A fun prize puzzle, this week from Philistine. (I think I’ve been quite lucky in getting good puzzles to post about on the prize puzzle rota, since the weekday Guardian crosswords I’ve done recently have been a bit hit-and-miss.) I don’t think there was any particular theme here, but I thought it was notable that there were three “reverse clues”, all unindicated (well, the question mark at the end of 5d might also be taken to indicate the reverse clue, I suppose) – I’ve marked them with a * below.
Anyway, overall we found this a very enjoyable solve, and not too difficult to complete. I have a few small quibbles which I’ve mentioned below, but this is the Guardian crossword, after all, and long experience suggests that the editor doesn’t care in the slightest about such things.
Across
1. Firing line in range, the soldier at the front makes advances (6)
FLIRTS
First letters of “Firing line in range the soldier”
Definition: “makes advances”
5. Joint’s disturbed rest of trendy folk (8)
HIPSTERS
HIP’S = “Joint’s” + (REST)*
Definition: “trendy folk”
9. Difficult situation, said to be incontinent and choking (8)
ASPHYXIA
Split “incontinent” to give “in continent” or in ASIA; inside is PHYX (sounds like “fix”) = “Difficult situation, said”
Definition: “choking” (One could quibble that this is unindicated definition-by-example, since there are ways of asphyxiating other than choking)
10. Exude endless confidence (6)
SECRET
SECRET[e] = “Exude endless”
Definition: “confidence”
11. Change round mid-coalition: no problem for Spooner (12)
ALLITERATION
ALTERATION = “Change” around [coa]LI[tion] = “mid-coalition” (I don’t like that this isn’t exactly in the middle of the word…)
Definition: “no problem for Spooner” – I love this definition: alliteration is where the same sound appears at the beginning of a sequence of words, so the most common kind of Spoonerism would be the same before and after swapping those sounds
13. Birds seen in the Science Museum (4)
EMUS
Hidden in “[the Scienc]E MUS[eum]”
Definition: “Birds”
14. Amorous Italian jerk (8)
ROMANTIC
ROMAN = “Italian” + TIC = “jerk”
Definition: “Amorous”
17. Barbie doll information — eleven envelopes and sheets (3,5)
BED LINEN
The first and last letters (“envelopes”) of “B[arbi]E D[ol]L I[nformatio]N E[leve]N”
Definition: “sheets”
18. Study hard, knocking back brandy (4)
CRAM
MARC = “brandy” reversed
Definition: “Study hard”
20. Players, not all here, in French 16 (12)
PARTICIPANTS
PART = “not all” + ICI = “here, in French” + PANTS = “[KNICKERS]”
Definition: “Players”
24. Letters help to follow a leading parliamentarian’s humble beginnings (8)
ALPHABET
ABET = “help” after the first letters of “A L[eading] P[arliamentarian’s] H[umble]”
Definition: “Letters”
25. Gates’s background (5,3)
* STAGE SET
Reverse clue: “STAGE SET” might be (STAGE)* or “Gates”
Definition: “background”
26. Working to change hands is intrusive (6)
PRYING
PLYING = “Working” but with R instead of L (“to change hands”)
Definition: “intrusive”
Down
2,21. Finally, a shoe? (4,5)
LAST THING
I think this is just that a shoe might be put on a last, which seems a bit weak, even with the question mark
Definition: “Finally”
3. Tries penetrating actual drill (9)
REHEARSAL
HEARS = “Tries” (as in a court of law) in REAL = “actual”
Definition: “drill”
4. Cunning to include stage direction, almost in a suggestive manner (6)
SEXILY
SLY = “Cunning” around EXI[t] = “stage direction, almost”
Definition: “in a suggestive manner”
5. Earth treatment that’s “organic”? (5,10)
* HEART TRANSPLANT
Reverse clue: “HEART TRANSPLANT” might be (HEART)* or “Earth”
Definition: “treatment that’s “organic”?” – I like this: the heart is an organ, so a heart transplant might be an “organic” treatment
6. Stuff filling food from Cornwall, we hear, is beef (8)
PASTRAMI
PASTI (sounds like “pasty”) = “food from Cornwall, we hear” around RAM = “stuff”
Definition: “beef”
7. Implied one must be engaged in diplomacy (5)
TACIT
I = “one” in TACT = “diplomacy”
Definition: “Implied”
8,23. It might be heard, perhaps endlessly, in valedictory cheers (10,6)
RHETORICAL DEVICE
(I VALEDICTOR CHEER)* – the anagram fodder is “in valedictory cheers” without the last latters (“endlessly”)
Definition: “It might be heard”
12. Child missing, having left room later perhaps (5,5)
AMBER ALERT
A good &lit – [ch]AMBER (“room” without CH = “child”) followed by (LATER)*
Definition: the whole clue, referring to the AMBER Alert system
15. Needed to change scenery round Syria’s borders (9)
NECESSARY
(SCENERY)* around S[yria]A = “Syria’s borders”
Definition: “Needed”
16. Newcastle’s first to have footballers outside in underwear (8)
KNICKERS
N[ewcastle] = “Newcastle’s first” in KICKERS = “footballers”
Definition: “underwear”
19. Grab skillets (4,2)
* SNAP UP
Reverse clue: “SNAP UP” might be a clue for PANS or “skillets”
Definition: “Grab”
22. Act constituent heard and noticed (4)
SEEN
A “scene” is an “Act constituent”, which sounds like SEEN
Definition: “noticed”
This, if I remember, went quickly for a prize puzzle, at least by my standards. (Done in under an hour; sometimes they take me all morning.) I thought it was quite fun all the same, with mmany clever clues. Thanks to both blogger and setter.
I was surprised to see AMBER Alerts show up–and thus also surprised to learn that they go by that name even outside the US. It’s a backronym that stands for America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. (Of course, there was a child named Amber, after whom it is also named.)
Thanks mhl. I agree with mrpenney: this was over in a trice. I did labour a bit with BED LINEN, liking it when I got it; and with last-in AMBER ALERT, whose import only got to me when I checked it on line.
Thanks mhl – and to Philistine for getting the difficulty level just about right for me. Some clever misdirections, especially the mention of Spooner without the usually tiresome trawl for possible contenders.
Enjoyable though a little disappointing.
If it wasn’t for 8,23 , 16D and 25A this would have been all done in 20 minutes. As it was it stretched to the half hour.
An easy Philistine even if it had been a weekday.
Not enough of a challenge for a “prize” IMHO of course.
Thanks to mhl and Philistine
Reasonably famously, Paul’s first ever Guardian crossword contained
Name sewn into footballers’ underwear (8)
Thanks mhl,
I enjoyed this puzzle and certainly didn’t find it that easy. It took me hours to complete and I failed to get CRAM which just didn’t come to mind for C_A_ . I also had never heard of marc for brandy but maybe I move in the wrong circles. I was fixated on con/den for study and h for hard and this led nowhere.
Just my opinion but it must be off-putting for many solvers who maybe struggled with this puzzle, to have it dismissed as easy or over in a trice. I’m sure many lurkers feel deterred from even making a comment for fear of being judged as not bright enough.
Many thanks Philistine.
Maybe it was the mood I was in when I solved this one, but it took me much longer than it should have done to get my final two answers, the PARTICIPANTS/HEART TRANSPLANT crossers. I enjoyed it though.
I also found this easy for a Prize, but I still enjoyed it on the whole. I had the same quibble as mhl about LI not really being “mid-coalition”. I parsed LAST THING in the same way and agree that it is rather weak if that is all there is to it. I didn’t see the parsing for BED LINEN, but I like it now I have read the explanation.
mrpenney @1
Although the use of amber alerts in the US sense is probably becoming known in the UK via social media, it has a long-standing meaning here as a bad weather alert issued by the Meteorological Office.
Thanks to mhl for the blog.
I was very annoyed by 26a. The form [part1] instruction [part2] is poor because the definition can be either at the start or the end, so PLYING would have been an acceptable answer. You just have to guess which one is wanted. At least in 18a, which has the same clue structure, there is a crosser to tell you which one is actually wanted.
Davy @6
There will always be posters here who solved even the most fiendish puzzle very quickly by ‘normal’ standards, but the comments so far about this one have mostly been about its relative easiness for a Prize puzzle. They are supposed to challenge even expert solvers, and when a very ‘average’ solver like me can fill one in quite quickly with only one clue not fully parsed, I think it is reasonable to comment on the difficulty level.
As for lurkers being reluctant to post for fear of being judged, I’ve been reading this site for a few months now and I’ve never seen anyone being belittled for struggling with a puzzle, so I hope they will feel free to post about their experiences whether they found a puzzle easy or hard.
Thanks Philistine and mhl.
I nearly managed to finish this prize puzzle, only the second time that has happened. Failed to get AMBER ALERT (it is called Alerte Enlevement in France and the one for the weather is Alerte Orange).
I could not parse ASPHYXIA, what a good clue, as were ALLITERATION, BED LINEN and SNAP UP among others.
Well, most of the answers went in easily enough but I can’t say I found the parsing as easy. Still, most of the points about this have already been made so I won’t trawl through them again. I loved ALLITERATION and PASTRAMI.
When does a puzzle cease to be “easy” and become “difficult”. I ask because there is invariably a difference of opinion in these posts. Is it merely subjective as I believe, or am I missing something- Discuss.
Thanks Philistine.2
Thanks all
5across is very close to home!
The usual high standard from Philistine.
Thanks all
5across is very close to home!
The usual high standard from Philistine
jennyk @10
Thanks for your reply. How do you know you are very average as a solver ?. How can anyone know how good or bad they are and does it matter?. If you found this easy, then I would suggest that you are better than you think your are !.
Davy @15
Well, this one took me a lot longer than some earlier posters (though I don’t remember exactly how long). With the weekday puzzles, I need to use the check button a lot and I rarely parse all the clues. That rules me out as an ‘expert’ solver, but I’m not a beginner either, so ‘average’ seems a fair description.
As for if it matters whether a solver (or a poster here) is relatively ‘good’ or ‘bad’ at solving, I don’t think it does at all. What matters is whether for each of us the pleasure outweighs the frustration. I find there is more enjoyment to be had from tackling a puzzle which is slightly above my current level and getting that switch from frustration to “Aha!” than there is in quickly completing an easier puzzle.
jennyk @16
I totally agree with your second paragraph. Very well put. I’ve been doing cryptics for about 40 years now and I don’t seem to get any better. In fact I seem to be getting worse.
Obviously the setter is crucial here and there are one or two whose style I cannot get along with so if I see their names, I won’t even attempt the puzzle. Of course, if you are on a setter’s wavelength the puzzle becomes much easier. I was always very much on Araucaria’s wavelength and historically Bunthorne was always my nemesis although I always had a go at his puzzles but never finished one.
Davy @17
I’ve recently returned to Guardian cryptic crosswords after a break of a few years, but I’ve been doing them on and off for about as long as you and I loved Araucaria too. I don’t avoid any of their current compilers, but I certainly find some much more of a struggle than others. I think avoiding compilers whose puzzles you don’t enjoy is the sensible approach, and I wish certain regular posters would do the same.
Davy & jennyk
The wavelength/mindset thing is very interesting. I’ve been doing crosswords, in fits & starts, for abut 35 years. Seeing Araucaria’s name used to fill mke with terror, but I persevered, increasing my enjoyment, and I well remember the sense of triumph I felt when first I finished one of his.
I don’t however agree with the “If I know I don’t get on with this setter I won’t start” approach. I think it *is* worth persevering with them, as time goes by you start to get a feel for their style, and gradually make more progress. Then you finish one and can tick the “I don’t need to feel terrified any more” box. That doesn’t mean you will finish the next one(s), but it’s a beachhead.
I won’t name names for active setters, but there are some where I’ve gone from “Oh no! Not him!” via “That was a tough workout”, “OK, I understand but it’s not particularly my bag” and “I admre but don’t particularly enjoy” to “Excellent, this one will be hard but the clueing will be fair and I’ll emerge with a sense of achievement – thanks”. But I never made much progress with Bunthorne either 🙂
Oh, and jennyk @ 18
Re your last sentence, I clearly don’t agree that they should avoid these setters, but I do think they shouldn’t bother to post. But the sound of one’s own voice is always mellifluous, isn’t it – mine certainly is, and I can’t carry a tune in a wheelbarrow 😉
Simon S @19 & 20
Davy said @17 “whose style I cannot get along with”. I take that to mean more than just “whose puzzles I find too difficult”. Some people don’t like a certain setter’s sauciness, some don’t like setters whose cluing isn’t Ximinean and I’m sure some don’t enjoy other setters for their own particular reasons. Longer acquaintance is more likely to strengthen those feelings than decrease them. That’s when I think it doesn’t make sense to keep doing those puzzles.
If it’s just about difficulty, then I agree that persistence may pay off. I enjoy the mental workout given by a tricky puzzle (Araucaria’s alphabetical jigsaws are my all-time favourites), so difficulty alone would not put a setter into my (currently empty) “can’t get along with” category. However, I do pace myself – since I came back to solving, I’ve widened my range from just Quiptic to Cryptic and then Prize, but I’ve not tackled a Genius yet. I will eventually, though.
Thanks Philistine and mhl
Only did this one this Saturday rather than last … and also found it a little easier than Philistine’s normal offering. Having said that, there were some that took a while to see the proper parsing – e.g. BED LINEN had to be the answer … but it took some time to understand to take the first and last letters of the first four words – it was my favourite.
I agree about the wavelength discussion and your own frame of mind when doing a puzzle. I still find if I can’t sleep, get up in the middle of the night and do one – my strike rate goes way up – as if I’m in a whole different thinking plane.
I tend to continue with a crossword until I finish it, even if I look at it on and off for weeks and often subconsciously put off the ‘harder’ setters (Enigmatist, Bonxie and newbies Screw and Vlad) for a couple of days, sometimes longer !!
Thanks to Philistine and mhl. As an “average” solver based in the US (who has been doing Guardian puzzles since the 1980s) I had until recently sidestepped at least two setters, but thanks to the parsing (and related comments) provided on this blog my performance has improved. Some prize puzzles still defeat me (e.g., the recent one from Enigmatist) but this one did not, though still I needed help with the parsing (e.g., (CH)AMBER ALERT), and with RHETORICAL DEVICES I quickly got the first word but, missing the anagram, had trouble with “devices.” Par for the course.
Chas @9: no, you don’t have to guess. The word “is” does that for you. The clue reads: “Working to change hands is intrusive.” You have to separate that into a wordplay half and a definition half; the “is” often serves as an equal-sign in between them. In this case, “wordplay is definition.”
If you try to read “working” as the definition, your wordplay would have to be “to change hands is intrusive,” in which case you’ve got “is” doing nothing.
~~~~
And as for the rest of this excellent discussion of what counts as “easy” and what counts as “hard”–well, since I started it, notice that I said only that this puzzle was easier, for me, than a normal prize puzzle. It’s also worth stating that everyone has different puzzles they find easy (or hard). Probably about once every two weeks, I do a Guardian puzzle (usually, this happens midweek) where I find it baffling, unfair, and completely out of my league. I’ll start giving the “cheat” button a workout, and even then I’ll still not get what’s going on in three or four clues. Then I log on here and everyone’s talking about how easy and enjoyable they found it!
At that point, I swallow my objections, figuring it was just me, and ask questions about how the clues work so I can understand them better for next time. Everyone has been very patient–and I’ve had to ask fewer questions as time has gone on.
Interesting discussion. As I remember, I finished this and it probably took around three hours, on and off. I sometimes find the Prize puzzle easier than some of the weekday ones. I’m definitely not the fastest solver, but have got quicker as time has gone on. My Saturday morning homework is to do the two sudokus (ordinary and killer) and the crossword, but it often spills over into Sunday.
There are always going to be people who complain about puzzles being too hard or too easy – just read the daily comments. But as others have pointed out, it’s not a competition – the aim is to get enjoyment, and one can get this from pretty well any puzzle unless you find the setter is really so far off your wavelength that it begins to irritate you. I enjoy every puzzle, every day, and don’t make comparisons between the setters. I recognise Paul because of his witty clues and general bawdiness, and that’s about it!
“long experience suggests that the editor doesn’t care in the slightest about such things”
AFAIK the poor guy’s an Oxbridge Classics graduate. Starting from such early disadvantage and lacking a proper formal education he seems to be doing a pretty good job in maintaining the (unsurpassed) traditions of this paper’s crosswords, which are not the same as those of The Times – nor are they “anything goes” – as one massively overrated setter (but, like X, not a setter of blocked dailies) foolishly said of Araucaria’s work.
Maybe the former’s self-education involved reading more than one book on the subject – ie not just X and the Art – nor X for Plodders published by Chambers, which effectively counts as one and the same.
Barnard (Anatomy of the Crossword 1963) calls “reverse” clues “parabolic” and does not suggest that they should be indicated; “parabolic” coming from parable (not parabola) – ie you read (the story in) the answer to get back to the clue or part thereof.
Paul records (in his Xmas before last potboiler) that Araucaria’s first advice to him was *not* to read X and the Art – so if he read anything it would have been Barnard – although – since he sets for other papers (including The Times) he is no doubt fully aware of the various (arbitrary) requirements of different approaches.
Anyway – it was a fun solve – Paul’s puzzles always are – not just the smut – the style more than anything.
———————————————-
Interesting discussion on difficulty levels – I think the G prize slot has been intentionally made more approachable whilst still keeping a sense of specialness.
With tough puzzles in general I often find that SS’s (#19) sequence:
“Oh no! Not him!”
“That was a tough workout”
“OK, I understand but it’s not particularly my bag”
“I admire but don’t particularly enjoy”
“Excellent, this one will be hard but the clueing will be fair and I’ll emerge with a sense of achievement – thanks”
becomes
“Oh no! Not him!”
“That was a tough workout”
“OK, I understand but it’s not particularly my bag”
“Didn’t particularly enjoy – the setter’s trying to make me think he’s clever, rather than entertain me”
“Will avoid in future”
I like a bit of a tussle – but the toughness needs to earn its keep.
“Fair” of course always means [of the many (won’t admit the others are valid) cluing approaches] “my favourite cluing approach”.
———————————————
Here endeth this morning’s rant.
In Sil’s absence it’s fallen on me to deliver the sermon.
Many thanks for the blog MHL.
I actually like to be absent.
[I also liked this Philistine puzzle]
Found this very enjoyable and well suited to an hour on the train, also fairly gentle for a prize. I’ll stay out of the stylistic debate this time.
Thanks to Philistine and mhl
My honest comment seems to stirred up the “hornets”. (There’s a clue in there somewhere 😉 )
It would seem that it’s dangerous to comment on the difficulty of a puzzle on here as it gets people’s backs up. Especially if one says the puzzle was easy!
Well as this is a forum to discuss 15X15 cryptics I feel that anything puzzle related comment is valid as long as it’s not obscene or insulting to someone.
I have been doing the Guardian crossword for the last 43 years and mostly solving it for the last 10! The experience of the poster naturally affects the content of his comment and one shouldn’t be expected to moderate one’s comments for other readers.
The Prize puzzle was always, to in my recollection, harder than the weeklies. However over the last 2 years or so it seems to be a regular occurrence that we get an easy puzzle. Perhaps this is part of the general dumbing down of the media and publications which sadly seems to be happening?
Any way I will restate my position.
a) This puzzle was too easy for a prize puzzle in my opinion.
b) The only reason I say this is that I prefer to spend more time on the puzzle at the weekend as we have 2 days with only one puzzle and I also have more free time.
c) There doesn’t seem to be any other sources of original puzzles which are Guardian-like. (Libertarian). I would be very happy if someone could point one out. (I have tried Magpie and found it quite dull!)
Finally I apologise if I have offended anyone. Just as an aside it took me about 23 years before I finally completed a Guardian puzzle and that was an easy weekly!
I too loved Araucaria, but until I bought some books of his puzzles I didn’t realise how he developed his style (and indeed developed “the crossword” generally). That wonderful feeling that an Araucaria clue just clicked smoothly into place wasn’t always there, I found. Perhaps we should talk about “late period Araucaria”!
I’m not sure why people still expect the Prize to be the most difficult puzzle of the week – the policy of the last few years seems to be to have more accessible ones much of the time, probably to encourage less regular solvers to enter. I for one don’t object to this – anything which helps maintain the popularity of the crossword should be regarded as a good thing, after all we have had a few tough midweek puzzles recently…
I enjoyed this puzzle–no editorial from me on easy or hard–but I did want to comment on 2, 21, which gave me a chuckle that no one else commented on. Last, in the olden days, was a word for shoe, or at least shoe leather and other parts of shoes. (My grandfather had a “lasting” business in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century!) So, IMHO, not a weak clue at all!
Thanks to setter and blogger.
Over on the i we get relatively easy Phi puzzles on the Saturday to encourage maximum numbers of entries for the prize it seems, whilst the hardest puzzles invariably come along on Thursday or Friday from someone like Nimrod or Anax. Some of us would rather have the hardest puzzle when there’s most time, but we kind of accept it as being for the greater good on balance.
Now here’s an important distinction re quoting time spent to do puzzles: I love it when a blogger does a comparison of his or her times as a summation of the years puzzles and uses this to compare different papers, thank you; however when a solver mentions their time on a daily blog, the comparison is obviously going to be with my experience, and as such I find it belittling, so please don’t do it!
Cornick @33 et al
I’m not keen on having an easier puzzle on Mondays when we also have the (supposedly easier) Quiptic, but I suppose a similar logic may apply. Solvers lacking in confidence may get a boost from success with the Quiptic and decide to try that day’s Cryptic. If they can make a good attempt at that too, they are likely to continue with them, whereas a major struggle may put them off for life.
On judging difficulty by time taken, I rarely sit down to concentrate on a puzzle from start to finish. There are always distractions or a need to take a break to do something more important so it would usually be difficult to assess how long it took. I judge a puzzle’s difficulty more by how many ‘passes’ I need to make or how frustrated I get before I solve it then by time taken.
Also, sometimes I might solve all but a couple of clues quite quickly, then be stuck on that last couple for most of the day (just coming back to the puzzle occasionally). On other occasions, I might take ages to get started or get more than a few clues, but then finish it quickly once past a certain stage. If the time from start to finish is the same, are they equally difficult? I think I’d usually regard the latter as having been more difficult, and certainly more frustrating.