Financial Times 14,962 by Goliath

8 comments on “Financial Times 14,962 by Goliath”

1. Goliath – he’s good, isn’t he?

   As to 19ac, I recently tackled a Sunday Times crossword by Dean Mayer (aka anax/Loroso) in which one of the clues was: ‘Campaigners plot?’.
   The solution was ‘pressure group’.
   One had to split ‘plot’ into ‘p/lot’.
   Not something one would expect in The Times.

   Here, my fellow citizen does the same thing: P + OODLES (lots).

   Thanks Pete for a fine blog.

   ps, a typo in 29ac: should be [wes]T

2. Brilliant puzzle from Goliath – echo your sentiment Pete, although I fell short on a few clues. “Carriage return” didn’t occur to me at all so thanks for the light there.

   A minor change for 29a – should just be wes[T] rather than we[ST].

   Thanks for a great challenge Goliath and a blog equal to it Pete.

   Cheers
   TL

3. I didn’t attempt this, but read the blog (thanks Pete Maclean) out of curiosity, having recently learned Goliath’s other pseudonym. I was really impressed by the humour and standard of cluing here. I’ll look forward to his next contribution to my crossword of choice.

4. I got 1a as it came off the printer -graphite pencil .Utterly convinced that it was correct as confirmed by the lead a of 2d that I no chance of getting 1d (and hence 17d) , 3d and therefore 26d and 4d. Was it misdirection or just an unhappy coincidence?
   9,10a is brilliant but too hard for me.
   12a made no sense whatsoever
   7d was too hard for me
   8d I just couldn’t see.
   28a is also brilliant but I did not get it.
   Isn’t chillaxing a horrible word?

5. There’s one thing in this exquisite puzzle that I am not really happy with.
   I’m talking about 2,18 and the use of ‘for’.
   The last bit of it is clearly O (love) + (ISRAEL)*.
   So, one should see ‘for’ as ‘given to’ or something similar.
   However, I don’t like it.
   That said, the much missed Araucaria did it on many occasions.
   And why should I then put the blame on Goliath (who is/was a great admirer (and friend) of Araucaria)?
   Dunno.

6. Thanks Goliath and Pete

   This was an enjoyable challenge – usually find it tougher when the clues are ‘doubled up’ like this, especially when they intersect – as in the NW corner here.

   Needed help with the parsing of POODLES and the ‘IN A PS’ part of COCKER SPANIEL.

   Some interesting clue devices used throughout – HELL’S ANGELS (was quite humorous), ENROLMENT (a clever trick) and how Plots needed to be separated into P Lots to give POODLES (it was too good for me this time).

7. Outstanding crossword I thought, much harder than the usual FT Saturday fare. As Sil says, ‘P lots’ is not something you usually see in The Times. But if the FT want to go by these rules, then OK I suppose. And I agree with him that the ‘for’ in 2,28 is a bit uncomfortable. For a long time I wanted to make 29ac SHOWER.

   In the paper they call this CROSSWORD 14,920, which is obviously wrong — Goliath’s last had that number.

8. Respect to Goliath! And thanks Pete for the blog.

   It might be a ‘wavelength’ thing but I never got into this properly and needed help for more than my self-respect allows me to admit with only niece and cash for the first 30 mins work.

   But I can’t complain because the clueing was all fair and highly creative. An exemplary crossword indeed.

   So you beat me this time Goliath but I’ll be back!

Comments are closed.