for me although others may have an interpretation that’s more satisfactory.
Thanks Vlad and PeterO
I just assumed that a prince was playing a hitherto unknown game called OOF READING
Cheers V&P
As so often with Vlad for me, too many reveals, only to look here and find out they were quite straightforward. Re obscurities, answers are only easy when you know them. Thanks Vlad and PeterO.
Re 22 across Reading F.C. are nicknamed The Royals
Yes I spotted the Royals of Reading FC and the parts of PROOFREADING but couldn’t quite sling together the parsing.
Thanks both
Re TALK TO THE HAND, surprised no one here seems familiar with the oeuvre of Honeyz.
PeterO, I had a slightly different parsing of GOOD-LOOKER, (see = LO, right =OK) ‘through’ DER.
PM @18, I think the word order for WORE THIN works better if you imagine a dash between ‘Now their’ and ‘work’. It can then be seen as an instruction, along the lines of:
Turkey – order
Tree lights – repair
Cards – write
Pressies – wrap
(Just trying to elicit a bah humbug from someone)
Sweet but short from Vlad today, sympathies to Roz but I enjoyed it. Thanks to him and PeterO. (Might as well have been the hockey team for all the chance I had of parsing 22a)
Probably says something about my reading/viewing habits that Talk to the Hand was FOI for me! I didn’t parse 22ac and when I saw PeterO’s explanation I thought that’s a bit too much. Reading FC makes it acceptable but even as a football fan I didn’t spot the connection. But this was an excellent puzzle with lots of challenges that I enjoyed. Thanks Vlad and PeterO.
essexboy @23… not to mention Arnie….
Liverpool Chris @21…. see Louise @9
My quibble with 22A is different from PM@18. I think the biblical couple is legitimate misdirection, since both are well known biblical characters, albeit completely separately. But the grammar of the solution implies it is they who are kneeling, and hence being deferential, rather than anyone being deferential to them as the clue states.
I suspect the Royals name for Reading AFC was a marketing rebrand during the 90s; their original nickname among fans was the Biscuitmen after a nearby Huntley and Palmers factory, which is more picturesque. But for clue purposes, the Royals name is stamped all over their website.
Thanks as ever to setter and blogger.
eb @23: ah, the ‘unwritten’ dash. As one who often relies on the unwritten comma, I guess I can’t complain, can I? Though I was ticked off for using ‘mix’ in exactly the same way a while back. I could have done with you on hand back then.
23d Domingo actually started life as a baritone before moving up the scale until age forced him down again.
Rather pleased to complete a Vlad. Either I’m getting smarter or Vlad is easing up, I suspect the latter.
New for me was ‘TONY’. Having read Georgette Heyer (yes, really, sometimes you have to read what is available) in my youth I am aware of TON the noun but not TONY the adjective. Filed.
I enjoyed this despite being unable to parse quite a few, so thanks Vlad and thanks indeed to PeterO. Grateful that you are over the pond and hence posting early!
I obviously don’t move in the right circles, as I’ve never come across TONY (3d) to mean fashionable, though Google throws it up.
paddymelon@1 I was determined to put Toledo in for OVIEDO until EVE spoiled all that.
Enjoyable. Thanks Vlad and PeterO.
Given that it was Vlad and that I had my phone handy (to look up Reading FC), I didn’t mind PROOFREADING though it’s the sort of clue that may enable you to check that you’ve got the right word once you’ve got a few crossers, but will never get you to the word in the first place. By contrast, although I had never heard of IMMORTELLE, the wordplay allowed me to work it out.
Yes, paddymelon @1, I had BAREDO for 11d, which meant that I hadn’t a hope of getting ON AN EVEN KEEL. I’m reasonably familiar with the Old Testament, and I accept that there will be a fair amount of wilful obscurity with Vlad, but EVE and ONAN are simply not “a biblical couple” unless you are going to accept as “a couple” any two characters, one of them obscure, drawn entirely at random from Pickwick Papers, Middlemarch or War and Peace.
Lots of good stuff here, though; FIASCO is brilliant, and enjoyed NEAR MISSES, BOA, DIDACTIC, TALK TO THE HAND, DEIGN, GOOD LOOKER (which I parsed as essexboy @23, but PeterO’s parsing works fine), ANABAPTIST, SEMTEX among others.
Thanks as ever to setter and blogger.
PostMark @28
For what it’s worth “Now their work” presents no problem to a strict “Ximenean” setter like Azed (although I don’t think the clue as a whole is in his style). He would simply read “work” as the 3rd person plural present indicative: “now” and “their” are working. I know the singular form (works) seems more correct to many people but several Azed “slips” have explained that a string of words can be regarded as either singular or plural.
Herb @34, I wondered about that reading, but doesn’t that require you to interpret ‘work’ as intransitive, eg “they are working today”, rather than transitive, eg “working the land”? The transitive meaning seems more satisfactorily anagrindy to me.
Shanne @ 5, EB @ 23, and Tim C @ 25, for 28, 28 across, Lynne Truss was what came to mind.
Anyone else have BAREDO for 11d? I even went as far as checking Google Maps.
Ditto re lit level, Pirate @30. Learnt about the ton from mrs ginf’s Morland Dynasty series by Cynthia Harrod-Eagles [there are 35 of them, from 1430 to WWII, great escapism!]
[Steve the Pirate @30 / Crossbar @32
Your posts sent me down an intriguing rabbit hole. I’d always thought fashion = TON was one of those rare/obsolete things you only ever come across in crosswords, and when I saw fashionable = TONY this morning, I thought the latter must be an (even more) obscure derivation of the former.
So I was surprised to see ‘tony’ on etymonline given as American English slang, dating from 1877. (There are oodles of quotes on Wiktionary to back that up, eg “passing as a German heiress, ripping off tony hotels” / “running L.A.’s toniest prostitution ring”, suggesting that in the States it’s a current and widespread usage.)
What’s more, the etymology suggests that it’s not (immediately) related to TON = fashion, but rather taken directly from the English use of ‘tone’, attested in the sense of ‘prevailing state of manners’ since 1735.
The TON = fashion equivalence was imported from French, hence the pronunciation rhyming with French ‘non’, or English don, not English bun. Its first appearance was in 1769 – presumably those English speakers responsible for the import thought it was ‘tonier’ to use a word with a French flavour.]
eb & Herb: that’s an interesting distinction drawn by eb. Pondering it, I can now see how they both can work. Yes, transitive is ‘more satisfactorily anagrindy’ in that something is being done to the fodder. Funnily enough, though, taking the anagrind I was criticised for using – mix – I could see ‘now their’ mix doing the job. Which means work should work too. It doesn’t feel quite as comfortable, somehow, using work but I can’t explain why.
I parsed GOOD-LOOKER as essexboy did@23. To be fair, we both have some German, but equally sports-challenged, it seems. The difference in PeterO’s parsing is the ”right” (OK), which would otherwise be superfluous.
Tim C @25. re Arnie. We could turn the subtitles off and just TALK TO THE HAND? : -)
Rather too many unparsed clues to describe this as an enjoyable solve this morning – ANTONYMS, AFFECT and LAVATORIAL to name but three. A DNF as I just couldn’t get the last two, the tricky interlocking FIASCO and WHINNY. But many thanks for your usual lucidity PeterO with all the oh, yes, of course explanations. Never did much like the expression TALK TO THE HAND, and MEAT AND TWO VEG such a very British expression/tradition…
[ginf @38, we crossed – clearly I need to get to know Georgette and Cynthia]
[pdm @41 – ‘sports-challenged’ is right 🙂 ]
PM @40 – I think “now their mix” feels more comfortable because ‘mix’ could be viewed as a noun (as in, a sand/cement mix = a mix of sand and cement).
Alternatively, you could take herb’s method @34 and see ‘mix’ as an intransitive verb. I’d say intransitive mix works better than intransitive work, because when two liquids mix, they are mixed, but when two things work, they aren’t worked.
Thanks V and P. Liked this, though parsing 22a was way beyond me. I’m with those who saw 8d as LO-OK in DER.
Exactly what MikeC said.
Thanks, Vlad and PeterO
Thanks for the blog, a bit of Vlad the Impala today , not to worry , he will be saving his nasty side for Saturday puzzles. Well done Louise@9 , I had to ask Sprog3 why Reading were the Royals, surely it should be KPR ?
LAVATORIAL was a neat deception , VISCERALLY was put together well. I fail to see any issue with – now their work , it is just now their manipulation.
Mindful of the oft repeated saw about not saying anything if one doesn’t have anything good to say, I’ll say nothing about this set of clues.
[ For fans of Picaroon , there is a jumbo seasonal cryptic puzzle in the Observer Review section (18th Dec ) . Deliberately friendly I think but still proper , good clues.
I suspect it will not be on-line , the last time one appeared someone was very kind and managed to put some sort of version on-line. ]
Tough at times but some enjoyment amidst the “can’t parse” and “unfamiliar” moments. Fans of Vlad’s challenging grids might say “TALK TO THE HAND” (28,29a) so I won’t bother to mention the clues that gave me grief. In my experience, in Australia we usually say “meat and three veg” – so sorry that those of you in the UK only get TWO VEG (1,5a).
Many thanks to Vlad and PeterO. And thanks to all contributors for an interesting blog.
It’s very rare for any of AEIOU to be missing from the grid. And today has no U… Vlad’s puzzle today was perfect for solving on Inverness Station while awaiting the connection for the far north. Amazing now to be able to buy print papers so early in distant places, as an alternative to on-line.
Tough but enjoyable. I had to check whether today is Friday!
Liked OVIEDO, STAGE ONE, near misses., WORE THIN, FIASCO (loi).
New for me: IMMORTELLE plant.
I did not parse ONAN in 12ac, 22ac (OMG I never could have parsed this in a million years whether a UK or US sports team), 14d.
Thanks, both.
I parsed GOOD-LOOKER in the same way as essexboy@23
Roz@48. Is the puzzle you are referring to this one?
https://www.theguardian.com/crosswords/2022/dec/18/print-out-and-complete-the-observer-giant-christmas-crossword
Having always wondered about what was royal about Reading (and surprisingly on both sides of the Atlantic), I got PROOFREADING quite easily. I liked FIASCO.
Many thanks, Jay – that seems to be it (with solutions, too!).
The parsings of 22A and 18D completely eluded me despite filling in the clues from definitions and crossers. Other than that a very satisfactory solve.
Sadly not on the right wavelength today, gave up with 4 left and a few unparsed. Thanks P for the explanations.
Still struggling a bit with LAVATORIAL – I get what a “can” is, but what is “you connect” doing? “You connect can with this form of humour” would make sense, but “Can you connect” just isn’t the same thing – I read it as a noun phrase while the answer is an adjective. Or is it just that “can” is in there and who cares about the rest?
Fairly tough, though I got there in the end. Favourites include SEMTEX, DIDACTIC. Never heard of TALK TO THE HAND, but easy enough to work out.
Petert@53 – I think Reading FC are “Royals” because they’re the only major team in the Royal County of Berkshire – which was so designated by the late QEII because Windsor Castle is located there. I’ve no idea how, or if, this relates to the US ice hockey team.
Thanks PeterO and Vlad.
McBeak @56 – I read it as a double definition – Can you connect with this / form of humour.
For the 2nd def, ‘lavatorial’ is one form of humour, notwithstanding the adj/noun mismatch. If you asked someone to name ‘forms of humour’, they might say satirical, deadpan, dry, cheesy etc, the word ‘humour’ being understood.
For the 1st def, the key word is the ‘this’. ‘This’ = ‘lavatorial’, and you connect/associate a ‘can’ with things lavatorial. It’s a bit yoda-ish but I think it’s justified, along the lines of
“Pasta I associate with Italy, beans I associate with Heinz”.
Is it can [that] you connect with this sort of humour? Anyway, I didn’t see it, along with so many more that I’m keeping very quiet today.
This took me a while, and I gave up with four to go. That said, there was lots to enjoy. Although I got 22A: PROOFREADING wihout difficulty (it couldn’t be anything else) the parsing requires specialist knowledge which seems to me unreasonable for a general puzzle. With thanks to both.
Exactly what MikeC @44 said and Eileen @45 echoed! Not the knottiest of Vlads but full of good things, as per.
Thanks to S&B
Thanks Jay@52, I never click on links but I am sure you are right.
Very satisfying to complete a Vlad.
McBeak @56 and Essexboy @58, I thought of ‘you’ (U) as a toilet reference before I thought of ‘can’ as the appliance itself … perhaps ‘can you connect’ implies the U bend connection to a toilet? Or am I overthinking it?!
PS It took a while for the penny to drop (Boom. Boom!) on 14D: LAVATORIAL. McBeak @ 56: This works for me as : Can: you connect with this (i.e. lavatorial). [A] form of humour.
I certainly needed those explanations, so thanks PeterO. I generally don’t gripe about obscure general knowledge, which is often searchable these days, and can provide interesting learning opportunities. But “Reading Royals are a professional ice hockey team based in Reading, Pennsylvania.” FFS!
I can’t read the puzzle any more. There is an ad for the Guardian superimposed on it and I can’t make it go away. I can only click “print” and then print the puzzle, but I can’t try my answers with the check button on the interactive version. any suggestions?
Never heard of IMMORTELLE, but the anagram worked it out. Never heard of the Reading Royals either — that’s pretty obscure even for an American. I can at least recognize the names of baseball, football and basketball teams, but I don’t think I can name a single hockey team. Maybe the Canadiens. Oddly enough, wiki tells me, Royals works for both teams. The UK ones are nicknamed “The Royals” because they’re in the Royal County of Berkshire (who knew there were royal; counties?), though they used to be the Biscuitmen because of an association with Huntley and Palmers.
Peter, I think that in 21d AFFECT, that it’s “at the back” that stands for “aft.” “The back” would be the stern.
Thanks to Vlad and PeterO for a good long morning’s entertainment.
Always pleased to finish a Vlad puzzle, albeit with a few checks.
1,5a was a great help going in first.
20a is a new word for me.
Thanks both.
I’m sure he meant the football team in Reading. The ice hockey team is quite obscure, even over here. An American sports fan can reasonably be expected to know the major-league teams (NHL in the case of hockey), but Reading is in one of the third-tier leagues–and always will be, because US sports don’t do promotion and relegation. I count myself as a hockey fan [my Blackhawks are sadly having a dismal season–on purpose, having sold off all of their decent young talent so they can start over, but it’s still sad–n.b., something that would not happen to the same extent if relegation were a thing over here], and today is the first I’ve heard of Reading having a team.
I also had not heard of the explosive or the flower, and since they crossed each other I had to reveal. A DNF, alas.
[Valentine @66: You’re a lifelong New Englander and have never heard of the Boston Bruins? I didn’t think that was possible.]
mrpenney @68
The Reading Royals may not be up to much on the ice, but they seem to have the internet sown up. When tidying up the blog, I was left staring at PROOFREADING and the blank space where the wordplay should go. On a vague feeling that Berkshire and soccer might be involved, I googles “Reading Royals”, getting yards and yard of hits, mostly wanting to sell me tickets. Now, delving a little deeper, I find the first whiff of Berkshire on page 3, with the Reading Royals Artistic Swimming Club, and, finally, on page 4, the briefest mention of www. readingfc.co.uk. So I ought to have dug a little deeper.
Thanks PeterO, definitely needed some help with parsing today.
12ac raised a smile – I suppose Eve and Onan are obliquely linked by fruit and seed ?
[Russtoo@13, my understanding was that a man was expected to give his brother’s widow the children she would have had, so in spilling his seed upon the ground he was failing to keep his end up.]
Completed eventually, with some assistance on the knottier clues and some parsing left for the blog, but plenty to enjoy on the way. Thanks, both.
Valentine @66 you can make the yellow advert go away by clicking the cross in black at the top left hand corner of the yellow advert. Only then press print.
The same thing happened to me this morning when I tried to print it before doing this.
Sorry top right hand side! It seems a long time ago now!
Valentine@66 – I have your problem – and there is no black cross alas Shirley@73/4. All works fine on my phone, but not my preferred mode.
Thanks to Peter O for the blog and to others for their comments. I’ve never heard of Reading in Pennsylvania, let alone their ice hockey team.
Season’s greetings to all.
Transylvania, on the other hand . . .
3d. Apologies if I have posted this before:
Few Romans were as tony as
The elegant Petronius
None any snappier
Appeared on the Via Appia
(By Edmund Clerihew Bentley himself)
Beaten by ANABAPTIST & couldn’t parse a couple but always satisfied to get close to a Vlad finish.Never heard of ONAN or IMMORTELLE. Top 2 for me – SEMTEX & LAVATORIAL with VISCERALLY in the bronze medal spot
Thanks all.
Pleased to have completed a Vlad in one evening session, until I came here to check that my parsing was correct. Then I was surprised to see SEMTEX and realised I had overlooked that clue, so didn’t finish after all. Never heard of TONY with that usage, so ANTONYMS wasn’t parsed. Being keen on football (soccer) I had no problem parsing 22 across. Thanks Vlad and PeterO.
I truly have no idea how you managed to parse some of these clues. Proofreading for instance, or lavatorial – “can” for lavatory, never heard of that. Good Looker too, wouldn’t have worked that out for years. Thanks for the demo of crossword professorialism.
Valentine@66 – fixed it by installing an adblock extension to my browser, fwiw
I must have a left-sided brain – or more I’m just sad – but I managed to parse PROOFREADING and thought it rather clever. I guess being married to an armchair Reading F. C. supporter could possibly have helped ! Huntsman@79, I had definitely heard of ONAN and in fact I have known a variety of the most dedicated onanists throughout my life. On which note, thanks to Vlad and to PeterO and goodnight !
[Polyphone @82 and Valentine @66: in Firefox, I am unable to stop the ad from superimposing itself on the grid, as there is no “x” visible to close the grey rectangle. I switched to Safari where there is no such problem]
Vlad@76,77. Thanks for letting us off the ice hockey. Transylvania, yeah ,got that, even though you’re not going so much for the jugular as you used to be. 🙂
do
Thanks Vlad @76 for clearing that up!
essexboy @43
Rather late to be bothering about this but I missed all the discussion… “Work” (intransitive) is fairly familiar as an anagrind. I don’t think anyone is trying to make it mean the same as “get worked”. They’re just using one of its other many shades of meaning, for instance “to be in agitation or restless motion” (Merriam Webster). I was actually thinking more along the lines of cogs working against each other.
A day late to this due to travelling. Amazed it took until the 9th comment to note that Reading FC are nicknamed the Royals. Well played Louise!
Vlad @76
Thanks for dropping by. I gave a run-down @70 of how I managed to introduce the diversion to Pennsylvania.
Thanks for following it up anyway, Peter. The American Royals would have been foul play.
I agree that this was Vlad at his most accessible. Had intended to save for weekend but a sleepless night (some vicious non-covid bug) weakened my resolve. A tad disappointed by its relative straightforwardness. I think PROOFREADING could be the first solution I haven’t parsed since pre-pandemic at least. But I blame myself; I’ve, irrascibly, held stoic disinterest in this recent American interlocking whereby British sports teams have some random, often alliterative, animal added to their name. I must get out less often and fill my mind with crap!
Having said this, still a great puzzle; I particularly admired the first and last clues…. MEAT AND TWO VEG and ACED
Many thanks, Vlad
… oops….and Peter O of course
(Peter O …… middle of night, much pain and looked in to glean PROOFREADING parsing. Forgot to mention that I think you’ve explained GOOD LOOKER incorrectly; “see|right”=>”lo|ok” surely? I think of those for whom this site holds great value – beginners, and particularly future ones who may be taking advantage of the Guardian’s wonderful archive. I often do this but perhaps not with your blogs – which shows how precise you are usually!)
William, you’re right about the parsing of GOOD LOOKER. I missed that on the blog.
3down A case can be made for ANTINOME ->
AN T (IN) OME
Whosit @ 96
I think th answer and parsing you suggest has two problems: wordplay and definition. The wordplay requires IN to find its way into TOME; you do not elaborate, but I would take it that the argument is along the lines of ‘piece of writing is (rather, ‘could be’, to be borrowed for a moment) in a book. so that ‘fashionable piece of writing becomes IN in TOME. I have seen the occasional bit of wordplay that oblique, but I think that is merits at very least the odd raised eyebrow.
Antinome seems a somewhat obscure word, but means , essentially, an opposite, so that ‘yes’ is an antinome to ‘no’, or vice versa; or ‘yes and no’ are antinomes. The clue gives ‘yes and no’, indicating the plural. I think I will stick with my original version.