Guardian 29,527 / Ludwig

159 comments on “Guardian 29,527 / Ludwig”

1. I’m a bit speechless, realising that I had seen the answers before. Like Eileen, I have compared the clues from the first one and these were definitely more accessible. A remarkable feat really and agree with all of Eileen’s ticks. I’ve only seen the first episode, so will return sometime.

   Ta Ludwig & Eileen.

2. Sands is not a synonym of Planes.

3. Tim C@2
   As a verb in the sense of ‘smooths’?

4. 19d – don’t understand the purpose of “bee”!

5. The fact that the answers were the same completely went over my head. Some solvers here seem to have a remarkable memory for both clues and answers seen before, but sadly I am not among them. I didn’t even recall that Ludwig was the author of the previous debacle.

   In any case, as Eileen said, “this puzzle can be solved with no awareness of the previous puzzle or the programme” and I found that was indeed the case. It was a perfectly decent midweek outing.

   And a final footnote: if the previous outing was deliberately obscure as some sort of reference to the programme, that makes me even less fond of it. It was an ill-conceived conceit IMO, which I hope won’t be repeated.

6. Loved this, did not recognise the answers either (maybe that’s why I am so often stumped by cryptic definitions). I agree with Eileen completely. And I disagree with Tim C @2, to sand is so close to plane that I find it fully acceptable.
   Thanks to Ludwig and Eileen! And no spoilers…

7. I really don’t get 19d. Is it just that a spelling bee is an American term for a group of people spelling words, and a sabbat is a meeting of witches, presumably casting spells? It feels a bit tenuous to me.

   Other than that I enjoyed this, though I can’t believe I didn’t spot it was the same grid as the earlier Ludwig! Thanks to Eileen and Ludwig.

8. joseph@4 bee as a meeting eg a sewing bee etc

9. The SOHO CLUBS anagram was hilarious.

10. I did the previous Ludwig but, doing today’s, I didn’t have any idea that the answers were the same – shows how good my memory is! I very much enjoyed this one and thought there was a good variety of clues. HUSH HUSH and NOVAE were inventive. I had particular ticks for SCHOOL BUS for the amusing surface, and BLACK HOLE in which the surface was presumably a reference to Taylor Swift.

    Many thanks Ludwig and Eileen.

11. I failed to solve 19d and I could not parse 23d though I suspected it might be an anagram.

    From comments on the Guardian blog, I picked up that this puzzle is a repeat of Ludwig’s first puzzle on 25 September but with new/different clues. I didn’t enjoy it much that time first but today was easier – even though I did not remember all the answers. I also did not enjoy the TV show and cannot recommend it – I watched 20 minutes of the first episode and gave up on it as it is not my cup of tea for many reasons.

    Hopefully the Guardian will not continue (attempting) to promote TV shows via their crosswords.

12. I realised two clues in that the answers were the same, so whizzed through this. I had PO for toilet facility in SPORTIVE.

    I’ve also watched the full series of Ludwig, no TV, so I watch on iPlayer – which is obviously lining up for a sequel.

    Thank you to Ludwig and Eileen.

13. I had no memory of Ludwig I, except the feeling that I’d seen DENEB somewhere not that long ago, so that didn’t help but this turned out to be (for me) very easy anyway. Ludwig II of Bavaria was crazy and flamboyant compared to his predecessor, but here it’s the opposite. Thanks to them and Eileen!

14. I’m with TimC @2, sanding is not planing. And I’m a woodworker.

15. DNF. Defeated by ‘sand darts’ and ‘sabbat’. Despite KVa’s comment, while I can accept that sanding and planing have a similar purpose in smoothing the surface of wood they are quite distinct processes. Confusing ‘sabbat’ with ‘shabbat’ didn’t help me. Despite my quibble and lack of knowledge, I enjoyed the puzzle a lot.

16. I failed to see any connection with Ludwig’s previous puzzle, but I enjoyed it just as much. The only complaint I have is that it was a bit too easy!
    For some reason I find Ludwig much more fun than Enigmatist.
    Thanks to Eileen and the setters.

17. Lord Jim @ 10 – thanks for that: the possible Taylor Swift reference didn’t occur to me – I didn’t see beyond the BLACK HOLE which has been a mantra ever since July!

    Shanne @12 – I had the same first thought for PO in SPORTIVE but it didn’t account for the ‘wall’.

18. Didn’t recognise the answers from five weeks ago.
    Just looked back and the clue for 23D is the same both times. I hope that’s not a spoiler for any telly watchers!

19. You just don’t clue obscure words with a cryptic definition (in this case a really crap one to boot). It makes me a little angry.

20. I repeat, since it is in vogue, “I’m in the camp of a promising start with some original ideas, but hope any second appearance (if any) will have matured.” It didn’t mature.

    I would add to TimC’s comment about sands and planes, that observatory and telescope, orbit and ring are not synonyms. No doubt Collins will prove me wrong.

    Thanks Eileen

21. An enjoyable puzzle but am I the only solver to find it all excruciatingly self-referential?

22. I had PO for toilet facility, too, with “wall” telling me where to put the rivets. I enjoyed this and I quite like the conceit.

23. 12a RED PLANET “(bill?)” – as in dollar bill, legal tender?

24. The sooner the appalling Ludwig in all its forms goes away the better (for me).

25. I enjoyed the Inside No 9 puzzles, and though I haven’t watched Ludwig I enjoy what they are trying to do with these ones too. This is already such a snidely gatekept community, stop trying to freeze out anybody who DARES to try to do something different and interesting with the medium. If all you want to do are the same old puzzles with references to the same old dusty academic nonsense, there’s millions of puzzles out there for you. Let’s enjoy something that dares to interact with the 21st Century like this puzzle, when they so sparingly appear.

26. 20a ALEPHS: ALES are “Appropriate drinks” to be “passed around” in your “local”, whereas
    16d One would totally “Inappropriately” book a SCHOOL BUS for a field trip to Soho clubs.
    [Loved this. Liked the previous Ludwig puzzle, too. The TV show, not so much.]

27. This was certainly easier than last time. And I had not realised the answers were the same.

    Is it too clever by half or an entertaining diversion? Tastes may vary.
    But bravery should be applauded; better to try, and maybe fail, than to plod on in dull mediocrity.

    Personally, I’m greatly enjoying the TV show and have also resisted binging it. Looking forward to the finale tonight.

28. @Fru – please explain to me how this puzzle is down with the kids in a way in which any other cryptic from the last 7 days is. The objections to the puzzle are that it’s not very good, not that it’s trying to be a hep cat daddio

29. I thought for a while that the G had repeated the earlier puzzle, especially when previously unknown words such as DENEB and METONYMIC came more easily this time. However half way through, I saw in a comment (from pdm) on the G thread that just the clues were new. It was certainly more accessible.
    I liked the device in HUSH-HUSH, the reverse anagram in MENTAL BREAKDOWN and the anagram METONYMIC.
    Thank you for the lovely blog Eileen and for the easier ride, Ludwig.

30. Damn cheeky if you ask me!!!

    Maybe thats why I finished this one so quickly!

31. From time to time, whilst solving this, I thought “We’ve had that answer before in another puzzle” (which, of course, does happen), but I never realised that each time it was the same past puzzle. There you go. Thanks, Ludwig and Eileen.

32. {[Noticed 24a BLACK crosses with SABBAT 19d – no earworms allowed]}
    Especially liked 13a ALTAR. Thanks L&E

33. Thanks both but deja vu all over again? Foi was DENEB and that rang a loud bell followed in due course by INVIOLATE (which I think has turned up separately in the interim but with a very dubious definition) while SAND-DARTS and METONYMIC confirmed that we had met before.

    I feel obliged to register a slight sense of being short-changed. While the level of crypsis was high I still flew through this, presumably because of some residual memory of the original (which is odd as I am painfully aware of my inability to remember ephemera, periphera (etc)).

    I wonder how Ludwig (the programme) will go down with non-puzzlers. I enjoyed the first episode but like AlanC@1 I am saving the rest up for a rainy day.

34. @bingy, I’m not saying the puzzle is ‘down with the kids’ or a ‘hep cat daddio’, although your employment of those terms in your question very neatly sums up the point I was making, so thanks for that.

    What I was saying is that the puzzle is trying to do something interesting, both with the repeated/different clues and with its multimedia connections, that are not essential to completing the puzzle but offer an interesting meta-exploration if you’re so inclined to look into that. How that can be seen as a bad thing is beyond me.

35. With TassieTim@31–specifically HEDERA i thought “oh, that’s something I’ve only heard of in these puzzles” but absolutely didn’t remember that we’d had the same grid!

    A quibbles, I don’t mind the loose synonyms much (not that I figured out sands/planes) but feel like “portaloo” should have been in the surface, for the same reason that indirect anagrams are disparaged–it could have been anything. Fortunately it was clear what had to go there from the definition and rivets.

    Impressive. Thanks to the Ludwig collective and Eileen. (Now let’s see if they can do the same clues with a different grid….)

36. I solved all but one clue in the original Ludwig, and that took me some time. This one I breezed through in around thirty minutes; but I’m another who didn’t recall that the answers were the same. That said, I had a definite feeling of deja vu, and when I had entered DENEB I almost went back to look at the original. A rather mixed bag I thought, and in places a bit too obvious. I look forward to Roz’s thoughts on this: stand well back….With thanks to Ludwig and Eileen.

37. Can we please have a new crossword editor who is not obsessed with media gimmicks .
    Yes Jacob @5 I remembered every single answer so the puzzle and my journey home was completely ruined .

38. Not being in the UK and not having a VPN to get UKTV I’d completely forgotten what Ludwig was. I remembered seeing the H-H trick for rugby and the SAND DARTS before, but that was all.

    The only grumble is SABBAT. You either know the word or you don’t. The clue doesn’t really help.

    Thanks all, however many setters were involved and Eileen.

39. I found this very “hit or miss”, with a few deft clues, and many daft.
    My pet hate ( dodgy/ lazy abbreviations ) strikes again.
    El Salvador = ES.
    Port of London Authority = PLA.
    Really??
    I do not care if they are valid, or not. They’re just awful.

    I’m speechless that ” they are used with mortars” = PESTLES, dares to show its face.

    A few nice touches, such as: [ HH = rugby pitch; “spelling bee”( SABBAT); “train’s destination” (ALTAR).]

    I’m sorry, but this was, for me, a poor offering.
    “Ludwig in bed” just about sums it up.
    Ludwig hot? …..meh.

40. “I look forward to Roz’s thoughts on this: Stand well back!”

    Roz: “This editor is OBSESSED with MEDIA GIMMICKS! My journey home was completely RUINED!”.

    I mean, listen to yourselves. Histrionics over a newspaper crossword.

41. I hadn’t tried the puzzle first time round – although I did read the comments here a day after it was published.

    I therefore did not recognise any of the clues but I enjoyed the puzzle though struggled a bit in the bottom half. Eileen’s favourites have included mine.

    I did binge watch Ludwig – thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it got better as it went on.

    Thanks Ludwig and Eileen (Enjoy the last episode – and now we have to wait for the sequel.)

42. Let’s hold back on personal (or otherwise) attacks on the crossword editor.

    No-one forced you to solve his puzzle.

    And, for that matter, attacks on other commenters.

43. To be fair, these Ludwig puzzles have not, unlike the Sphinx / Steve Pemberton ones, made any reference to the TV series. The only link is the shared name of the setter and the programme. The fact that there was a brief glimpse of a couple of clues in the day’s puzzle in the first episode and another of the Guardian Puzzle Page in last week’s is irrelevant.

    Fiona @41 – I agree that it got better as it went on: I’m glad I persevered!

44. The name of the setter doesn’t appear on the Guardian app today (at least on my iPhone). When my first few entries seemed oddly familiar I checked on the Guardian website and found it was attributed to Ludwig. Fearing that it was a mistaken duplication I took a quick peek at Eileen’s preamble. Same solutions, different clues, apparently – so I went back and completed the puzzle.

    More straightforward than I remember, with some good anagrams. I parsed SPORTIVE as Shanne and Petert – PortaloO works, but is perhaps a bit too devious, even for this virtual setter.

    I don’t share the harrumphing over the connection with a TV series – the only solid link is the pseudonym of the setter, and the puzzle can be solved without any knowledge of the programmes. I agree that it isn’t a great crossword, but we are unlikely to see another (until series 2?). I was out of the country for the first three episodes of Ludwig – so I caught up on my return, and binge-watched the rest. For what it’s worth, I enjoyed the series much more than the puzzles!

    Thanks to Ludwig and Eileen

45. yeah, youth these days with their “mobile phones” and their “crazy haircuts”, next thing they’ll be expecting references in crosswords that they understand! Heaven forbid

46. I have to say I agree with most of what Fru says. I’ve been lurking here for years (and doing the Guardian crossword since the late ’70s), enjoying and often being helped by people’s comments, but I do think crosswords should keep up to date and be open to trying new ideas, even if some people don’t like a particular new idea or it doesn’t work as well as someone thought it would. We all see language in a slightly different way and not all of us will like every single clue or crossword. But having a variety is surely good.

47. Ticks for NOVAE, SCHOOL BUS & SPORTIVE

    I’ve always enjoyed this forum as a rare haven of good manners and constructive criticism. The tone of some of the recent comments has been somewhat disturbing. It’s a crossword for heaven’s sake. It’s just a bit of fun.

    Cheers E&L

48. Hilary@47 I agree with you about variety but how is that helped by having an identical grid ? Different clues are irrelevant if you remember every single answer.

49. Roz@48 I have the advantage of having a memory like a sieve. Only sand darts rang the faintest of bells.

50. Haven’t heard of the TV series (though it sounds like that doesn’t matter) and I was on a crossword hiatus when Ludwig made their first appearance, so this was all new answers to me.

    With that in mind, I do think that this ranged from clues being slightly too easy to ones that are slightly too obscure. PESTLES in particular felt barely cryptic, but SABBAT (while I do know the word) was never going to come to mind to me with that clue. Overall though, nice enough to solve (if not fully parse) in most places for this relatively inexperienced solver, and I’m used to a DNF outside of a Quiptic/occasional Monday so I was pretty fine with this, too.

    Particularly liked ALTAR

51. Roz @48, I appreciate that was a pain for you – but like several others, I had a sense of having seen the answers recently, but didn’t spot they were all the same… It’s unfortunate for you that you have a so much better memory! But the wordplay was there to appreciate too, and it’s only one crossword.

52. Ah brilliant. Had no idea I’d already solved this puzzle until I came here! Also surprised to see the final episode is tonight – I’d already watched it! (I guess iPlayer just lets you binge them earlier?)

    Some of these felt like contrived surfaces, or were too easy, but that makes more sense if they had to be clued twice (fewer degrees of freedom for the setter).

    Ticks for MENTAL BREAKDOWN, ORBIT, NEWTON, and I liked HH for rugby pitch too.

    Enjoy the finale! Thanks “Ludwig” and Eileen.

53. Hilary I just found the wordplay means nothing if you already know the answer. I think if you buy the Guardian you have a reasonable expectation that the crossword will be original. Perhaps this one could have been put online only .

54. A timely castigation from Admin, with which I heartily agree.

    I, for one, am delighted that crosswords have developed, not just in complexity but also in new directions. One glance at some of the early cryptics, and you’ll be glad, too.

55. I enjoyed this one and, being of a certain age, it didn’t ring any bells with me apart from DENEB. In terms of the development of crosswords, I seem to recall some of the early ones that I did, instead of offereing a cryptic clue, sometimes just had a quote from a play or a poem. Those felt unfair to me because you either knew them or you didn’t (probably in the days before you could search on this newfangled web thingy). Anyway, I was glad to see the back of those.

    Thanks to Ludwig and Eileen.

56. …Oh, and I meant to add my two penny worth re sanding and planing which are certainly not synonymous. Planing involves the need to remove material. Admittedly, they both are surface treatments but would we allow paint and draw? They both may end up producing an artwork but does that make them synonyms?

57. Totally unaware of all the hullabaloo as I quietly solved this in my own little isolated bubble. Was pleased that with the solving of DENEB and then RED PLANET that I’d managed for once to twig that the theme was some kind of Space-y theme (but not you, Kevin). Then thought that the definitions mostly gave the game away and I didn’t have to bother much with the parsing. Didn’t know SAND DARTS, and loi with all crossers in place could only by Subway, or SABBAT. The latter seemed to fit the clue rather that the long well filled roll, but not perfectly, I thought…

58. Kate @21. No, you are not alone. Though “excruciating” overplays my reaction. 7 down in particular activates the bee in my bonnet – it has become a trope for the initiated. And those who comment here are I suggest by and large the initiated.
    On another tack, 2 down – I see some doubt the overlap of sanding and planing. They have a point. Not only are the processes different, but the finishes are also distinct. Though the uninitiated could conflate the two.

59. Well, blimey, I didn’t remember any of it from first time around. Didn’t stop my enjoyment though.

    ACADEME was a hoot!

    Thanks Ludwig and Eileen

60. Arjay @58 – that trope of putting I/me/my and etc into crossword puzzles is so common it’s been clued in the Quick Cryptic puzzles, the 11 x 11 puzzles teaching newbies to the game how to solve puzzles. I’d have to look when it was first introduced, but I blogged puzzle 30 on Saturday, and we’ve come across it at least twice.

61. Very unusually, I spotted the theme immediately, after my first two answers went in. However, didn’t recognise the answers being the same as the previous puzzle (what memories some people have!) – that was an interesting idea but, as others have said, one that I hope doesn’t get repeated, neither crossword being particularly enjoyable. My other half and I binge-watched all of Ludwig and we both thought it was truly wonderful, easily one of the best shows on mainstream TV this year.

62. Kva@3 Sands is not a synonym of planes (though both of them mean “smooths”) any more than boils is a synonym of fries, (even though both mean “cooks”). I can tell a boiled from a fried egg and I bet you can too. I bet you can tell a plane from a sheet of sandpaper too.

    To me, HUSH-HUSH sounded familiar and then nothing else did, so I forgot the whole idea.

    Thanks, Ludwig for the prank and Eileen for the help. I’m still planning to watch the show online.

63. Roz@53 – a fair idea. There’s a “Special” category that appeared online on 19th October to republish a Sphinx puzzle from 2020. Another TV tie-in I think, which completely goes over my head.

64. @Fru – I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make but if you care to have a browse through my posting history both here and on the Guardian site for the last 15 or 20 years you will see that I have regularly advocated more modern references in cryptic puzzles and have – often bluntly – attacked puzzles with what might be termed ‘traditional’ (and to some off-putting) references. Either way, none of this has any relevance to today’s or the previous Ludwig puzzle, which in my subjective opinion were simply not very good. Moreover, there is nothing specific in the puzzle that cleverly links to the programme so it does not even have that to defend it, unlike the Sphinx puzzle from a couple of years back. For what it’s worth I really liked the series but this is just a not very good puzzle, nor more or less than that.

65. Enjoyed a lot of this. Like Matt w @35 I didn’t think SPORTIVE was fair. If we’re going to agree that indirect anagrams are verboten (and that seems to be about the one bit of Ximenes with which everyone agrees, even the extreme libertarians), logically P[ortalo]O can’t be acceptable.
    Sand and plane aren’t synonyms and aren’t linked in Chambers’ thesaurus. Matter of taste, I guess, as to how accurate you expect your definitions to be.
    I agree with PeteHA3 @38 that SABBAT is a case of you know the word or you don’t. Which is a shame, because given the word, the wordplay is brilliant. But generally if you are setting an obscure word, I think that your wordplay ought to help the solver to get it.
    Ultimately, though, it’s a crossword, a bit of escapism. Let’s not get too serious about it.
    Thanks to Ludwig for doing the work of setting it and to Eileen for explaining some bits of it to thickos like me.

66. Bingy@65 I will just disagree with your last few words, not a very good puzzle I agree but to make things worse an identical grid and you cannot enjoy solving clues when you already know the answer. So far worse than just a not very good puzzle, surely that is the main issue.

67. I’m with Roz. As I said on the last Ludwig blog, I don’t think this unannounced link to a television program is fair to someone who buys the paper and is just looking for a crossword. I agree that both puzzles could be solved without that link, but both puzzles were problematic, one too complex, and this one perhaps too easy, especially f you have already seen, and remember, the answers just a few weeks ago. No other setter/s would be allowed that. (Although there was a Paul that came close to it.)

68. And that’s without commenting on the quality of the puzzles.

69. Pete @63 and Rox @53

    I buy the Guardian as does my life partner and crossword solving buddy Ginger Tom. He has a paper subscription and I have an online subscription. I object to the thought that my online subscription might be viewed as being of lesser value. I view my subscription as a green alternative to purchasing two copies of the same newspaper everyday. We solve together most days but we are not always in the same location, so we text each other with solutions and ideas. Publishing a different crossword online to the paper version would not suit us, nor I suspect, many people who solve with a buddy and travel/commute.

    We really enjoyed the solve today and did not remember any of the solutions from 5 weeks ago!

    We are also looking forward to watching Ludwig on the iPlayer now that it has been recommended by so many commenters.

    Thank you Eileen for your usual high standard of blog and to the setters.

70. I liked this a lot. The clueing is precise. My favourite, after the explanation is Mental Breakdown! Reverse anagram – very nice!! Thanks setter and blogger for a lovely puzzle and parsing.

71. Eileen @17, matt w @35 and NeilH @65: I parsed SPORTIVE like Shanne @12 and Petert @22 (sorry about all those numbers). To be specific, PO (a word in its own right, a chamber pot, not the outer letters of “portaloo”) is the toilet facility; the anagram of “rivets” is on the outside of (“on wall of”) PO. I don’t think it’s unfair at all.

72. Princess V @70 sorry I did not make my point very clearly . I meant a normal puzzle in the paper and wherever else it appears PLUS this one online . You could then take your pick or do both . I am told this happened recently on a Saturday .
    I meant this one appears online only , not that online only gets this one .

73. Princess V@69. That’s not what I had in mind. Just saying that there is a facility online to publish special puzzles alongside the regular daily cryptic. It’s a long time since I’ve seen a paper paper, but I’d like to think there’d be space for both in the physical copy too.

74. Lord Jim @71 – Entirely agree with you, and if I wasn’t out of time to edit, I’d delete my whinge about indirect clues.

75. Paddymelon – “I don’t think this unannounced link to a television program is fair to someone who buys the paper and is just looking for a crossword.”

    The link to the TV program is absolutely immaterial to “someone who buys the paper and is just looking for a crossword.” It’s an interesting meta-diversion for those who recognise the link. The crossword remains a crossword. This complaint makes no sense.

76. I agree with Lord Jim@71. No need for P(ortalo)O at all.

    This seemed remarkably easy, but perhaps it’s a hint at the TV series, which is incredibly obvious. I binge watched it after the first Ludwig puzzle, and immediately wished I had chosen not to. The incredibly contrived and unrealistic denouement scenes were excruciating.

    The scene that sticks in my mind is the tour guide in the chapel, telling her paying tourists that the sun is going to shine through the windows in two minutes, and they immediately turn away and walk out. It was beyond obvious that this would be where the murder would take place. Rather than castigating the crossword editor, how about having a go at the screenplay writers?

77. DENEB and HEDERA rang bells, but vague ones – I’m another who recalled the name Ludwig but only twigged the connection to the previous puzzle upon reading the blog (thanks Eileen).

    I remember really not enjoying the last one, so this was a definite improvement at least.

78. Re Admin@42
    As a very recent member of the cryptic clan, all that I can see is a robust and temperate exchange of views between a lot of passionate solvers.
    OK. Maybe, ” handbags at ten paces”, a little.

    I hope that my posts never offend anyone, and responses to mine have always been kind.

    And grown -up.

    ” Nobody ever forced you to be a crossword setter”

    As a 7 year old might say.

79. Since I often don’t even remember the beginning of a puzzle when I get to the end of it, I naturally didn’t realize that this was a complete repeat. So I can’t join in the negativity, even if I were the sort who is inclined to be negative. Anyway, I think it’s a cute gimmick–and since it’s a gimmick they can only pull once, I don’t see the reason for hating on it so much.

    This puzzle was certainly easier than the other one, maybe because dim memories of the other one were still lingering. I expect, in particular, that SABBAT was a word I didn’t know then but do know now.

    (Some commenters at the very beginning: they don’t have spelling bees in the UK? So, FYI, it is a competition for children. They are asked to spell, out loud, increasingly difficult and obscure words, and when they screw up, they’re out. Last one standing is the winner. Then each school’s best spellers advance to the regional final, and so on. The national finals are even televised.)

80. Not my favorite puzzle, but I’m not all up in arms about it. I agree that sands and planes are different, for all the reasons given and then some.
    There must have been some kind of priming effect going on for me and others, but if so I’m surprised it works over 5 weeks. You learn something every day.

81. Further to the “seen it all before” discussion, having a really good memory can be a great benefit when solving crossword clues, but the downside can be dissatisfaction when the puzzle then becomes a little less puzzling. This puts a strain on the setters to be constantly innovative while making the puzzles enjoyable. Not to mention, being within the imaginary “rules”!

    I got a little glimpse of this when the puzzle proved easier than usual to solve, but I still enjoyed it as a different solve. Yes, the answers were the same but the clues were all different.

    Maybe “the wordplay means nothing if the answers are the same” if you have a super-efficient memory, but 90% or more of us are not like that.

82. E.N.Boll@78. “As a seven year old might say” is maybe something you might have thought about before pressing “post comment”, particularly as your subject was how friendly and temperate the discussion was on this forum.

83. Well I enjoyed both of the crosswords and the TV series. What I didn’t enjoy so much was another uncredited cryptic crossword in the Guardian App. Please sort this out.

84. @sheffield hatter – take a day off mate, the internet police are overstaffed as is.

85. Fru@84. Friendly and temperate.

86. Sorry Pete@63/64 I meant to thank you for the info on the online special but I have got a bit distracted because my numbers seem to be different to everyone else.
    My post @ 45 is awaiting moderation , I can see but I suppose nobody else can so it is changing all the numbers for me.

87. SH @82?? I know my memory is different to most , the psychology faculty love having me do their tests and there is a fancy name for it but I can’t remember what it is. Even so I am still surprised that most people did not notice the answers here were repeated , it is only five weeks ago .

88. Really enjoyed comparing the two sets of clues. So interesting to see different approaches to the same answers. I saw that the setter was Ludwig and expected a furore on here😄… This all adds to the fun. Good thing there are 365 days in a year!

89. After Ludwig’s debut, which left me rather cold, I wasn’t too enthusiastic when I saw the name again today. But I enjoyed today’s offering and, even though I struggled through most, if not all, Ludwig’s debut, I didn’t recognise today’s particularly clever feature before coming here. Thanks to Eileen (and many others) for pointing it out. I tip the hat to Ludwig. (Also, like Eileen, I watch TV serials only as or after episodes are broadcast, for no better reason in my case than being old-fashioned. Looking forward to the denouement later today.)

90. Roz@87?? Yes, the surprise is because you can’t conceive that fellow solvers have brains that work differently to yours! I started to cotton on when DENEB and ALEPHS came up.

    On the other hand, I’m surprised that you “can’t remember” the fancy name for the facility you have for remembering things! 😁

91. Shane @60 – I trust that we are having a civil discussion!
    I know the trope occurs, and it seems to me that it is occurring more frequently. But I am unsure of its justification. I offer three alternative reasons (1) it happens so it’s OK (2) it is reasonable of the setter to assume that their moniker is part of the solver’s GK (3) the moniker printed (in my hard copy Guardian anyway) above the crossword is part of the clues.
    Do any of the above marry with your approach?
    The fact that I often don’t much like the construction of many of the self referential clues is just personal taste. But I would be interested to know on what basis the clueing is justified because I don’t think the fact that it happens is a justification in itself. As someone recently remarked (I paraphrase) re indirect anagrams, the problem is that the answer goes outside the clue. The moniker is also outside the clue. IMHO.

92. Roz @87: I don’t possess (is it a photographic memory?) that enviable quality, but when I put in SAND DARTS from the crossers, without knowing what they were, and then got the obscure, for me, DENEB, plus HUSH HUSH, I immediately knew something strange was afoot. I enjoyed it for what it was, and a shame it ruined your journey home.

93. Late in the day but my Chambers has “plane” transitive verb “to make plane or smooth” as well as and distinct from “to use a plane”. Sand seems to meet the first definition.

94. Really nice crossword with some beautiful clues: I loved METONYMIC, MENTAL BREAKDOWN and SCHOOL BUSES.

95. Once I’ve solved a puzzle it vanishes from my memory (same goes for bridge hands and chess games), so I had no idea this was the same grid as the first Ludwig. Slightly preferred this one to the previous but if I never saw Ludwig’s name above a puzzle again I wouldn’t be upset.
    Enjoyed the TV series and hope for a sequel. Several members of my family think David Mitchell was channelling me! Not sure how I feel about that, especially as I would never have perpetrated some inaccurate and unfair clues here.

96. [AlanC @93 ( my numbers are wrong ) it is an offshoot of eidetic memory , pretty much everything I read or hear but not visual , my visual memory is poor . I solved the first two , just wrote in the answer for the next three , ALTAR I wanted to check because the clue last time was wrong about Altair , much better clue this time . Then I gave up . ]

97. As a new recruit to the world of cryptic crosswords, I am astonished by the heated discussion today’s offering has generated. I was pleased to be able to solve about three quarters of the clues before I gave up and revealed the rest. That’s a win for me. I was chuffed at coming up with DENEB though now I know why; I attempted the previous Ludwig without much success but must have remembered some answers. I quite like the self-referential nature of this puzzle and I’m enjoying Ludwig on the TV too. Bit of fun both.

98. Amma @97

    Welcome, if this is your first posting (and my apologies if not).
    Thank you for your positive comment. 😉

99. [Arjay @91 – this is probably a discussion for the General discussion area of FifteenSquared – but as the blogger for the Quick Cryptic, Carpathian clued herself as the SETTER in QC#19 (to clue SETTLER) – name above the puzzle, assumes that can swap name of setter to setter. In QC#20 Picaroon clues the compiler as I for ICON. Those were the first examples, but it’s a continuing theme. I personally don’t think it’s unfair as I see the name of the setter before I use the app and it’s on the paper, but am less impressed by adding in different setters.]

100. Eileen@97 – thanks for the welcome. It’s not my first comment. I’ve been doing the Quick Cryptic from week one and have commented now and then in recent weeks. I read the blog and discussion every day; it’s always entertaining and instructive!

101. I really enjoyed it, as I did the original and for different reasons. I enjoyed the original because it was by a different setter that I definitely didn’t recognise, and I found it interesting, and for the most part well and fairly set. The second was easier, and whilst my Spidey-sense was tingling I absolutely needed to come here for the reveal. And learning what had happened only made me think better of the whole thing because it’s a novel idea and I missed it entirely.

     But then I do have an awful memory for things that I almost certainly won’t need to remember again (I remembered sand-darts were a thing because they appeared in the first crossword, but didn’t remember that they were from that specific crossword, so it wasn’t an issue at all. I know loads of words through crosswords alone because that is useful info, but if I learnt it more than about a week ago tops I will not be able to tell you where I got it from).

     I love things like this, and even if something new is tried and I don’t enjoy the puzzle itself, I like the fact that it was tried. I’ve attempted enough old-school, very traditional crosswords that I’ve hated because of hackneyed style and subjects so that now I’d rather have someone try something new – even if I end up not getting on with it personally. If I let a duff crossword spoil my day I’d have given up this hobby long ago (especially with some of the past setters that I didn’t get on with at all).

     In thirty years of doing cryptic crosswords my biggest complaint is chestnuts – clues I remember having done dozens of times in slightly modified versions. It’s great that I know that “carthorse” is an anagram of “orchestra” but I don’t care how that is reworded I have done it too many times for it not to be a write-in. If a setter going to use the answer “carthorse” or “orchestra” I’d much rather it be an iffy use of an alternative device to a brilliant use of the anagram.

102. Thanks for that, MarkN.

     Re your last paragraph and ‘chestnuts’: I see what you mean but we’re getting new solvers all the time, who have never seen such things before. Remember your delight when you first worked out orchestra / carthorse?

103. NASA has a series of missions called the “Great Observatories”, of which the Hubble Space Telescope is one. So I think Ludwig can be acquitted of Dave Ellison @20’s objection on that score.

104. @ Eileen – A very fair point. I guess my main point is that I’m thoroughly enjoying the way new things are being tried, and also a lot of the new setters that are coming through, and the pushing at the boundaries of accepted rules, and that I’d rather see something new than old, even if it doesn’t entirely hit.

     I think that last paragraph was also in part due to me finally having polished off a bumper book of Telegraph Cryptics (which I shouldn’t have bought in hindsight), but crikey! – I have seen a lot of chestnuts (sometimes in consecutive puzzles in the book – poorly curated I think). That’ll teach me to binge solve though, I guess.

105. Shanne@99. I realise it is a continuing theme. And a slightly sad one I think, which has lost any frisson it may have once had. But that is just my take on the practice. You then say you don’t think it’s unfair because you clock who the setter is before you start the crossword. For you the identity of the setter is part of the crossword, and the setter can therefore play with the identity in the clues. And what of those (not many I imagine on fifteensquared) who do not clock the identity of the setter? Is it unfair on them, or have they not read the question properly? I think that is the point of difference. I am on the unfair side of the fence.

106. Can anyone enlighten me on academe. Is ace being wicked some sort of candlemaking jargon?

107. Crackers @106

     Ace and wicked are both, confusingly, slang for ‘very good’. 😉

     (We haven’t seen the wicked / candle thing for a while.)

108. In the 5 weeks since the last Ludwig puzzle, I have solved around 120 puzzles. I’m just pleased I remembered I’d seen the setter’s name before!

109. Arjay@91: the Guardian first started to name its setters in 1970. Since then, and obviously accentuating over time, setters’ names have become part of the Guardian crossword experience, acquiring their own personalities and styles. So, while you tackle a Times or Telegraph crossword and know no more of it than that, you tackle a Vulcan or a Paul or a Matilda etc in the Guardian and – certainly in the printed and online versions of the paper- the setter’s name is always prominent. At some point after 1970, one of the setters must have been the first to exploit this fact and refer to their own name in a clue. I have no idea who or when, (though I’m sure someone on this site does!), but I can’t remember a time when it wasn’t one of the many, many tools at a setter’s disposal, and I’ve been solving for decades. The first few times it happened I imagine there was some huffing and puffing, and probably people wrote to the editor, but the general sentiment must have been that it was a fair enough device, and everyone got used to it, and I have no sense that it’s becoming more common than it was 10 or 15 years ago. If you seriously object to it (most people on this site have a bugbear or seven), there are always the Times and Telegraph where you won’t meet it; in the Guardian it is now part of the scenery.

110. A marked improvement on the original, even if it was quickly apparent the answers were more than vaguely familiar, which helped me with about 75% of these. Thankfully the more contentious ones from round 1 stuck out more as a result, as I’d never have got SABBAT from the clue. An obscure word, clued obscurely. To me, spelling bees are competitions not meetings. Also the sands/planes debate is another example of obscurity for an obscure answer. Both needed more clarity. PortaloO vs PO (as in Po faced I guess). Another example of double obscurity. That said, the rest was absolutely fine if at times a little too easy/obvious.
     From memory, the original SCHOOL BUS clue was one of few which surpassed this offering. That was excellent.
     I’m not against innovation, nor modernisation. The first Ludwig was not particularly good. This was much improved for the most part but as many have said, it was a write in as the answers flooded back, to various degrees. Simply too soon I guess.
     Effusive thanks to Eileen and also to the Ludwigs.

111. Sagittarius @109 – thanks for that.

     It seems that this is the day for commenters to get all manner of long-standing bugbears off their chest (if that’s not a mixed metaphor).

112. Thanks, Taffy @110 – we crossed.

113. Thanks Eileen. Slang words are tricky to know if you haven’t grown up with them.

114. @Roz. I was really interested in your experience. As someone who has just discovered they have aphantasia, i am fascinated by how people’s daily life is affected by their different systems of memory. I had no memory whatsoever of the grid. Having said that, I had much to quibble with, including sand/plane, sabbat, and sand darts. I didn’t rate the crossword, but obviously it was satisfying for some. (like the cryptic, which i no longer bother with).

115. If Ludwig’s previous effort had been yesterday, I probably still would not have twigged. So the repetition did not bother me.
     I raced through 90% but could not get the last three or four.
     Thanks both.

116. @infdesign 114. Meant to say the Monday cryptic, which I no longer bother with

117. Sadly, we remembered the previous puzzle only too well!
     Thanks anyway, Eileen and Ludwig

118. I found everything incredibly easy till I got to 19D, which was a new word for me in both senses. It’s like that clue didn’t fit with the rest of the puzzle. As for remembering that the fills were the same as the prior Ludwig puzzle—no way for me. I barely remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

119. I solved most of this fairly quickly but failed on SAND-DARTS and SABBAT.
     I didn’t realise it was exactly the same grid as before even though I’d done it. That said, I did recall that the previous puzzle had several star related entries. And I did recall DENEB and ALEPHS pretty quickly so I think my neural pathways were primed even though my memory is obviously a bit sieve-like.
     In my case, since my expectation is that each puzzle will be new, I just didn’t conceive it would be repeat. I mused that Ludwig was doing a star theme again so
     making the facts fit my expectations. Fortunately that meant it provided some entertainment!
     Thanks Eileen for the blog and enjoy the final episode.

120. Donald @119

     Thanks: I will – and then call it a day, I think: it has been quite a long one.

121. I’m with you Fru. I rarely comment but do think that many of the regulars form a bit of an ingroup who reinforce each other’s prejudices (or betes noires). I like variety and it’s good to hear some new voices and new ideas.

122. I did the previous Ludwig but couldn’t remember anything about it, though as with others DENEB rang a bell. As I recall, I enjoyed that one and this. As I did the programme, which I’ll be able to watch again in 18 months or so with only the vaguest idea of what is going to happen next.
     Pity my memory is so poor nowadays though – had it been otherwise I might not have bunged down MENTAL DISORDERS for 6D with such carefree abandon and thereby finished a bit quicker.
     (Well, I say ‘finished’ – full disclosure forces me to admit that SABBAT did for me)

123. Taffy @110: “bees” in general, in that sense of the word, are meetings, usually for the purpose of common work. The next-most common type after a spelling bee, here in the Midwestern USA, is a quilting bee, in which a dozen or so (stereotypically) women of (stereotypically) a certain age get together at the local rec hall and all make quilts (or one really big quilt) while they presumably talk with each other about making quilts and whatnot. (I’m not in the target demographic, so I’ve never been to a quilting bee.)

     Spelling bees are the oddity in that regard, since while they are meetings, they are not for the purpose of common work. Which is how the clue in question winds up cryptic: a SABBAT is a meeting for the common purpose of casting spells together.

124. Outside aid required fir about a quarter of it.

     Good to learn a new word (Deneb) and be reminded of 2 obscure ones (metonymic, alephs).

     Solved the red planet from the crossers and definition which I loved

125. Sagittarius@109 If I remember correctly I first met the moniker clue in the mid 1970s.I thought then that the setter was taking a bit of a liberty, and those that have been kind enough to respond to my comments have mostly said it is now a known practice and that makes it legitimate. I know it is a known practice. I don’t think repetition confers legitimacy. Others do. As a justification I find it a little threadbare. Others don’t.

126. Re 17d SPORTIVE. When I was a kid the thing that went under the bed, the gazunder or potty, was called the Po in our house.

127. I remembered MENTAL BREAKDOWN had been a recent solution because it’s one of those iffy non-things on one of crossword-compiler’s lists which some setters, in this case the editor, don’t bother to weed out of the puzzle. Writing a reverse anagram clue for a solution that’s not in a dictionary using a noun for an anagram indicator was a particular low point of today’s.
     It’s a pretty typical Guardian mixture of tricks and dross. Had the real setter’s name been on it would the dross have received the criticism it got and deserved today? I don’t think so. I find it odd that nobody is trying to look behind the silly naming conceit to consider which of their pet setters they are unwittingly slating.

128. I am a long time lurker, who has appreciated this blog for explaining many a clue that she couldn’t parse, driven to post today after reading through the hullaballoo!

     I am of the school of thought that it’s good to occasionally try new things, else there’s no room to grow, so I like the concept that they were going for.

     On its own merits, I thought it was an enjoyable crossword, with some neat clues. I particularly liked ALTAR and ALEPHS.

     Thanks Eileen for the blog and Ludwig(s) for the crossword!

129. I have enjoyed the TV program. I was a bit wary at first about David Mitchell, but his character was excellent.

     I suspect there will be a sequel – I hope that doesn’t imply another two Ludwig cross words.

130. Sagitarius@109 My memory is that setters such as Janus were using their names in about 1966/67. Do you have a reference that it was in the early 1970s?

131. Dave Ellison @129…The BBC i-Player ‘gifted’ the entire first series after episode one and labelled them as such. I’m not a commissioning editor and don’t know the form here. I’ve seen ‘concepts’ axed after the first series, but suspect that if the scripts have been written and the ratings are tolerable and commitments made with no release clauses, we are in for probably at least two more.

     mrpenny@123 thank you kind sir. The ‘bee’ thing I know of only through the spelling instance. In my Chambers Crossword Dictionary which is not the Holy Grail… king,drone,nurse,queen,hummer,neuter,worker,royalty,drumbledor,dumbledore and leaf-cutter.

     However the Cambridge dictionary does have….
     US
     a group of people who come together in order to take part in a particular activity:

     A hive would have made more sense as it suggests a swarm rather than a solitary insect.

     One in the eye for us I guess as you have no end of Britishisms to unravel over there.

     That said, why not simply spelling meeting? The answer was obscure and didn’t need more opacity.

132. Taffy – The Great British Sewing Bee? In the sense of a meeting to achieve something crafty, such as quilting bees.

133. Shanne@132… Confession, my TV has been out of order since pre-Covid times as my cats chewed through the cables (RCD plug so all still alive). I watch stuff on my laptop every now and then, but am blissfully happy without the intrusion. Will inevitably miss some clued connection to modern televisual dross I suspect! Thanks so much for your QC blogs by the way.

134. Good grief, the comments here are a depressing read. For me crosswords are a happy break from the stresses of life and definitely should not be something that adds to it.
     I do not feel cheated by an easy puzzle but simply remember the delight I had many years ago to see the name of an easy setter, thinking I might actually finish this one.
     John Henderson as Enigmatist or as Ludwig version 1 of this grid is beyond my pay grade but I take pleasure from what ever clues I can solve. Ludwig version 2 was much more accessible and I got to the spelling bee. I entered Sabbat and hit check and could not believe it was correct. I may have remembered the word but not the meaning. Pleasantly surprised to have finished I came here to check the parsing of that and a few other clues.
     All I can hope is that the vast majority solvers actually enjoyed their 30 minutes of distraction and that the commentators here are not representative of them.

135. KVa @3, apologies for not replying but I’d logged off and gone to bed to read. I see there were quite a few for and against comments. I agree that smooth is both a synonym of sand and plane but that doesn’t necessarily mean that sand and plane are synonymous. A more obvious example of this is that fair is a synonym of both fete and blonde but no-one would suggest that fete is a synonym of blonde. If someone gave me a plane and told me to sand some wood, I’d put down the plane and try and find some sandpaper.

136. Tim C@135
     Thanks for your response.
     Yes. In a workshop, sanding & planing are two different types of processes.

     Yet, I feel sand & plane are close enough for reasons mentioned by Petert@93.

137. I enjoyed this crossword despite no knowledge of the theme and not having done the first Ludwig when it was published.
     I didn’t post as it was completed too late last night for me to summon the will to respond to what was already a very long thread.
     I am appalled today as I’ve read some of the vitriol that has emerged and very disappointed with the nasty comments from some members of this so called friendly crossword community.
     I’d like to thank the two setters involved as “Ludwig” for the puzzle and Eileen for her usual thorough, helpful and balanced blog, as well as those who posted politely whether they liked the crossword or not.

138. Dave Ellison@130: Hugh Stephenson’s brief survey of the evolution of the Guardian crossword, written about 2005 while he was crossword editor, says that John Perkin, the first named editor, took the decision in 1970 to add the setter’s name to the daily Guardian puzzle, which had previously been anonymous. I have no personal knowledge, so if you remember seeing Janus’s name in the sixties, I won’t contradict you!

139. Like JinA@137 I was amazed at the unpleasantness of some of the comments today. Brings back memories of the troll on this site many years ago, who went under the moniker of HH as I remember. Lighten up, folks – a crossword is a bit of fun to be appreciated, not something to be ripped to shreds as if by ravenous beasts.

140. Now Perkin was a pretty good editor, but then we had to endure Stephenson who in my view knew next to nothing about the subject. I’m just getting this depressing deja vu about the new bloke.

     Just a view folks, but as legitimate as anyone else’s. Robust it is, and valid, so don’t get your knickers in a knot if you don’t like what I’ve said. (Is Fru the compiler coming in for an anonymous rant? Looks like it!)

141. Thanks Ludwig and Eileen

     I’m a bit concerned about commenters who watch Ludwig only online as they don’t have TVs. A friend is in this situation, and when I recommended Ludwig to him, he told me that he couldn’t watch BBC programmes online as he would need a TV licence – though this didn’t apply to the commercial channels. I don’t know if this is correct, but he was adamant.

     btw I enjoyed both the puzzle and the series. A second series seems inevitable!

142. Me @141
     He’s correct!

143. Sagittarius @ 138. in 2005 (?) Sandy Balfour wrote a history of the Guardian crossword called A Clue to Our Lives. It says of pseudonyms, that the first to appear was Nimrod, which made its debut on 28 December 1970. The next day it was Lavengro and the day after that Nimrod again. Bunthorne, Gordius, Crispa and Araucaria followed.

144. Muffin @141 and 142 – I have a TV licence, I also need it to watch anything on any channel as they are broadcast, not on catch up for other stations. I just don’t have a TV.

     But outside the UK there are VPN routes to watch the BBC. I used to get very fed up with a Swiss guy growing at his cleverness at getting free BBC programmes.

145. Blik @143, I was just checking Sandy Balfour’s book and you just beat me to quoting it.

     Flicking through the book I notice the following letter to the Guardian from 1985:

     Sir
     I’m sure I speak for many millions [sic] of your loyal readers when I register my protest against the occasional bad habit of printing non-standard crosswords. You spoil our holidays when you include too-clever-by-far teasers that lack numbers or some other smart-arse, egg-head stunt. But now, you wretched person, today’s crossword, I mean yesterday’s (you see how upset I am) ie number 17,164, introduces a Disney connection – on a Tuesday! Play the game, sir.

     It seems nothing changes.

146. Shanne @144
     I’m relieved for you, but I don’t think you were the only one watching online. I’m not going to wade back through all the comments again to check, though!

     Lord Jim @145
     Naturally I had to look, but the archive couldn’t find it. Pre-electronic storage, perhaps?

147. Lord Jim@145 Love the letter! Disney! On a Tuesday!
     Playing games with repeats is also not new. I recall that Paul and Araucaria included déjà-vu as a solution in puzzles that appeared on successive days. The second included a clue that referred to the previous day’s puzzle as in a definition that went something like “haven’t I seen this somewhere before?” It is, in my view, part of the fun.

148. What a lot of comments
     Superb crossword
     I am indebted to Azed for having added HEDERA, METONYMIC & DENEB to my vocabulary, otherwise I would have been sunk.
     Thanks to EXETER, where my rugby mad grandson is at University, for naking me realise about the Hs in HUSH HUSH
     Also thanks to Nottingham University Maths Soc , their tie featured an ALEPH when I was a member

149. Doing my best to be the last to comment. PLA will always be Passenger Luggage in Advance for me, and, I suspect, anyone else who got involved with railways in the 1960s. Ah – happy days in the school holidays at Abergavenny, when I was allowed to release the racing pigeons, and stack the boxes of the ever-inscrutable “liquid egg”

150. Thanks Blik@147. I was about to bring that one up. The two grids (not other answers) were identical and DEJA VU was the same clue, if my photographic memory serves me correct in the bottom right of the grid.24 across rings a bell. It’s the coincidence I remember.
     This crossword was just a reasonably quick solve.As usual I always solve the day after and wondered whether watching last night’s episode would help. It didn’t.

151. Metonymy? “The part for the whole” is actually synecdoche.

152. Phil@: See me@33 🙂

153. Never seen so many comments on one crossword puzzle. (No doubt someone will now refer me to one.) It’s a bit like football. It’s only a game. But at least taking it too seriously keeps your mind off all the big stuff.
     For what it’s worth, I enjoyed both of them.

154. Good news! Ludwig is back for another season! Let’s hope for more puzzles.

     (Also very confused in the two threads about the people calling out the editor for not stopping/editing the setter when they are at least in part the same person as pointed out in his recent blog)

155. I had nearly as much fun reading this long thread of comments as I did solving and watching Ludwig. Keep up the good work all.

156. Shurely it’s obvious, Huggie, that Alan and Ludwig are the real identical twins of this drama.

157. I have looked in out of curiosity to see what all the fuss was about. It seems to me that the setters have missed a trick here. Would it not have been an even better expression of the idea to have just one unchecked letter in the grid changed from the first puzzle to the second? The obvious candidate would be to change 13ac to ALTER in the second puzzle, moving “reportedly” from the beginning to the end of the clue? If this was felt to spoil the clue, there are other possibilities such as RINKS for RINGS at 22ac. That would require a completely different clue, but of course the change would have been made before the original clue was written.

158. Lord Jim@145. plus ça change.

159. Lord Jim@145. plus ça change. And it’s Tuesday today!

Comments are closed.