Click for background info
Wednesday October 30th 2024 saw the publication of a Guardian Cryptic puzzle by the virtually unknown setter Ludwig.
It turns out that there was a previous Ludwig puzzle on Wednesday September 25th.
It further transpires that the answers to both puzzles are the same though the clues are, almost entirely, different.
It put me in mind of Inquisitor 1266 on Saturday February 2nd 2013 and Inquisitor 1267 on Saturday February 9th 2013.
Please can I take the opportunity to remind people that this is a friendly, well-mannered site where everyone should be expected to treat others with respect and is entitled to respect in return.
Yesterday’s Guardian puzzle (link above) elicited 120 comments. The previous puzzle by the same setter (link above) elicited 161 responses.
Along with yesterday’s 120 comments, at least one was marked for moderation. The blogger and Admin reserve the right to do this at any time.
I fully expect moans and groans about various puzzles and various clues. After all, that’s the nature of the beast. But some of yesterday’s comments were rude, if not verging on abuse both to the setter/editor and fellow commenters.
There are many crossword setters (and editors) represented on this site and I’d simply say, if you don’t like what they’ve offered on a particular day then take it on the chin (compare it to the inconveniences other world residents have to endure) and move on.
Also, if someone writes comments that irk you then just ignore them, there’s no need to announce it publicly, does anyone else really care?
As for the Ludwig puzzles, they were published to coincide with the first and last episodes of Ludwig (IMDb link) though anyone with access to BBC iPlayer was able to watch the whole series from day 1. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to iPlayer so I’ve had to watch them on Thursdays due to other commitments.
Interesting. I skipped the Ludwig puzzle as soon as I saw the compiler’s name. I came on this site today to look at the comments on the puzzle with an idea that they might have been negative, and it seems that they were. (I haven’t looked yet; the title for this blog suggested to me that it might be a response to comments on the Ludwig puzzle so I came here first.) After the overwhelmingly critical response to the first Ludwig puzzle I was a little surprised that the crossword editor chose to publish a second one.
The first Ludwig puzzle seemed to me an exercise in hubris by the editor, with little or no regard for the enjoyment or satisfaction of the readership. I think that the solving community are entitled to express their opinion in this kind of situation. Of course, there is no need to be rude.
So the editor reprints an identical grid to 5 weeks ago meaning that those who remember things cannot do the puzzle because they know all the answers . I only looked at 3 clues and one was very good , I have no idea what the rest were like or who the setter was, no point solving clues when you know the answer.
The editor made this decision because of some TV programme where he is a paid consultant and we are not meant to criticise this ?
The programme in question centres on identical twins. I guess that the joke here is that the crosswords may look the same but on closer inspection, they are very different.
Looking at the comments, it’s clear that most solvers were like me in that they had forgotten the answers and were able to enjoy things all over again.
I don’t think any of us have the right to criticise publicly how someone earns their money.
I haven’t tried this puzzle yet, and so I cannot comment on its quality or enjoyment quotient. However, I think the idea of taking a completed grid from 5 weeks ago and creating a whole new set of clues for it is clever and is something I have not seen before. Not being burdened with a photographic memory, the previous puzzle won’t influence my experience of this one, although I might enjoy comparing the two sets of clues after the fact.
I also think that a television program that features a crossword setter as the detective is something that cruciverbalists should celebrate, rather than doing our hobby a disservice by denigrating the contributors to that program. If Everyman and Enigmatist collaborate to produce a puzzle for the TV show, I don’t see a problem with giving us a chance to tackle that puzzle in the Guardian.
Edit: Admin’s comment appeared while I was typing. I agree with his remarks.
I fully support Admin’s reminder to those who post on this site, and agree with the comments @ 3 and 4.
I think a reaction to this Ludwig repeat crossword any stronger than ‘Oh! Ok.’ is a severe overreaction. I’m very happy to see setters try something new with the medium; not every swing will be a hit, but that’s true of any puzzle.
What I would suggest to anyone who is bent out of shape about remembering the answers is – this is the internet. There are literally millions of puzzles available for free at our fingertips at any time.
I also think that this forum in general has a small issue around differentiating between ‘disagreeing with another commenter’ and ‘attacking another commenter’. I’ve read regular posters who are happy to insult and demean certain setters who are seemingly designated ‘fair game’, receiving any slight disagreement with their own opinions as heresy.
Cryptics as a Community are a very snide and gatekept community at times, when more than ever we should be trying to not turn off younger people from learning to love these puzzles, just as we all did once.
To Admin@3
1. ‘I don’t think any of us have the right to criticise publicly how someone earns their money’.
This is manifestly untrue.
2. There have been occasions when I have sent a perfectly friendly and well-mannered message to the blogger and I have been totally ignored.
3. There have been occasions when the blogger has referred to me insultingly (‘a detractor’, for my well-known views on certain things, which don’t fit in with the modern ‘narrative’.)
4. There have been occasions when I have made comments about something linguistic and I have been mostly ignored.
For these reasons, I hardly ever bother to comment any more. I almost wrote something about ‘umlaut’ the other day, for example, but just felt ‘why should I bother?’
Decorum is a two-way street. Oder?
Fru@6 Re ‘ This is the internet.’ I buy the paper and do the puzzle with a pencil when I’ve read it. There must be thousands like me who don’t like using a phone or similar device for various reasons. We might even outnumber those who do.
Crikey, what a palaver. Totally missed all this fuss and furore. Over a crossword puzzle…
I had no problem with the solutions being the same because like most who commented I didn’t even notice. However, it does seem unfair on those who did remember. Also, I think if a compiler chose to submit two crosswords with the same solutions I would expect the editor to reject the second in most circumstances.
There is of course no need to get personal in the comments.
Thank you, Admin, I fully agree.
Eileen used regularly to quote the wise words of Thumper’s father from Bambi: “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything”. There are worse maxims for contributors to sites like this. Anyone bursting to express their righteous indignation about a puzzle can always use the Guardian’s own comments site, and make their views known to those who are actually responsible for the outrage in question. That would leave Fifteen Squared as a peaceful home for us harmless pedants who want to argue about whether 2D is accurately clued, and whether an eland is an antelope.
Well said, Sag (if I may call you Sag) @12. I think the bleeding in my mouth from biting my tongue yesterday has now stopped. I found it very depressing that people could get so wound up by a crossword.
I’m with Admin and Cellomaniac. Clearly the opportunity to set two identical grids with identical solutions and different clues is an unusual circumstance and unlikely to be repeated. I found it amusing (having completely forgotten both the grid and the answers from weeks ago) and disagree with the pearl-clutching from some commenters.
Don’t you feel, poc @14, that in choosing a term such as ‘pearl-clutching’ you are in some danger of perpetuating the offence?
For the first time that I can remember I stopped reading the comments yesterday as I didn’t want to end up in the same state as Crispy@13.
On the other hand, I actually talked about this crossword with friends and family.
I have only just completed this crossword and I found it enjoyable – the right degree of difficulty for a coffee break, no groans and a pleasing theme. I wasn’t aware of the TV link, nor that the same grid had been used on a previous occasion but clued differently. Had I known about these things I really can’t imagine getting upset by it – there are much more important things in life!
I had entirely missed this furore yesterday. My word. It’s one puzzle out of several hundred a year from the Guardian alone, which can be solved for free should you wish.
Disliking a clue, a puzzle, or even a specific setter is one thing, and saying so (without resorting to personal attacks) is entirely reasonable, but there is a point at which it all gets embarrassing. Quite a few of yesterday’s commenters need to give their heads a wobble and/or grow a thicker skin.
For what it’s worth, I spotted that it was a repeat, enjoyed this set of clues more, found the overall solve a little underwhelming due to the familiarity, but liked the ‘device’. It’s also not unprecedented to have a ‘special’ puzzle every now and then relating to the wider world, cf. the couple of Sphinx puzzles we’ve had.
I’m with those who found it both amusing and something of a tour de force. The joke of it, esp. as laid out by Admin@3 is worth a bit of a race-through crossword … it was a very entertaining conceit.
I’ve only just found out! I enjoyed the second one better as I found it easier but love the idea of new clues for the same grid.
[poc @14: you might be amused – a colleague and I did produce two identical grids themed on a movie which each us clued differently and then published on successive days on MyCrossword. Our excuse: the movie and the date of publication (of the second puzzle) was Groundhog Day]
I like Anna’s point 1 in post #7.
Has it been confirmed how the setting was distributed over the two Ludwigs? It seems to me the first one was John Henderson (Enigmatist/Nimrod) and the second was Alan Connor (currently Everyman). But do we know this? If so several commenters seem to have found themselves casually condemning a setter they would usually admire. I had another look at the first one again and it really is an impressive set of clues – perhaps scheduling the easy one first would have gone down better though?
@22 That point is that it is “manifestly untrue” that “[none] of us have the right to criticise publicly how someone earns their money”. But I think Admin was referring to the fact that the site rules clearly say criticisms “should, for the most part, be relevant to the puzzle under discussion”. I think he means “us” here, on this site, not people in general.
I an completely in agreement with Anna, and am frankly baffled by the implication from several commenters that we should only post positive or nice things about a puzzle or not at all. Is that really what people want? Are we not allowed to be critical of a puzzle (and thereby inherently a setter) or the editor? I have never to my knowledge allowed such criticism to be personal but if you’re suggesting I can’t say I thought a puzzle was crap or that the editor is asleep on the job then god help us and good luck to you because you will end up with the most anodyne content on the net
Ha! You should see the comments – and commenters – we chuck out over at TftT.
It doesn’t take much to set them off. We’re pretty liberal, but really…,
Like many I was shocked by the vitriol in some of yesterday comments. I even thought that in future I should just read the blog and ignore the comments. So thank you Admin for you intervention, thank you Eileen for your welcome to us newbies and if others don’t like a particular puzzle/setter do what I do when I see Paul or Imogen’s name – turn the page over and read the obituaries. With a bit of luck you won’t be in them.
Related idea: I really like it when I solve a clue and learn a new (to me) word. I know others prefer to go on a forum and say “Hated it, never heard of that word before.” I don’t get on the forum and tell them they’re wrong, it would be a waste of time and effort. Similarly with véhément “I really hate Band X” in music chats, when no-one even mentioned band X. Eye of the beholder, isn’t it?
I appreciate the time and effort the bloggers put into solutions and the team for publishing them. The comments section strikes me as an ongoing conversation during the day and I don’t have time to take part so no longer contribute. When I did I never expected a reply because the blogger would have to spend all day monitoring and that seems a bit above and beyond. I would say I don’t envy anyone the task of attracting new solvers whilst retaining the loyal stalwarts. Reminds me of when the BBC rerecorded the Archers theme…
Peace and love to all and now I return to lurking.
In general, this site has the best commenters I’ve seen anywhere: there’s very little abuse or obnoxiousness. On most web sites that have comments sections, the comments sections are a cesspool.
I didn’t think the comments on the recent Ludwig puzzle were all that bad, but it’s true that they were ruder than usual on this site, and I applaud the Admin for taking steps to maintain a high standard of civility.
I researched, published, and taught about almost every aspect of political science for nearly fifty years, at the college level. I am done with it. I am tired of it. Godwin’s Law needs to have a corollary (call it “Big’s Law” if you wish): “There is no escape from politics on the internet.” Even if you wish to frequent a site dedicated to crossword puzzles, just to improve your ability to solve them, politics will eventually intrude on the conversation. Sigh.
Maybe as an American I have a thicker hide (and probably skull as well!) but I find very little ‘vitriol’ on fifteensquared compared to what I see in the States. I generally find the setters, bloggers, and commenters here to be very civil and polite even when there are deep disagreements. This is an oasis in some ways for me.
I am a beginner and I liked the Ludwig second instance that I could do, while the first one was too difficult for me and the solution a bit disappointing to me.
This all seems a bit of a storm in a tea cup. There is a bit of promotion of the Ludwig serie on the Guardian; so what? This is not over the top or annoying. Having a Guardian puzzle with the name “Ludwig” as the title is not a big deal. If you’ve got a sense of humour you should appreciate the joke, in the context of the Ludwig TV serie, and also the skill in providing a second helping of a same grid with different much refined better clues.
Zoot@8 Re:
How many people do the Guardian crossword? 2-5
Fru made a good point on the Ludwig blog. The rudest comments on this site are usually made when someone has dared to criticise one of the fifteensquared pantheon or when a setter yet to ascend to that group makes a false step.
However, I would have thought that the greatest lesson to be learned from that blog was the need for observance of the site’s Comment Guidelines. Post after post of people commenting on whether they had or had not remembered the previous solutions, few of them of the smallest general interest.
A plea for compliance with the Comment Guidelines is long overdue.
Zoot @8. I too solve on the paper paper (but with a pen!). It would be interesting to know the relative proportions of on line to hard copy solvers, and whether those that come to the blog are disproportionately on line or hard copy solvers and if that affects the slant and heat of the comments. Is any of that information out there anywhere?
Unfortunately the persons ignoring the site policy, from time to time, include 225 staffers. Rulemakers all over the world break rules of course, but still.
As far as I can see at 225 there is a general propensity to find in favour of the establishment rather than the hoi polloi, which is a great shame, as there is much to be savoured in what commenters say in their negative moments. What they say when all is well is neither here nor there, really, as despite its niceness, supportiveness and obvious conformity it makes no difference in advancing any conversation as to where we might go from where we currently are, for example. Bland isn’t the word.
I’ve found the discussion relating to Ludwig really tedious on a number of fronts actually, but the worst aspect has been its hypocrisy.
The site is plagued by a troll who uses multiple identities to literally argue with himself; nobody can convince me otherwise. There are too many new names on the site who pop up, make similarly worded observations, then disappear. This pattern has repeated for as long as I can remember. A similar thing happened to the Guardian message boards about twenty years ago. It makes the whole experience very draining.
I also can’t abide the I’m-cleverer-than-you tone of some posters’ comments. They’re battles I’m not prepared to engage in.
It is such a shame. It should be a nice place to discuss our hobby, but, as with many things, the minority spoil it.
Neil
Well said, Tramp @37
yes, well said A37 and @38. As regular reader and occasional commenter, I had resolved to ignore the site from now on after all the venom around Ludwig, but will now wait to see how things settle down. Well done admin for the intervention.
Isn’t the main point of this site to explain how the clues worked or to add additional points of interest that a solver might have missed (especially themes, pangrams etc)? If that is true then comments should mainly ask for help in understanding what the blogger wrote or add further points of interest relevant to the crossword.
That would leave no place for negative comments; I sometimes feel the urge to comment but before I click the button reflect that what I said was mostly negative and change my mind. But if you must make a negative comment it should never be personal. Saying you didn’t like the crossword because x,y,z is one thing but saying it was a bad crossword as a result is out of order because it’s a personal opinion and others may disagree.
I’m ambivalent about the frequent comments or additions thanking the setter and blogger. It’s a good thing to let them know that they are not taken for granted but it doesn’t seem necessary to say it every time.
For the record, thanks to all the bloggers and setters for the work they put in for our enjoyment. Even though the setters are paid, they wouldn’t be doing this without the passion for crosswords that we all share.
@40 – re. your penultimate paragraph, when the pandemic was at its height and the comments section was bulging on a daily basis, I’m pretty sure I remember Gaufrid pleading with contributors to curtail their routine thanks to setter and blogger, just as a minor means of lessening his workload as moderator having to read through all comments. I really feel that it should be taken as read that participants are duly grateful to setter and blogger, and I tend to stick to that policy unless I am addressing he blogger directly in a comment. I do sigh when I see contributors coming back with an additional comment when they feel that they have forgotten the routine courtesies in their first.
Postmark@21: I’m sorry I missed that. Sounds very droll.
Balfour@15: No, I don’t agree. People are perfectly at liberty to take issue with the device used in these puzzles, but the tone of some objections seems to me over the top.
poc@42. With respect, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that Admin’s intervention in this was occasioned not just by some solvers’ disrespectful comments about the puzzle, about the setter(s) and about the G’s Xword editor, but about sarky and disrespectful comments by some contributors about others. In this context, I did not think that characterising some participants’ objections as ‘pearl-clutching’ was terribly helpful. So be it.
Agree with Tramp about some of the clever clogs who embellish their posts unnecessarily. Big thanks from me too for all the bloggers.
Rab
I echo the thoughts of Ted@29
I may have, in the distant past, strayed close to a line that gentility, good grace and, yes, decorum should stop one crossing. But I have only done this with the most esteemed of our cast here at 15²; I have never, and would never, show even the tiniest scintilla of disrespect to our wonderful stable of compilers. In this respect, I agree with admin@3 and would raise a questioning eyebrow at those who don’t….
Manners maketh man, and woman, and all that …. But there must always be a place for passionate criticism
And I recall thinking, when first I discovered 15² (seeking succour in the days following dear Araucaria’s departure, I think) what a peaceful corner of the internet it was; it’s rather nice to still feel that way ……
One interesting thing to come out of ludwig-gate was the comment from Roz that her incredible memory (hyperthymesia?) rendered the second crossword useless. Unlucky for her; but reading others’ comments I reckon the five-week gap meant that most non-hyperthymesiacs had forgotten the grid and enjoyed the solve and subsequent realisation. As an identical twin who makes a living playing Beethoven and parks like David Mitchell I really lived and loved the whole thing- thank you Everyman and Enigmatist!
Balfour@43: That’s a fair comment. My umbrage was indeed directed at some to my mind exaggerated objections to the crossword itself.
I think there are times when it’s probably easier to take a bit of frustration out on something that’s ultimately inconsequential, when there are so many significant/worrying things elsewhere in the world that are having an impact on us. The crosswords, and this site, feel like a bit of a haven from all of that, so I know that for me if something feels like it spoils it then it bothers me more than it probably should.
I’m not saying that makes it ok to have a go at others or at the setter in a personal way though.
Well, that was an entertaining read.
I might even look at the comments about the second Ludwig puzzle if I finish today’s Everyman early.
Is the Guardian doubling down on the Ludwig theme? This month’s Genius is set by Twin. Good for them. 😄
Well I enjoyed the puzzle. I always enjoy puzzles by Enigmatist and Everyman.
Crossbar @50, there’s a fifteen squared policy about not commenting on current prize crosswords, otherwise I would add a comment…. Twin, “wad African genius” (with apologies to Leo Schofield) 😉