A carte blanche grid, so no bars and no numbers, but at least the clues have length indications and are in normal order. However, two entries are unclued, and there are a few clashes. A bit of a challenge then, from Kruger.
Preamble: Clues are presented in conventional order and the grid exhibits 180º rotational symmetry. The first of two unclued entries should be used to reference a quotation that describes how clashes in a small number of cells must be resolved, while the second unclued entry (an apt example of the first) shows why this quotation is surely incorrect. In the final grid, solvers must highlight the two unclued entries, plus the word resulting from the resolved clashes. The inclusion of bars is optional.
With 180º symmetry the pattern of word lengths of the across entries will be mirrored (unless some are unclued). They start 5-6-8-… and sure enough, working back from the twentieth clue we see the same pattern. So, 20 clues for 12 rows: given that the 8-letter words would each be on a single row, it wasn’t too hard to have pretty accurate idea of which rows the across answers would be in. Enough of this; time to start solving.
Solved the two 3-letter down answers (AIA & EEL), a few others, and a handful of the across ones – not enough to start entering anything. And then 1a CABAL, and I was off. 
Clues fell steadily, and the grid built up, aided by the 180º symmetry and my earlier guess at the disposition of the across entries. The first clash appeared with BELLOW and SCALING, and I noted that real words resulted from either resolution. The other clashes appeared lower on the same diagonal, again either resolution being possible.
I was sidetracked for a while trying to justify the wordplay for EMEUS, but got there in the end, and the two unclued entries (in the rightmost column) were clearly EDITOR and NIMROD. OK – the clashes to be resolved were C/W H A/E A/F T/F. The obvious contenders were CHAFF and WHEAT; I took those, along with EDITOR to the ODQ and was led to American writer Elbert Hubbard & his definition “Editor: a person employed by a newspaper, whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed.”
That seemed to settle it – the clashes should be resolved in favour of CHAFF. But there’s the other bit of the preamble: … the second unclued entry … shows why this quotation is surely incorrect. So, should it be WHEAT? I decide that the editor, Nimrod, (usually) gets things right & prints the ‘wheat’, namely the choice that is true to the quotation, so I plump for CHAFF.
But there seems to me to be an element of a Cretan-like paradox here: if Nimrod prints the ‘wheat’ then we should write “CHAFF”, but if he does indeed print the ‘chaff’, then we should write “WHEAT”. (Sometimes having an undergraduate degree with Philosophy has its downside.) So maybe having this extra flourish in the endgame took the edge of this otherwise wonderful puzzle, for which we owe thanks to Kruger.
As to the title of the puzzle Can Henry? A cryptic clue for John H(enderson). Got to dash … off to Cyprus … Tróodos mountains … walking. Season’s Greetings …
| Across | ||
|---|---|---|
| No. | Answer | Wordplay |
| 1 | CABAL | CA (about) LAB< (political party) |
| 6 | ALLICE | ALICE (girl from Lewis) around L (most common [letter] of “local”) |
| 11 | DESTINED | DEED (exploit) around STING (pain) − G(ood) |
| 12 | SALTUS | SUS(pect) around ALT (key) |
| 13 | OMANI | MAN (husband) in OI (cry for attention) |
| 14 | SOLO | SOLON (sage) − N(ame) |
| 16 | TALENT | TALE (story) NT (books) |
| 17 | NIOBOUS | NI (nickel) + OBO(e) (instrument) + U(nmelodiou)S |
| 19 | NEGRO | (coastli)NE GRO(tto) |
| 21 | SCALING | S(pecial) CALLING (occupation) − L(ambert) |
| 24 | IMPAIRS | IMP (empress) + AIRS (pretence of superiority) |
| 28 | PENNA | P(reen) E(ach) N(ormally) N(eat) A(lar) |
| 29 | ORIGAMI | GIRO< (system of banking) + AMI (friend) |
| 30 | STRIAE | [SATIRE]* |
| 32 | EDAM | MADE< (produced) |
| 33 | EMEUS | EMERITUS (honourably discharged) − R(ight) & IT (sex appeal) |
| 34 | TENDER | double definition |
| 36 | BANSHEES | BANS (prohibitions) around SHEE(r) (pure) |
| 37 | INTERN | [THINNER]* − H(ospital) |
| 38 | NEELD | homophone: KNEELED (perhaps got ready to pray) |
| Down | ||
| No. | Answer | Wordplay |
| 1 | CESSNA | CESS (impose tax, obs) + N(ew) A(dvanced) |
| 2 | AIA | A(n)I(t)A |
| 3 | BELLOW | BELOW (in hell) around (bul)L |
| 4 | AUTOBAHN | [HANG ABOUT]* − (warnin)G |
| 5 | CESTUI | C(aught) + S(uspects) in ETUI (case) |
| 6 | AS WAS | S(ucceeded) for N(avy) in ASWAN (Egyptian city) |
| 7 | LIME | double definition |
| 8 | INANGA | [GAIN AN]* |
| 9 | CENTRISM | [INTERCOMS]* − O (ring) |
| 10 | EDITOR | unclued |
| 15 | FOLIE | FOLIAGE (leaves) − AG (silver) |
| 18 | ISLESMAN | [MAIN LESS]* |
| 19 | NGAIO | (r)A(ces) in [GOIN(g)]* |
| 20 | EXIGENCE | IC (in command) around GEN(eral) all in EXE (river in Devon) |
| 22 | EPHEBI | E(xquisite) PHI (character, Gr) around (t)E(n) & (no)B(le) |
| 23 | INTENT | IN TENT (camping) |
| 25 | PREFER | PER(son) around REF (judge) |
| 26 | RADDLE | R(epair) ADDLE (bad) |
| 27 | NIMROD | unclued |
| 29 | OFTEN | [FEET NO]* − E(nergy) |
| 31 | RUSE | R (take) USE (exercise) |
| 35 | EEL | (wha)LE E(scaped) rev. |
|
|
||
This was a fine puzzle for the regulars who happen to know that John Henderson is the editor and he goes under the name of Nimrod, but not so good for occasional visitors like me, although I did eventually spot the blurb in the bottom right corner of the page which explained it. So I wonder whether it was put there deliberately.
Thanks to HG and to Kruger for a really excellent puzzle which I finished with some difficulty. Thanks also to John H who does an equally excellent job of editing this series. The Inquisitor has become my favourite crossword by some margin.
PS. I sympathise with HG’s about whether printing CHAFF makes Nimrod an example of an editor or not. My brain overheated before I was able to come to any definite conclusion.
I really enjoyed this crossword, not least because it was one of the few this year where I managed to parse all the clues to my own satisfaction. Not having a degree in philosophy I didn’t spend any time agonising over whether to enter CHAFF or WHEAT and entered the former without hesitation. I didn’t know the quotation and a Google search was unsuccessful so, for the first time for many years, had to consult my print copy of the ODQ where I found it immediately. My ODQ was bought in the pre-Google era and the need to look at it again was another reason for the enjoyment of this crossword.
Many thanks to Kruger and HG and seasons greetings to all
I’m afraid that I entered WHEAT … on the grounds that, unlike the editor in the quote, our admirable editor makes sure that the WHEAT, rather than the CHAFF, is printed, thus showing that in his case, the quotation is incorrect, as indicated in the preamble.
I am thus taken aback that HG and others above have chosen CHAFF, but bow to their superior expertise and logic in these matters. Presumably Kruger’s intention in the matter will be revealed on Saturday.
Merry Christmas and Happy Solving in 2016 to all.
What an enjoyable puzzle and really pleasing to complete a carte blanch. I’m with Murray Glover on the WHEAT v CHAFF dilemma; our editor would surely unerringly avoid the CHAFF. Seasons greetings to all this year’s setters, testers, bloggers and of course the editor.
I don’t see how WHEAT can possibly be justified. The preamble tells us that the “quotation describes how clashes…must be resolved.” The printing of WHEAT instead of CHAFF is contrary to that instruction, and therefore must be wrong. The reference to Nimrod underlines the inaccuracy of the quote when applied to the Inquisitor editor, it’s surely not an invitation to change the thrust of the quotation.
I thought it was an enjoyable puzzle,and a nice tribute to JH. Despite the carte blanche grid, two unclued entries and some clashes, it was surprisingly easy, though I didn’t understand the clue to EMEUS until I read HG’s blog.
Like Howard L we searched for more detail on the quotation but certainly didn’t find the full quotation. We didn’t even think about looking in our ancient book of quotations which we was rather negligent. Lesson learnt!
It was a good puzzle – but isn’t the IQ always? We agree with PeeDee.
Tony@1 – the blurb is now a regular feature and often quite witty.
Thanks Kruger – brilliant puzzle as expected. Thanks HolyGhost – have a good walking holiday. Last but not least thanks to John H, sorry but we missed the reference to you in the title. Happy Christmas all.
I do love a blank grid.
I wouldn’t say it was easy though – indeed I went through the all-too-familiar phase of wondering, what with the uncertainty of clashes and unclued entries, if my smattering of answers was ever going to be enough to piece together the grid…. Of course it was, as I have now finally learnt it will, I think.
I’m with Andy Stewart on the choice of CHAFF – the question of the correctness of the quotation is surely entirely independent from its utility in resolving the clashes, following the logical structure of the preamble.
Thanks to HG, in particular for resolving my one remaining question mark over the meaning of the title, and to Kruger for an invigorating challenge.
If CHAFF is indeed the correct input, as most think the logic of the preamble dictates, then it seems to me to be a sad ending to what was clearly intended as a tribute to our esteemed editor. Having winnowed successfully, Nimrod surely ensures that the WHEAT is printed and the CHAFF discarded, thus proving himself more principled than the newspaper editor of the quote ?
I shall continue to be grateful to JH for his high standard of editorship, in spite of the fact that the hardness level seems to be creeping up.
HAPPY X(word)MAS to all.
Much like OPatrick, I also enjoy a blank grid so loved this one. Once the NW corner started to take shape it wasn’t too tricky, though there was a face palm moment when I realised it was Nimrod for the second unclued entry. I have some old editions of ODQ which was invaluable in this instance, and I entered CHAFF accordingly.
Over the last couple of months, I’ve started to do EV and listener as I’ve had a bit more spare time than normal. They’re all great but when that spare time reduces again it’ll be the Inquisitor which will keep my attention. So another here in agreement with PeeDee
Thanks go again to HG and Kruger
Best wishes to all
Carte Blanche ? Yikes! With clashes ? Ouch !!
Or so I initially thought. In the end I didn’t find this too tricky and everything fell into place beautifully.
Many thanks to Kruger for a lovely puzzle and to HG for the blog.
Happy Christmas to setters, editors, checkers, bloggers and solvers everywhere.
CHAFF is indeed the required option. Having read, re-read and re-re-read the preamble, I’m afraid I can’t see a justification for WHEAT, sorry folks.
Many have been emailing to ask if there will be an IQ on Saturday: there will indeed, papers being published as usual. For anyone wishing to guess the perpetrator of IQ1418, I’ll give you the reassuring clue that the pseudonym in question will not be reappearing on January 2!
Happy Christmas to all.
Can Henry.
Back from walking, & catching up on the comments. I have some sympathy with Murray Glover @9, as I think that the preamble points in two opposite directions, albeit one being stronger than the other: the quotation describes how clashes …must be resolved; … this quotation is surely incorrect.
As I alluded to in the blog, maybe less is more, and the extra flourish detracted from the finale.
Just in case anyone is still reading:
The quotation states “An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and sees that the chaff is printed”.
Casting my mind back to my courses in Logic at university this is the proposition
IF x is an editor
THEN
x always separates wheat form chaff
AND
x always ensures chaff is printed
We are told that the proposition is incorrect, so there exist an editor for whom the proposition is false. So, negating the proposition we get
THERE EXISTS at least one editor x who (on at least one occasion) has
EITHER
NOT sorted the wheat and chaff
OR*
NOT ensured chaff is printed
We are further told that Nimrod is one such example, so on at least one occasion Nimrod has either not sorted wheat and chaff or not ensured chaff is printed.
Now if Nimrod failed to sort wheat and chaff then ensuring the chaff is printed becomes difficult. Whilst this is not logically impossible it does not make a lot of sense, so let us assume that it is the ensuring chaff is printed that Nimrod failed at.
So I take it that this is the example where Nimrod failed to ensure CHAFF is printed, so the solution contains WHEAT.
QED.
*inclusive OR, either one or the other or or both
‘while the second unclued entry (an apt example of the first) shows why this quotation is surely incorrect’ – I can’t see how that clause could be seen to be an instruction to read the quotation differently. To me, the clause can only be seen as referring to the second unclued entry, and saying that this particular entry proves the rule wrong, ie NIMROD is wheat not chaff, having of course entered CHAFF.
My apologies, I meant to say that NIMROD sees to it that wheat is printed, not that he is wheat – I know he likes a real ale or two but that is bit much! What I was attempting to say is that the clause in question is telling us that NIMROD is an editor who proves the quote wrong; grammatically it isn’t telling us to not to follow the original quote. It would need to be worded differently in order to do that.
After feeling somewhat crushed by those who were so definite about the logic requiring us to enter CHAFF, I was heartened to read these later comments.
I took the editor in the quotation as being a NEWS editor … whereas Nimrod is the INQUISITOR editor … I doubt whether the Editor of the Independent would ever have an opinion, one way or the other, about what might be printed in his Inquisitor puzzle. That is surely, and quite rightly, left to Nimrod whom we trust to select the WHEAT to be printed rather than the CHAFF.
I repeat what I said before, that implying that Nimrod prints CHAFF is somewhat ungracious, and not what one would expect in what was clearly designed to be a tribute puzzle. The one person we have not heard from yet is Kruger. Maybe he is reluctant at this stage to upset the applecart ?
There have been some other fine puzzles this year whose preambles have not been totally unambiguous … e.g the Zorro scalpel slits, and the misleading chronology in the Parsifal one. A good clue should always leave one certain of the answer. A good preamble should, equally, leave no room for doubt ?
My thanks to HG for the blog and to all those who’ve taken the trouble to contribute.
As I’ve been invited to comment …
The unclued entry (EDITOR) must be used to find out how to resolve clashes – the quotation clearly indicates that CHAFF should be entered.
The second unclued entry (NIMROD) is and example of an editor who, we all know, doesn’t print chaff and I can’t see any implication in the wording that he does. It also doesn’t suggest that the instruction from the quotation should not be carried out.
I really don’t understand how the preamble is ambiguous. Sorry to those who think it is.
Thank you for dropping in Kruger. If Nimrod does not print ‘chaff’ then I am curious to know what word got printed in the solution to this puzzle (under Nimrod’s editorial guidance).
Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the printed solution to hand.
With his casual use of quotation marks, I think that PeeDee (@19 & earlier) might be failing to distinguish signified and signifier: printing chaff is not the same as printing “chaff”.
Isn’t this sort of thing the basis of cryptic puzzles? For example, how would anagrams work if words could only denote what they signified, not the words themselves? Switching between the two is the bread-and-butter of cryptic puzzles.