This is the first Bluth puzzle we have had the pleasure of blogging
We really enjoyed the solve, although it was a little easier than we have come to expect for a Saturday Indy, especially for a holiday weekend.
The theme was apparent as soon as we noticed that ‘1A’ appears in several clues, but it took us a little while to figure out how the thematic clues worked. However, all became clear once we had a few crossers and we have to take our hats off to Bluth for managing to work each of the four 1As into consecutive clues.
We’re looking forward to the next Bluth!
Season’s Greetings to all from this 1A!
LEA (open country) C (clubs) in or ‘shrouded by’ DOUBT (uncertainty)
tYsOn without the odd letters or ‘oddly missing’ after DO (work) H (hard) – we had to check the definition as we’d never heard of this word before – it’s a sumo wrestling ring.
P (prince) RIVAl (competing) without the last letter or ‘not quite’ + R (king) after TEE (support)
CA (chartered accountant) MEL (half of ‘double act’ (1A) Mel and Sue)
SUE (the other half of the 1A at 10a) after EtoN (posh school) without or ‘discounting’ ‘to’
IdioT without the middle letters or ‘disheartened’ ALIAS (stage name) round or ‘touring’ N (new)
UND (German for ‘and’) E (European) FEAT (achievement) EnglanD missing or ‘knocking out’ the middle letters or ‘stuffing’
SNUG (comfortable) reversed or ‘in retirement’
A with TUN (barrel) in front or ‘to begin with’
ANT (half of double act (1A) Ant and Dec) IS (‘s) O (old) CIA (agents) L (left)
DEC (the other half of the 1A at 19a) IS + ON (working) after or ‘on’ I (current)
ONE (individual) round VI (six)
VIC (half of double act (1A) Vic and Bob) S (succeeded) round or ‘taking’ E (ecstasy – drug)
BOB (the other half of the 1a at 27a) S L (first letters or ‘starts’ to Swear Like) EIGHt (8) without the last letter or ‘most of’
DOPE (gen) Y
RonniE and RonniE (both without the middle letters or ‘on vacation’) round or ‘entertaining’ an anagram of TEEN (anagrind is ‘awkward’) + D (director)
First or ‘initial’ letters of Prefers Interpretive Dance reversed or ‘over’
Alternate letters (‘every so often’) of bUrN pItTaS
LEAVE (holidays) OFF (elsewhere)
A (Australian) ERIC (half of double act (1A) Eric and Ernie) in or ‘visiting’ MA (mother)
ERN (the abbreviated or ‘little’ other half of the 1a at 4d) ‘invested’ in TATE (art gallery)
An anagram of sECTIonED with the letters of ‘son’ missing or ‘unseen’ – anagrind is ‘doctor’
MUNCh (Norwegian artist) without the last letter or ‘detailed’ U (middle letter or ‘essence of Smurf) in or ‘during’ HOLI (Hindu spring festival)
OilS without the middle letters or ‘content to leave’ LO (see). Munch (from the clue to 7d) died in Oslo
EX (former partner) ULT (last month)
DUN (brown) C (first letter of cow) ESCAPe (bolt) without the last letter or ‘almost’
SALVEr (tray) without the ‘r’ (right)
An anagram of TOM LOG ON – anagrind is ‘make again’
NAIL (secure) BAR (lock)
An anagram of I BELONG – anagrind is ‘for a change’
PITY (shame) round or ’embracing’ GodlinesS (first and last letters or ‘extremes’)
ICI (French for ‘here’) ER (the Queen)
DIVA (singer) reversed or ‘backing’
HA (laughter) D (first letter or ‘introduction’ of Double act (1A))
I really enjoyed solving this themed crossword – as B&J say, so clever to get the 1as in the right order in the clues
The right level of difficulty for Boxing Day I thought – on another Saturday I might have said differently
Thank you and Seasons Greetings to B&J and Bluth
Excellent! A fun theme, with the thematic answers fitted very satisfyingly into the grid. Thanks to Bluth.
My favourite clue of the day was ITALIANS, our last one in because it took so long to work out which exact part of the clue was the definition.
Thanks also to B&J for blogging. I came here to say that the word “again” seems redundant in the clue for 17dn, but I can see now thanks to your explanation that “make again” is a more satisfactory anagrind than simply “make”.
It took me a while to work out the theme but it eventually became apparent. I didn’t know ‘holi’ as a festival so couldn’t parse 7D fully. Decision = recommendation at 23A seems a bit of a stretch. Fully agree with previous comments re clever sequencing of themed entries. Thanks Bluth and B&J.
Thanks B&J. I hadn’t noticed until I saw the highlighted grid that every 1A occupies the same position in its solution as its partner – MEL and SUE at the end, ERIC and ERN in the middle, etc.
Many thanks to Bluth
Great idea, cleverly executed. And fun to solve too.
I found the NE corner the hardest, having said that I put in an unparsed ‘Dippy’ at 30a – which was obviously wrong now I see the blog.
I haven’t seen that use of filibuster before. My favourite clues were 7d and 12a.
Thanks to Bluth and B&J.
Vic and Bob not as familiar to me as the others. Got 7d from a word wizard and didn’t try to parse it. I got Monoglot from the fodder, couldn’t see what “again” was doing – if it’s part of the anagrind then splitting it up is not something I’d seen before.
A very good and enjoyable solve, though I was put off (in more ways than one) by the repeated use of “their” in the themed clues. I strained to think of paradoxical third members of various duos. “Their” is not a substitute for “his” or “her,” and surely the clues could have been phrased to avoid the solecism.
I had an amusing moment when an early tentative answer at 7d and a contradictory crossing answer left me briefly with “Munchkini” entered in my grid. Images of a Wizard of Oz/Beachblanket Babylon crossover flashed before me, but fortunately they were short-lived.
Thanks, Bluth and Bertandjoyce, and happy Boxing Day to all.
Thanks Bert and Joyce and thanks for the kind words. For what it’s worth the idea started with an idea for a clue for ‘antisocial’ where using ‘agents’ for ‘CIA’ made a nice context for it to be *that* Ant. Which led to a thought of a clue involving Dec… and then the rest
Getting them all into consecutive clues and always in the correct order for the way we refer to them (it’s never Dec & Ant or Ern & Eric) was the tricky bit.
Ian @7 you may not approve of it but ‘their’ _is_ a substitute for ‘his or her’.
Chambers:
their
pronoun and possessive adj
1: Of or belonging to them
2: His or her (a use unacceptable to some; see they)
Hope you all had a lovely Christmas in these very strange times.
I am probably in a minority of one on this. Having found Bluth’s previous crosswords a lot of fun, I was rather disappointed by this. It seemed to me, that this was a puzzle to be admired rather than enjoyed probably due to the constraints of the theme.
Thanks to B&J and to Bluth. I am sorry, Bluth, this wasn’t for me but I am still looking forward to your next one.
Welcome as always, Bluth. I think it is plain to see that I am among the “some.” I am of course aware of the widespread [mis]use that is in the ascendant, but linguistic change is like government. Both are inevitable but should be subject to the most vigorous opposition that only the worthy may survive scrutiny.
We were extra chuffed to see a Bluth puzzle on Boxing Day and we thought the theme was another level of enjoyment. There were a few recourses to Wikipedia and Alex’s glühwein consumption hampered her recollection of double acts. We found this harder than previous Bluth offerings but admired the clever theme and managed to parse everything.
Happy Christmas to all especially setter and Bertandjoyce!
Ian @10 I wholeheartedly agree about scrutiny. Not so sure about vigorous opposition. Words will either be used in particular ways or they won’t and no amount of opposition will stop something taking hold if that’s the way the wind is blowing. All of us use some words in ways that previous generations would have thought wrong. I can see no point in assuming any of us were fortunate enough to have arrived at the exact moment the English language was finally perfected.
It seems especially pointless in crosswordland – a place where words will mean what the dictionary says they mean whether you like it or not!
Bluth, I don’t think what we’re respectively saying is at odds. My message acknowledged that language evolves. I’m just saying I prefer slow and well-considered evolution, and I have yet to be won over by the use of a plural pronoun in a singular sense. Whenever I see or hear it, my brain returns a checksum error.
Now, for goodness’ sake, go enjoy your holiday!
Ian, I agree that we’re not at odds. I wasn’t arguing with you.
For what it’s worth, my brain doesn’t return any such error – I’m pretty sure I’ve heard people using ‘their’ in that sense since childhood.
Yes, a fun solve. 7dn required a word search and 6ac confused me as I knew “dojo” which Chambers says is a different word.
As to “their”, the epicene pronoun as it’s known, I didn’t even notice it. It was what I was taught in school back in the early sixties and when people started to complain about it’s use I looked it up. The OED gives examples back to the fifteenth century and people like Austen and Dickens used it, so it is hardly recent. You should read Ada Palmer’s brilliant Terra Ignota sequence of book, set a couple of hundred years in the future where nobody uses gendered pronouns, it’s all they, them, their, except for the narrator who says he is deliberately writing in an archaic style.
fully agree Dormouse@15
thanks Bluth n Bertandjoyce
Just to add to the “their” discussion, the use of a genderless singular pronoun can be useful and shouldn’t be discouraged. In phrases such as “neither of them remembered their kit” when the couple consists of one male and one female, for example. Here, where the setter may wish not to reveal the sex is perfectly acceptable to me.
Incidentally, at the time of the last papal enclave, in The Independent’s weekly correction column, there was a comment on the sentence, “Each cardinal casts their vote.” Obviously all the cardinals are male, but “their” seemed perfectly acceptable.
Dormouse @15 that’s absolutely fascinating. Ta!
Thanks, Dormouse. I am aware of the Austen and Dickens uses, but there are many aspects of Regency and Victorian (let alone Elizabethan) grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, etc., that have not survived. The English I was brought up with is of course the product of evolution, but on this point at least it is completely logical and consistent with every other ancient or modern European language I know. I am most reluctant to let that evolutionary improvement go without a fight. (I should perhaps also point out that I was brought up in America, where, at least at the time, the approach to grammar was comfortingly prescriptive and logical; I sense from what I see and hear that this was not necessarily the case here.)
Bluth, I have also been aware of this use of “their” since childhood, but it was always drilled into me that it belonged in the same category as the grocer’s apostrophe, “like” as a conjunction, “different than,” etc. I do appreciate that a cryptic compiler’s lot is not always a happy one, as your goal is both to convey clear and precise meaning but also to deceive through ambiguity, etc., but there is great satisfaction as a solver when an ambiguity suddenly resolves yet both interpretations still seem equally sound. In this case, I really did spend a lot of time thinking who the third member of Morecambe and Wise, etc., might be, and when the penny dropped, my reaction was not, “Of course — it was there all along,” it was, “No! That’s wrong. Of course I didn’t see it.” As usual, I hope you do not take my occasional nitpicking as a reprimand. It is intended only as constructive feedback or fodder for discussion among language lovers. Let me know and I will stop.
i am reminded of something I heard or read about twenty years ago when a linguist was about to present that year’s Reith Lectures. The interviewer asked her what her view was on double-negatives. She said it was a useful intensifier. “But it’s logically wrong,” replied the interviewer. “What has logic to do with language?” she replied.
I repeat that my English lessons at school in the early sixties, singular they was taught as perfectly acceptable and very useful. “There’s someone at the door.” “Ask them what they want.” Many of my contemporaries report that they too were taught that. Ben Yagoda in his Not One-Off Britishism blog did say a while back that the epicene pronouns are more accepted in UK English compared to American English. And as to evolution, maybe gendered pronouns are the appendixes of language and will disappear entirely, as much of grammatical gender has been lost in English, compared to other European languages.
Ian @20 don’t stop, it’s all fascinating. I think the fact that you were raised in the States is key to this. Using they/their in this manner feels entirely fine to my ear. Not even a tiny bump in the road.
Mind you, last year I met an American person who uses they/them/their as their personal pronouns.
Not rea;;y a States issue as my brain reacts the same way as Ian’s.
That said it also does the same when people use amount instead of number and pronounce schedule with a hard ch.
And as for the increasing use of ‘should of’ and ‘could of’ – argh!
I loved all the double act clues including the finally Two Ronnies reference. For me there was also something very satisfying about 22D with regard to Cleanliness is next to Godliness and also with the Norwegian painter and his place of death. I don’t mind setters using an ellipsis to help the surface readings alone but find particular pleasure when they also link the wordplay which was brilliantly executed here.
Funnily enough, when searching my emojis on WhatsApp while I was WFH and my spouse was in the office to tell them “it’s time to munch on some lunch” – the words of our Google Assistant at 1pm – this charade of emojis came up ?2??????
Sadly searching for Munch or my normal Android keyboard doesn’t find ? but searching for scream does.
Bluth@12 (on the off-chance you’re still looking at this) – I’m sure I read somewhere that research showed everything reached the pinnacle of perfection about 30 years ago. Always. No matter when the research is done.
this is fascinating has to be said! I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, I’ve squared it up by thinking about how the plural form often formalises, like the royal “we”, or indeed the French “Tu” versus “Vous” form. The use of third person in Italian (Lei) for direct first person conversation removes gender from the equation also. Maybe, back in the mists of time, when less respect was shown to the female gender in general, the plural form was a useful device to defuse any slight by use of a gender specific pronoun?
“of” in should “of”, could “of” is surely just a homophone of “have”? slightly different kettle of fish..
DuncT @26 I’m still looking because it’s a genuinely fascinating conversation! I think that sounds about right. Nostalgia is a powerful force!
Wrynose @25 thanks. I’ve certainly used an ellipsis to help the surface readings before now but it was particularly satisfying to use so many in one puzzle where the link was more complete than that. Unfortunately on my device your emojis are just showing up as question marks but of course I can intuit what they are.
Undrell @27 yes, I agree that ‘could of’/‘should of’ are just homophones of ‘could’ve/should’ve’ bleeding into use and as such, a different category error.
One thought on why I actually like they/their sometimes. We live in a world in which the default setting seems to be male. If someone writes a clue that refers to ‘he’ or ‘him’, nobody bats an eyelid. Write a clue with ‘she’ in it and somebody somewhere will respond saying, “and why did the X have to be female?” There are some people who dismiss it as being ‘performatively woke’ which is odd because they are – or should be – equally valid.
Setters use pseudonyms and there are many setters that I don’t know anything of except their puzzles. If somebody asks me, “what do you think of setter Y?” I feel more comfortable saying, “oh, their clues are always delightful” than using ‘his or her’ or a presumptive ‘his’.
None of the acts was familiar to me at all (I’m American), so that certainly added to the degree of difficulty! Regarding the epicene pronoun, there are lots of languages that just have a gender-neutral third-person pronoun; Finnish, Hungarian, and Turkish come to mind.
DuncT @26, Bluth @12. et al. passim, I think as a child I must have absorbed the essence of the research referred to. (I know I envied my parents for having grown up during the Great Depression, though I probably associated the era more with the Marx Brothers.) I certainly did not think, growing up in the heart of hippie HQ in the 60s, that I was “fortunate enough to have arrived at the exact moment the English language [or anything else] was finally perfected.” Even at 6 or 7, it was clear to me that civilisation was on its way down, and I have have encountered very little to change my mind since. Cryptic crosswords (as well as pedantry) provide a welcome distraction and respite, so thanks, Bluth, for playing on while the ship goes down and I struggle to rearrange the deck chairs.
my point about ‘should of’/’could of’ is that I have seen them written (in books even) and that is the 1st step towards being part of the language surely.
I seem to recall a proposal that their/there/they’re should all become one word to avoid confusion (sic).
I have no problem with their as such when the gender is unknown but it still strikes me as a mere substitute for his/her.
The use of ‘she’ in crosswords where people might expect ‘he’ has always struck me as a step in the right direction – i.e. a challenge to precomceptions.
I still shout at the TV for amount in place of number mind you!