Guardian Cryptic 29,570 by Paul

89 comments on “Guardian Cryptic 29,570 by Paul”

1. The theme was helpful and I got further help online by googling a list of Jane Austen characters, having read all her books and seen many movies and TV series of the books but forgotten many of the characters’ names!

   Favourite: STALL (the less wordy the clue the more I like it).

   I couldn’t parse 7d apart from the def, and I failed to solve 22ac ACETIC.

   New for me: FINAGLER, DRAMEDY; ALLSPICE = dried fruit.

   I agree with Manehi that there is an error in 11ac. CARABINERO is a Spanish or South American frontier guard or customs officer. The Italian coppers/paramilitary police are CARABINIERE singular and CARBINIERI plural.

2. I gave up about 1/3 in, which was the right call for me. I’m happier these days with clueing which might require a bit of research as I go along, and that helped me with some of today’s answers. Otherwise I just wasn’t in the right frame of mind and so I revealed most of it. Looking at those I didn’t get, many of them probably would have been gettable on a different day.

3. Thanks Paul and manehi
   I had never heard of DRAMEDY. I didn’t parse FANNY PRICE. I struggled to remember ISABELLA THORPE – I’m an Austen fan, but not Northanger Abbey!
   The “on” in 1d sticks out. I didn’t like the clue for LISTERIA. Lots of comments on the G site about the geographical error in 11.
   Favourite HOLLOW LEGS.

4. Well, here’s a turn up for the books: I didn’t have Paul down as a Janeite – but what a lovely puzzle!

   Lots of ticks today: all those referring to the 22 characters, especially JANE FAIRFAX and CLERIC, CARABINERO, for the construction – shame about the definition – ALLSPICE, DRAMEDY, HOLLOW LEGS and SOHO – both made me smile, NUMBERLESS and AUSTEN.

   Many thanks to Paul for a real treat and manehi for a great blog.

5. I’ve just discovered that, strangely, the singular in Italian is “carabiniere”. I would have expected “carabiniero”.

6. For me, the theme was unhelpful and I ended up looking up a list of the characters to search for ones that fitted the crossers.
   A slog.

7. On first pass I had only managed to solve half a dozen small ones.. Then I managed to see the author. But I have to admit I have never been a fan of AUSTEN’s books, so rather shamefacedly I then filled in the characters from her books with a list of them beside me. Where they fitted the grid. However I did enjoy HOLLOW LEGS, Paul at his most mischievous, and something I remember my dad calling me when I had a fierce appetite at the meal table. Last one in ACETIC…

8. I love Paul crosswords and it was a theme I got early so lots of plusses for me. Ashamed to say I didn’t spot the geo-error in Carabinero.

   Thanks Paul and manehi

9. Never having read any Jane Austen, I was forced to resort to Google. The error in 11a only made things worse. I’m normally a big fan of Paul, but not today.

10. Well, at least the homophone at 3d was acceptable, but that’s the only good thing I can say about this. Once I spotted the keystone at 22d (eye-roll) I gave up and revealed the linked answers. Remember random Austen characters, including some that are pretty obscure? Really not in the mood.

11. Very tricky puzzle, with a difficult grid, a highbrow theme, and few straightforward clues to provide a foothold.

    Fortunately for me, the reference to Mr Collins unlocked AUSTEN quite early, but even so it was certainly no pushover. I’m not a fully fledged Janeite, but I managed to dredge up all of the characters eventually.

    The Spanish CARABINERO rather than the signalled Italian (Roman) carabiniere is clearly an error. ‘Sharp’ for ACETIC is rather a stretch (‘citric’ is used in this context, but not the names of any and every acid).

    HOLLOW LEGS is clever, and ALLSPICE is neat.

    Bravo to Paul for the challenge and to manehi for the disentanglement

12. Found the theme early and gave up soon afterwards. Great for Austen fans no doubt, but little here for anyone who’s not.

13. I got a whole 3 answers before giving up. I’m still not up to the level of a Thursday Paul.

    I had a guess that 22d might be AUSTEN as the only author I could think of who fit and would be famous enough to hang a theme off of, but couldn’t parse it until after I hit reveal. Knowing that I wouldn’t know any of the characters’ names (I like Austen, but don’t read her much), and not being able to make headway with any of the other clues anyway, it seemed best to throw in the towel.

    Looking through the answers I very much like HOLLOW LEGS, very clever.

    Thanks Paul and manehi

14. Vanity Fare

15. Is it just me that can’t work out the grammar of 2d, though the answer was obvious? A STYE is a mark on an eye, but how does that become mark eyed? However that’s a minor quibble. Didn’t question 11 after deciphering the anagram, so missed the wrong language error. I’m a fan of Jane Austen, but I still needed Google to remind myself of the names. FINAGLER is not a word often used these days, but nice to see it. DRAMEDY was a new term to me. Liked HOLLOW LEGS, and PESTO. Thanks to Paul for the reminder of Austen’s work, and to manehi.

16. Got GROCER straightaway then stared at the clues for quite a while. I revealed AUSTEN which gave me JANE FAIRFAX easily (the beautiful/fair link made sense) and gave up. I’ve studied and taught Austen’s novels many times but with no insight into the clues, I’d just be trailing through names of characters to find ones that fit.

17. My knowledge of Austen is limited to once having read Pride & Prejudice and thinking it was not very good. Nevertheless I really enjoyed this and learned a few things. A lot of working out plausible names from wordplay and then googling, but I was in the right frame of mind for that today, possibly helped by being off work. Someone on the Graun site said 8 and 23 were worth the continued effort, and as they were my last two in I’d certainly go along with that. Got fixated on MESS for 23 along with trying to make LS work as “place of the seal”, so the penny drop was wonderful. Thanks both!

18. Thanks Paul for the delightfully austentatious theme, and to manehi for help with cleric.
    Being oblivious to any spelling error I was going to pick Carabinero but happy to now go with DRAMEDY as a foretaste of Christmas.

19. Tomsdad @15: mark seen in first year, with an allusion to the definition?

    From another Tom’s dad 😀

20. I worked in theatre all my working life and never heard of or used the term dramedy – no idea where Paul has got it from – I had to fill in the blanks one by one in disbelief …

21. [Managed to complete this without Googling, despite having forgotten most of the characters’ names. Liked Fitzgerald as the US indicator for 6d FANNY.]

22. Great fun for devoted Janeites, less so for the rest of us. The odious Mr. Collins told me that the author was AUSTEN, but I didn’t remember the other characters except KNIGHTL(e)Y and FANNY PRICE (from the enumeration, and I couldn’t parse her.) So I resorted to a list: all the rest were laborious to parse and I wouldn’t have got them without one.

    The rest were Paul being wilfully playful: inventing a non-existent portmanteau word for LIST-ERIA (I had HYSTERIA which caused problems) and giving us a real but fairly novel one for DRAMEDY. Fitzgerald is hardly the first (or even the 21st) person you’d name as a typical American, and the grammar for STYE doesn’t work for me, though the answer is obvious. I did like NUMBERLESS and HOLLOW LEGS, but by then I had more or less given up.

    Shame about CARABINERO – that was a splendid surface.

23. Having really enjoyed Paul’s recent offerings, like others, found this a bit of a slog – not helped by never having read Jane Austen. Technically a DNF as had to use the word finder for FINAGLER (not sure what the ON is doing) and DRAMEDY. Thanks Manehi for parsing FANNY PRICE and to Paul. Favourite by a mile HOLLOW LEGS.

24. Until today I had never seen the word DRAMEDY. And I was a happier man.

25. Have read them, some more than once, and seen the screen versions, but needed crossers to recall the names. [What’s 7d’s given name, or that of Darcy’s aunt to whom he’s so obsequious?]. So, nice literary one for sensitive souls from JH, no scatology. Ta both.

26. I really don’t mind resorting to a Google list when my memory fails or my GK falls short, so I enjoyed this. I was another fixated on MESS for HOLLOW LEGS and tried to think of Austen characters called Scott or ending in Ella for FANNY PRICE. I really enjoyed the puzzle.

27. Thanks Manehi and Paul and congrats to all the Janeites who must have loved this (I didn’t). Like Gervase @11, I’m not a fan of stretched scientific terms being (mis)used in crosswords, and as a chemist I don’t equate ACETIC with sharp.

28. Did better once I stopped trying to shoehorn Lowry into 23ac

29. Just one Austen comment, without getting into the other debates. Five of the complete novels are drawn on (Emma for two characters, P+P obliquely for the Collins name in the clue), but not Persuasion – favourite of many readers, me included. I wonder if Paul tried but failed to get the full coverage. Names like Wentworth anf Musgrove seem not too hard to clue. Thanks anyway for a testing puzzle, and to manehi for careful blogging.

30. Not my kind of theme. Gave up with maybe 25% done. Nho DRAMEDY. As for the clue for HOLLOW LEGS, I found it impenetrable. Thanks all.

31. Got AUSTEN immediately but glee turned to glum equally fast as I’ve never read a Jane Austen novel

    Fortunately my mother was on hand to fill in the blanks in my literary education 🙂

    Liked the HOLLOW LEGS and FINAGLER

    Cheers P&M

32. I really enjoyed that. I always see a Paul crossword as a treat and I managed everything except Hollow Legs (a super clue to which I take off my hat in respectful defeat).
    I laughed at Pesto and Numberless.

33. Generally not a fan of Paul, and have not read much Austen, so there was not much for me to enjoy here. I looked up a list of Austen characters, slogged through the rest with many unparsed and 23D unsolved, and after reading the blog, it’s clear that this was beyond my skill level.

    After a good week, I fell at the last, as it were.

34. As always Paul makes my day, especially 23a. However, 1d would be a good clue with the word ‘on’ removed; as it stands it is surely wrong? Nho DRAMEDY and if FANNY is US for behind I shudder to think of the potential for misunderstanding/offence.

35. Two.
    I solved two 🥲🥲

36. Probably somewhat enjoyable if you know your Austen. Not much fun if you don’t, with added irritations of a foreign word clued as an anagram and Fitzgerald as an Americanism indicator, which are both quite some way across the line. Perhaps there’ll be an editor in Paul’s stocking this Christmas.

    Thanks for the blog.

37. [To those here who haven’t read any Jane Austen, I heartily recommend that you do (except Northanger Abbey, of course!). She wrote English as it should be wrote. Don’t confuse her with the overblown Victorian writers such as the Brontes. Emma is arguably the funniest.]

38. I really thought I might be in the minority with my apathy towards Austen novels, so am surprised by the majority of the above remarks. And I’m another like Gladys@22 who had tentatively plumped for Hysteria, unparsed, before LISTERIA went in with a bit of a shrug…

39. As soon as I solved Austen I gave up. I haven’t read any of her books and don’t have the mind set to research her novels in order to do a silly little crossword

40. Paul is probably my favourite setter but I did not get on with this, in fact I abandoned it halfway through and I almost never do that. Of course there’s going to be some general knowledge in crosswords but it’s usually sprinkled around sparingly, often as wordplay fragments rather than actual answers. This was like the recent sports theme where too many of the answers themselves required the thematic knowledge. Having never read a word of Austen (I did get the keystone clue) the rest of the themers meant a Google slog. Not much fun. Harumph.

    Added to that, the CARABINERO mistake, the odd grammar in STYE and the use of ‘Fitzgerald’ as an AmEng indicator made me wonder if the editor had looked at this one prior to publication…

41. I love the intemperate philistinism of some of today’s comments!

    Further to the CARABINERO howler, ‘Roman copper’ would more properly be ‘poliziotto’ – a member of the civil Polizia. The Carabinieri are a military force, for which ‘copper’ would seem a bit feeble (although the Carabinieri do ‘cop’ 🙂 )

42. [muffin @37 – why ‘except Northanger Abbey, of course’? Of course??? I admit to having an academic dog in this fight, but will say no more.]

43. [Balfour @42
    See mine @3. The plot is just silly!]

44. quenbarrow @29 – I too noted the conspicuous absence of Persuasion, which I hold in high regard, in part for reasons that are in the public domain, but I must say no more lest my cover be blown …

45. 11ac is wrong. Carabinero is the name of a prawn, and also a member of a Spanish paramilitary police force

46. RobT@40 – ‘The Carabinero Mistake’ sounds like the title of a Clancy-style thriller.

47. HOLLOW LEGS amused me as we’d had that discussion on Tuesday making lots of toast for teenage boys (the astonishment was from a slightly older teen boy).

    I like Austen and the only character I don’t remember is ISABELLA THORPE, but I’ve only read Northanger Abbey once. I’m with Gervase @41 being fascinated how so many solvers are willing to display their philistinism.

    Thank you to manehi and Paul.

48. Muffin@3, perhaps if you read The Castle of Otranto first, you will appreciate Northanger Abbey more.
    Plenty of Pauline deviousness here – unravelled it in the end but it was hard work. I’d object to 18d on the grounds that knights are not usually considered nobles, though the problems already mentioned are more significant.

49. I found this really hard. Was 3 Down inspired by a pun about Gregg Wallace, whose career is now toast? I’ll get me apron.

50. What a treat. Apart from the one error, but never mind. Even Homer nods. I’d just had another run through the novels so that helped. For some reason, Northanger Abbey was the one I had not re-read for the longest time. Though I usually chime with muffin at 37 and 42, I have to say that I couldn’t believe how good it is. Early but re-written later. Seemed so right for the moment, shockingly so I thought.

51. [Xjpotter @50
    I read it once, a long time ago, and never felt moved to re-read it, unlike all the other ones. I’ll take on board the suggestion that I ought to!]

52. I always find Paul hard, but as an Austen lover (except Northanger Abbey) I enjoyed seeking out the characters. Only the carabinero and the shark defeated me, which is fewer than some of his crosswords. Thanks for a delightful challenge

53. Oh, to be good enough to get to argue over the finer points of CARABINERO / CARABINERE… 🙂

    Did the “obvious” ones STYE, GROCER, STRESSED, SVENGALI, ADVERSE, SAGA, and SOHO. Had to reveal AUSTEN (easy parse in hindsight), but it didn’t help even though I’ve read the books whose characters came up.

    Thanks, manehi and Paul.

54. 8a could be LIST TEARIER . . .

55. Another fan here – of both today’s crossword and Jane Austen. However, I struggled to recall more then 2 or 3 character names, despite having read all of the novels, and two of them in the last year or so… I must be getting old! So had to work off the wordplay and crossers alone, until the penny dropped on each themed clue. I share the view that CARABINIERI was misspelled here.
    As others have alluded to, Northanger Abbey was written as a scathing parody of the gothic novels that were so popular at the time, and the young women who tended to read them – with that in mind, it’s a really good read, I think.
    But back to today…. a tough but very enjoyable workout, thanks Paul and Manehi.

56. Is it really necessary for people to insult other members of this site who haven’t read the same books as them? Apparently so. Shame

57. Can I add my appreciation of Northanger Abbey -a very clever satire of both the Gothic novel craze and the Bath marriage market?

58. Not for me, but I know many that would have absolutely loved this.

    [ Mr Collins always come to mind, when I hear politicians (mostly in blissful ignorance) talking of “fulsome” apologies. ]

59. Love Jane Austen. This puzzle was a treat. Thank you Paul

60. Aphid @54 – yes! That makes more sense as a parse. Well spotted and thanks.

    I did think the original suggested parse was a little odd… I’d like to think that not even Paul would use an imagined portmanteau as wordplay…! 🙂

61. Wellcidered@58. Not just politicians but bishops and archbishops – Mr Collins would be at home in today’s CofE.

62. Bodycheetah @56: I don’t see any ‘insults’ in the comments above. Fair enough if you haven’t read all of the works of Jane Austen or have never seen any of the numerous dramatisations of them, but there’s no need to harrumph about it. We all come across ‘themes’ which are outside our experience

63. Cluing obscure (to many) characters from fiction with anagrams. Very Paul. Very tiresome.

64. OK, bodycheetah @56 – I’ll rephrase: I worked in a school that thought having some idea about the way English literature developed was important and the year 7s were provided with a literature week that took them through a quick overview of the Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare, Austen and Dickens. They learned who the authors were, how the language developed and worked on some activities exploring their books. I suspect the aim was to teach that English has changed between the Middle English of Chaucer via Shakespeare to the 18th and 19th century through some authors they may encounter.

    The year 8s got a media week for some of the time I worked at that school and a poetry week the rest of the time.

65. I do wish contributors would avoid using the word ‘obscure’. All too often it is just a coded way of saying ‘I didn’t know it’, while giving the impression that nobody could be expected to know it. For uncommon words, ‘rare’ or ‘unusual’ is less loaded.

    Of course not everyone is familiar with the novels of Jane Austen but, as some of the most famous works of English literature, objectively they are certainly not obscure.

66. Shanne, Gervase – but does not having read Jane Austen make somebody a Philistine? I took that term as being used tongue in cheek, and I’ve been called it often enough that I’m not offended. (I’ve never read Jane Austen, and I’ve not studied Shakespeare, which may explain why the term has been thrown in my direction.)

    I’m with Gervase on the usage of “obscure”, though.

67. I’ve been busy all day and just catching up on comments after mine @4.

    I’m really surprised (and disappointed) at the strength of feeling this puzzle has aroused, when I think of the number of (often excellent) puzzles I’ve solved (and blogged) which involved overt or ghost themes, referencing bands/sports/films/TV programmes, etc, etc, that I was unfamiliar with – but clearly not ‘obscure’ to many/most of the rest of the solving community. That’s how I’ve learned things.

    I can usually find something positive to comment on, regarding the puzzle as a whole or individual clues but, if not, on a non-blogging day, I adopt the Thumper principle and don’t say nothin’ at all.

    I’m saying no more now. I realise I’m giving a hostage to fortune: it’s my blog tomorrow. 😉

68. I don’t usually disagree with Eileen, but I really didn’t enjoy this puzzle. I completed it with one error, having failed to remember that the character’s name was ‘Elinor’ rather than ‘Elenor’ Dashwood, and I did not deduce it from the convoluted wordplay.
    Like Criteco@28, my thoughts went to Lowry, and then I speculated from the crossers that the first word of the solution was likely to be hollow: I then thought, being Paul with his apparent toilet obsession, LSs being empty might be Loos: I eventually twigged ‘Hollow Legs’. For many commenters, a favourite clue, but not for me.

69. Not for me. Never read a word of Ms Austen. Could be a failing on my part. Or gender-related I suppose. Also find Paul’s use of obscure vocabulary and convoluted clueing a bit tiresome. Guess I’m just not as well-educated or well-read as I might be.

70. A Paul with lots of clues anchored to one clue, made even more “feast or famine” by the link/anchor requiring particular specialist knowledge.

    Anyway, long story short, famine.

    Ps I’ve always heard hollow legs to describe someone who can drink (not eat) a lot?

71. Hmm. I think some of the nuance of the (in my mind valid) criticisms of this particular thematic execution is perhaps being missed. I love a good themed puzzle! The best kind of themed puzzle is where you don’t need the thematic knowledge to complete and enjoy the solve, but rather it subtly permeates the gird, and at some point during or after the solve you permit yourself a wry smile for spotting the connection between a number of answers (or you kick yourself on reading the blog here to realise that that theme whistled over your head). That was not the case, or the criticism, here. The thematic knowledge was absolutely required to complete the solve.

    And whilst I generally agree with the previously expressed view that “obscure” is often synonymous with “I did not personally know that”, I would argue that the level of detail required here was beyond what could reasonably be expected: knowing the titles of Austen novels is fairly mainstream general knowledge, and a puzzle built around these would be fine for most folks I presume, even if they hadn’t read the books; however, knowing character names is quite different.

    To my mind, much of this has something to do with expectations; I do barred thematic puzzles as well as regular cryptics, and in the former I expect to make use of online references sources to crack the thematic ‘endgame’ – and doing so is part of the fun. But I really don’t expect a daily cryptic to need me to consult Wikipedia for a good proportion of the answers.

    Just my 2p worth 🙂

72. Crispy @66: it isn’t the ‘not knowing’, which is fair enough, however regrettable, but the reaction to not knowing that gave rise to our comments 🙂

73. Rob T @71 +1 from me; you’ve expressed my sentiments about this puzzle to the T. 22d was my FOI and a write-in. I looked at the rest and abandoned ship immediately. For a Prize or special occasion this would have been fine, maybe that’s what Paul intended it for and an editor misplaced it, but for me it’s not a mid-week daily.
    Thanks to manehi for the blog.

74. Several of the comments seem to result from classic sexist disdain for a female writer who is popular with female readers. Shame on them!

75. RobT@71. Certainly worthy of a Prize puzzle, but why be prescriptive or even proscriptive? I feel lucky to get a Prize worthy puzzle on a Thursday. I do support @74. If the theme had been Shakespeare, would there be the same cavilling? Austen was and remains one of the greatest writers ever. What’s wrong with doing a bit of research? There are other research tools than dictionaries, and everything is online anyway. All part of the fun.

76. I found this a real slog, just looking up Jane Austen characters. Apologies if I’ve missed this but ASCETIC (someone with a correct lifestyle), not entirely, is ACETIC.

77. Like many others such as Benbow@76, I found this a slog. It’s the first puzzle in ages for which I wasn’t able to complete most of the clues before recourse to aids (looking up Austen characters). I agree with RobT@71’s excellent analysis of the problems with this particular puzzle. Themes are fine and fun, but having to know the names of many characters in the novels, to be unearthed from the complexity of Paul’s clues, was a step too far.

78. The ‘on’ in 1d works for me if I take ‘threshing’ as a noun.
    ‘Philistinism’ is a strong word to use, even if intended as a joke.
    I only finished this because I don’t like being defeated. The enjoyment was very low.

79. Veronica@35 But how quickly did you get those two? That’s the key.
    I got five btw, which I think makes me much better than you, and certailnly not a Philistine.

80. Though I can’t spell of course.

81. Only finished it this morning, LISTERIA. and ACETIC last ones in. I was thinking all the way through that I should maybe I should be spending my time reading literature (I’ve shamefully never read Jane Austen) rather than doing crosswords. Excellent crossword, excellent blog, thank you both. Hope today’s is easier.

82. Paul’s puzzles are a highly acquired taste. Also, it seems as if my snobbery doesn’t mind me being illiterate (not having read Austen), but is irritated by parochial trivia. I also had a weird parsing of ACETIC One that’s correct, though not entirely sharp (6) as COPACETIC not entirely.

    Thanks both

83. Turns out that whilst I’m rubbish at cryptic crosswords, I’m very good at recalling obscure Jane Austen characters.

84. Well we both liked it even though my husband has never knowingly read any Auaten!
    Determined to get the HOLLOW LEGS one and only saw the light today. Excellent clue!

85. I was briefly held up by confidently entering ABIDE for 9ac, which I think works arguably a bit better than the actual answer.

    I didn’t realize that 12ac involved an anagram. I thought the relevant part was IN contained in E LORD. I figured “joining” was the containment indicator and couldn’t figure out what “senselessly” was doing there. My difficulty was no doubt exacerbated by the fact that I managed to misread that word as “seamlessly”.

    Like gladys @22 and others, I wonder what led Paul to pick Fitzgerald as his American in 6dn. Nothing wrong with it, of course, but it seems like an odd choice.

    I’ve read all of Jane Austen, some of them multiple times. (I respectfully disagree with muffin @3 re Northanger Abbey, by the way.) Like others, Mr. Collins was my way into the theme. But I still had a great deal of trouble recalling the characters’ names in the ones I haven’t read recently.

    [By the way, I’ve always thought that Mrs Bennet could have cut the whole plot of Pride and Prejudice off early on, simply by steering Mr Collins in the direction of Mary. They seem like they would have been quite well suited. Fortunately for us, she didn’t!]

86. Very very late, but would ” PE – result of hollow legs 5,5″ be considered fair ? ( empty plate )

87. But unfortunately, the logic of the surface would be backwards.

88. Here I am posting well after anyone will read my words. But this puzzle was so frustrating that I must vent. Possibly the hardest weekday Cryptic this Texan has attempted in 20+ years of solving. Got the Austen theme eventually although unfamiliar with her works. 8A listeria is just BS IMHO. Of course I clued into hysteria being part of the answer but stalled there which fouled up 2 other answers.

    After a week of repeated stubborn attempts I was left w
    5 unsolved. I like to persevere in order to improve. Usually this approach pans out. Not this time. Very unsatisfactory.

    I notice that the bloggers never criticize the setters much. Clever and praiseworthy as they are, not all their creations are enjoyable to solve.

    Paul’s Cryptic 29,570 is an unpleasant, arcane dog.

89. Didn’t get too far with this one, but didn’t expect to — Paul and I don’t usually get along

    I was very pleased to get the keystone clue right away, which is rare for me, but it got my hopes up only briefly, for I soon realized what was ahead

    Solved eight or nine and then, wisely, threw in the towel. A lot of very clever clues, though

Comments are closed.