This is Jack’s fourth Genius puzzle and the 2nd that we have had the pleasure of blogging. We are more familiar with his Indy persona as Serpent and we always enjoy his puzzles – so this should be good!
And it was!! We really like Genius puzzles that have to be worked at until they fall neatly into place, especially when there is a hidden message that hints at an interesting endgame. This one had it all!
The preamble: Wordplay in each clue contains a superfluous letter to be ignored in reaching its solution. The solutions are to be fitted into the grid, jigsaw-wise, however they will go. The superfluous letters from the clues (in the normal order of their solutions as found in the grid) spell out a final instruction that must be followed before the entry is submitted for the prize.
The clues are then presented in alphabetical order, with only the letter count to give any indication of where the answers might fit into the grid.
There is really no option but to attempt to solve as many of the clues as possible without the benefit of crossing letters, relying only on the letter-count. We found that listing the answers as we solved them under the word lengths (8 four-letter words, 6 six-letter words, etc) helped in untangling the random sequence of clues. Once we had solved the two 7-letter clues across the centre, together with several of the 8 and 10-letter answers, we began to fill the grid. This in turn helped with the clues we had not been able to solve. Arranging the superfluous letters in ‘normal’ clue order to begin to reveal the final instruction also helped by establishing the likely extra letters in the unsolved clues.
The completed grid is shown below, with ‘normal’ numbering to aid identification.
We have arranged the clues in the normal order in the parsings below, and have identified the superfluous letters in (brackets).
The instruction given by the extra letters is:
CHANGE ONE LETTER TO MAKE PANGRAM
Changing the S at 23 to Q obeys the instruction and leaves real words. The grid with the Q is the one that should have been submitted for the prize.
A very satisfying endgame – many thanks, Jack
An anagram (‘novel’) of ON HOPE ‘hidden’ in X (by, as in ‘times’ in maths) BIC (‘writer’, as in the pen)
Double definition
OB (old boy) + J E (‘juvenile’ without the middle letters or ‘voided’) CT (court)
ANNUaL (publication) LED (was first) without or ‘abandoning’ the ‘a’ (area)
A reversal (‘about’) of CITY’S round or ‘hosting’ I (writer) after or ‘pursuing BAR (rail)
N (last or ‘ultimate’ letter of conmen) in or ‘crowded by’ YAK (chat)
An anagram (‘suffering’) of CAN KEEP
J (first letter or ‘start’ of job) AS (when) + an anagram (‘supply’) of MEN round or ‘boxing’ I
F (fellow) in or ‘overwhelmed by’ first letters or ‘sources’ of Torrent In Full
A reversal (‘sent back’) of E (English) TIN (money) in PENCE (small change)
An anagram (‘going mad’) of IDOLS + a reversal (‘backward’) of LAY (place)
SUm (problem) AVERs (states) both without their last letters or ‘axing backers’
Hidden (‘concealed’) in outsiZE ROusers
NiCe (‘regular’ letters of nice) in or ‘wearing’ NEGLIGEE (revealing clothing)
proVERB (saw) without or ‘losing’ pro (in favour of)
LO + VEgetABLE (food plant) without or ‘ejecting’ get
WET (moderate politician) round or ‘penning’ H (hospital)
An anagram (‘wrongly aligned’) of STOICAL rounder ‘stabbed by’ CON (convict – ‘prisoner’)
A homophone (‘being delivered’) of CHILLI (hot meal typically)
N (new) in or ‘sheltered by’ GOVE (Conservative politician) RAN (supervised) CE (Church of England)
BEAU (boyfriend) T Y (first and last letters or ‘case’ of try)
SEED round or ‘limiting’ IS after or ‘introduced by’ N (new) SIT (model)
An anagram (‘out to lunch’) of PAPER + LYING (dishonesty)
DATES (courts) after or ‘supporting’ (in a down clue) MAN (‘lad in years to come’)
L (line) in or ‘bitten by’ UN PUG (dog)
L (Liberal)CO (county) in or ‘blocking’ FAN (adherent)
Triple definition
First letters or ‘leaders’ of En Are Creating Havoc
Nice, clear blog. I seem to rely heavily on crossers to complete most puzzles, so jigsaws are especially challenging. I got stuck after only a few clues solved, so I went back to look at some old Jack puzzles that I had solved to get reacquainted with his cluing style; that was a big help. I managed to guess correctly about the fit of NEGLIGENCE, REAPPLYING, DISLOYAL, and UNPLUG, and the rest came together relatively smoothly after that, as new solutions got locked into place. I could see that the extra instruction was going to say something about “change . . . letter,” that helped fit the last few clues. I liked that the removal of the “extra” letters resulted in real words to use in the wordplay; that cannot have been easy to construct. Really a remarkable puzzle.
I was glad to find that “Wordplay in each clue contains a superfluous letter” actually meant that letters needed to be removed from the clues rather than wordplay leading to the answer plus an extra letter, and I don’t mind that the letter is removed from one of the definitions in a double (or triple) definition clue, but surely it is wrong to say that the superfluous letters in the clues to TIFF, KNEECAP and PENITENCE are contained in the wordplay.
I noticed that each letter appears as the first letter of an entry in the final grid and there are only 26 cells that contain the first letter of an entry, so the only repeated first letters are where two entries start in the same cell. When I was solving I was a little annoyed that the clues were not in alphabetical order of their answers, but I think this was intended to make this property harder to notice.
Thanks Jack and Bertandjoyce.
Tough, enjoyable. Terrific setting!
Anchoring KNEECAP and JASMINE got the entries rolling.
After messing with solutions and letters on paper (cross-referencing without clue numbers was maddening), created a spread-sheet. That yielded a string of superfluous letters like:
Change?ne??tte???m?k?p??g??m
That helped enormously to get the other letters as well as solutions…
Missing Q slotted itself in the only place possible.
Hugely satisfying.
A very cleverly constructed puzzle which kept me entertained for quite a while. I found highlighting the different lengths of answers, both in the grid and the enumeration of the clue, helped in putting together the jigsaw as I went.
My only question mark was ‘out to lunch’ as an anagrind.
Thanks for the blog putting us out of our misery!
Without crossers, we were only able to solve about half of the clues, not enough to place any in the grid, so regretfully had to give up.
I agree with Matthew that it seemed a little unfair to have some of the superfluous letters in the definition part of some clues, as the instructions had specified “wordplay”.
The instructions I read did not mention wordplay, just that each clue had a superfluous letter. Was there a change at some point? I solved it pretty soon after release.
Super puzzle, thanks to Jack, & B&J
James: yes, the instructions were changed at some point (as happens quite often with the Genius).
A really great puzzle, though also unusually hard.
Yes, that was a fairly serious mistake in the instructions, which they appear to have corrected on the website but not on the pdf download. Unfortunately Genius crosswords can only really be solved on the pdf nowadays. I got to “Tiff”, which only seemed to work with the extra letter in the definition, and marked it with a big question mark. I wasted quite a lot of time coming back to it and trying to re-solve or -parse it.
Maybe it’s worth going over the broader pdf/website problem in the hope that someone at the Guardian will see this and finally sort it out:
Unlike most of the other Guardian crosswords, the Genius was originally designed to be online-only. For years it was, then a slightly chaotic update to the site stopped the interface from working. They came up with a temporary fix in which we had to fill in the answers in a simple form, the sort of arrangement you might have found on the early 1990s internet. It was cumbersome and absurd, especially given that this was meant to be the special interactive online puzzle, but it was only for a short time while they fixed the bug. That was, I believe, about ten years ago. Like others, I did occasionally remind the Guardian that it hadn’t been fixed but was careful to say that I understood it couldn’t be a high priority. I think I’m going to stop saying that now.
This was one of the best Geniuses I can remember but making us submit a “jigsaw” without a grid is ridiculous and embarrassing.
I echo Herb’s comments, although the fact that the Guardian has recently suffered an attack on its IT systems must mean that a solution to this particular problem will be even further down the priority list. I am down to blog January’s puzzle, due to be published tomorrow. I hope it appears, in a solvable format.
I can only add my agreement to the comments above, both on the quality of the puzzle and the lack of quality on the website.
Thanks to Jack, and to Bertandjoyce for the very clear blog.
Wow! Thanks to Matthew @2 for pointing out that the puzzle is (when the hidden instruction is obeyed) an alphabetical jigsaw – we are even more impressed. We really hadn’t noticed that while solving – respect!
In the pdf version we downloaded as soon as it was available, the preamble was as we have reproduced above – with the ‘superfluous letters in the wordplay’. We realised during solving that in five cases, the superfluous letter was in the definition, but we rather carelessly assumed that we may have misunderstood the preamble and that the superfluous letter could be anywhere in the clue. Unfortunately this is another example of the Grauniad’s reputation for inadequate proof-reading or test-solving. Fortunately it didn’t spoil the puzzle for us – one of the best Genius puzzles in a long time. Once again – thanks to Jack
Just to be different. I find it impossible to solve any crosswords online, even where the website works as intended. I always take the ‘Print’ option, and print out on the back of some junk mail – call me old-fashioned, but I need to be able to look at a piece of paper to think properly, a well as write out anagrams, tentative solutions and so on
Mr Beaver@12
You are not alone. I find Gdn online browser solve (never tried their app) to be the most acceptable, if I have to do online. Mostly I try to print.
I find Indy to be the worst online experience for the following reasons:
– browser’s ad-blocker has to be disabled and one is forced to watch ads (some times skip is offered on long ads)
– your device clock(!) must be set to GMT or ahead, otherwise that day’s puzzle won’t show, even though the new puzzle has been uploaded (both Gdn and FT will allow you to access their puzzles once uploaded, no matter where you live and what your local time is.
– setter name not displayed in smaller devices like phones; one has to pull down ‘puzzle info’ to see setter name
– print option has been eliminated in smaller devices like phones (I use my laptop browser to print Indy; change my system clock and change it back every time I print an Indy puzzle)
– online is finicky in many ways – example – if you press ‘back’ in browser, it takes you out of the site; you have to start all over again (watch the ad again); mercifully what you had entered is saved
– you can’t see the completed grid and all the clues together, ever.
– this is not an online problem, but Indy pdf is two pages long with an unncessary blank page…you do more stuff just to print one page
I will get my coat…
Many thanks to bertandjoyce for the customary excellent blog. Thanks also to everyone who has taken the time to comment.
The final grid is indeed intended to be an alphabetical jigsaw in the style of Araucaria. And the clues were intentionally presented in alphabetical order to conceal this aspect of the puzzle until the end.
Apologies for the problems with the preamble, the result of a late editorial change whose implications I failed to spot when checking the proof. I believe the original preamble was reinstated at some point early in December.
11@bertandjoyce: I noticed the same thing in the rubric but thought it was probably an error. Because this is the only Guardian puzzle I attempt, I don’t know if the site or other puzzles have a pattern of errors. Whatever the case, the mistake did not hamper my ability to solve the puzzle. @14Jack: No need to apologise. This was a fine crossword. Solvers could work it out just as our blogging tandem did.
I’d like to post here to say how much I enjoyed the puzzle. I also (carelessly!?!) didn’t spot the mistake in the instructions: it didn’t particularly hamper me and my
solving experience was similar to that described by Bert and Joyce with much needed solving of the longer clues to get started on the jigsaw part.
Bravo to Jack on the setting here, the puzzle ticked all my boxes too.
I have another beef about the submitting of Genius solutions which I’d be interested to hear if other people have the same
experience or if it’s just me (might be a bit late to get reactions but here goes anyway): I get no acknowledgement- neither on the page or by email – that I have successfully submitted? It is quite a frustration that I don’t expect in 2023. I can’t think of another web page or app where the successful submission of the form does not result in some sort of acknowledgment! This is doubly irksome as there are often quirks (related to the discussion above) with how the Genius entries need to be entered e.g. when the answer is more than one word should they be separated by a space or a comma or does it not matter? If anyone
is reading I’d be interested to hear but maybe I should post on general discussion. I doubt I’d get a response from The Grauniad directly.
Happy New Year to all Bloggers, Solvers (new and old), Setters, Lurkers. May you have much fun with all the crosswords served up here and elsewhere in 2023.
Ed@16: When the online submission is complete, the answers entered on the submission form disappear, and if you scroll up on the screen, there should be a little bubble that says something like “Your Entry Has Been Submitted Successfully.” The submission forms are hand-checked, so entering multi-word answers either as multiple words or as one long string of letters (exactly as it would appear in the actual puzzle) is acceptable. There is an e-mail address for the Grauniad Crossword Editor somewhere in the general crossword information, and there is a real person there, but I am not sure how often they respond to general inquiries.
Thanks Cineraria@16. I am pretty sure that I have never seen the message that you suggest – and that I would expect – when I have submitted my entries in the past. I can confirm that the answers do disappear as you said but no message was obvious to me this time. At the next opportunity (assuming there is one 🙂 )I will complete the task super carefully and check again. Your reassurance about their being a real person behind the scenes is encouraging at least.
there* of course 😉
I found this rather frustrating. I solved 2/3 of the clues, but since I was unable to get even a complete set of solutions of one letter count, I could make precisely no headway with either the grid or the hidden instruction. I failed over many more sessions to solve any more, so even with that many solutions I had to give up as I didn’t even have a toehold from which to complete the rest.
This to me is not a well designed puzzle. There is only one way to solve it, and that is to first solve almost all of a totally disconnected set of clues. Even 2/3 success in that task will not give you any way of making any further progress. The most pleasing puzzles, crosswords or any other, are those where it looks impossible, then you find a way in, then bit by bit you are able to build on that and eventually knock out those last few very difficult bits. This was almost the polar opposite.
Worse things happen in the world every day, but rather than coming away thinking fair play to the setter, he beat me there, I was left thinking what was the point of that?
Fiery Jack @20
That seems a real shame. I don’t understand why you didn’t start filling in answers if you had 2/3 of the answers cold-solved. I can’t remember exactly how the cold-solving went for me but I shouldn’t think I did as well as that. Others may be more methodical but the only rule I’ve really come up with for puzzles like this is: start filling in answers, sooner than you think. Even if you only have a few, you can start generating possible crossers to help solve more. Always use a pencil (or, when the Guardian fix their site, keep deleting entries that don’t work…) and move anything if you need to. As well as crossers you soon notice impossible or unlikely arrangements (weird end-letters, combinations that look wrong, you just can’t find a way of using those crossers, etc.) or conversely very hopeful ones (i blank g etc.). With the success you had cold-solving things would probably have fitted together pretty soon. I’ve had jigsaws where I’ve had to drag the same few clues around the grid for ages but something usually emerges. The whole process can be quite slapdash and you might have to start all over again, but the one rule remains: start filling the answers in early – in pencil, and literally anywhere they’ll go.
Herb @21 Agreed. Every solution I get is immediately written in the grid. Either there is a space for it without crossing other previously-entered solutions, or by a bit of shuffling it will intersect with one of those in a location that is usually pretty obvious. Very soon there is only one possible arrangement.
There is a contingent that likes to treat filling the grid as a logic puzzle, refusing to enter a solution without knowing that it is in the correct place. Perhaps Fiery Jack is one of those. I suppose it is an extra pleasure, but I just want to have the puzzle done asap.
Thanks Herb @21. I did give that a go, but then found myself staring at an unsolved clue thinking OK, so it could start with any one of 5 different letters, then the third letter could be one of four, so that gives me 20 possibilities and it was not at all helpful. I guess it was my misfortune that my solutions were evenly spread across the letter counts, so that each set of same letter counts was about 2/3 complete. That meant a very great number of possibilities and nothing very helpful coming out of it. Getting all the 10s, for example, would have made it possible to make something of a start.
I think it is just the combination of some very tough clues together with no possibility of getting any crossers, which means that I was no closer to finishing than if I had not been able to solve a single clue. So it was less of a crossword and more of a set of individual clues, and it is that which made it hugely frustrating and in my view a rather poorly designed puzzle. And the subtle change to the instructions after I had printed out the thing didn’t help either.
Hey ho, January’s is a lot more straightforward.
Two quick comments: firstly, I loved this puzzle – one of my favourite solving experiences of last year. Secondly, I feel contractually obliged to point out that this was Jack’s 6th Genius puzzle, not his 4th. His previous contributions to the series were #149 (November 2015), #159 (September 2016), #169 (July 2017), #193 (July 2019) and #222 (December 221).
James @ 22, as it happens I am not one of those, and am well used to taking a likely looking punt and seeing where it goes. Where I dissent from the general love-in above is that the only way forward was to insert solutions at random, then try to solve some missing ones on the supposition that at least some crossers are correct, then if I still cannot solve them then try to work out whether it is because the clue is still defeating me or because I have anything up to a dozen solutions in the wrong place. Clearly other people got there, but life is too short.
Fiery Jack, our experience was similar to yours, so I sympathise.
However, I’ve got used to the occasional humiliation at the hands of the Genius setters – I like to think I’m quite good at cryptics, but clearly there are many who are much better, and an enjoyable challenge for them may be an impossibility for me.
So you can’t really blame the setter, IMO.
Mr Beaver @26, that is a fair comment, but for me the problem is the lack of satisfaction at the progress I did make. I tackled a seriously tough Azed before Christmas, involving encrypting certain solutions before entry in the grid according to a letter square which you had to deduce from the crossers from the non-encrypted solutions. I made it, I would estimate, around 60% of the way towards completion. This was nonetheless satisfying given how tough the challenge was.
In this case, despite solving 1/2 to 2/3 of the clues, progress towards solution = zero and hence feeling of achievement = zero.
Anyway, maybe I should leave it there. I just feel that a puzzle that I cannot complete should leave me feeling “that was tough but at least I made it that far” rather than “what a waste of time that was”. It is emotional rather than rational, but it irritated me no end.