Financial Times 15,248 by HAMILTON

9 comments on “Financial Times 15,248 by HAMILTON”

1. Agree with you re the Spoonerism.
   The two subtractive comp anags at 10A and 4D are both unsound, as neither REG nor MINOR appear in the word to be dissected, only their component separate letters. That should be allowed for in the clues.

   I did like Usurer=capitalist in the FT!

2. Thanks Hamilton and Grant

   A nice level of difficulty from this puzzle with a good variety of clue types throughout and a few very clever ones – especially TAPIR. Only one that I didn’t parse was NONENTITY – wasn’t smart enough to derive NONE, instead looking for NOT ONE, NOT 1 and really not getting to far at all.

   Parsed IN THE LOOP similar to yourself and have seen that wordplay before. I had 27a almost as a double definition – certainly needing a PSYCHOANALYST from watching the film … but also as someone who analysed the film itself – another clever clue.

   Thought that TRAINEE was the weakest of the bunch – with the definition of both words very very similar.

   Finished in the NE corner with that IN THE LOOP, GOLFER and USURER the last few in.

3. Grant
   Many thanks for the blog – my first time on your Tuesday watch. Not much I can add, except perhaps that IN THE LOOP was intended as you and brucew have parsed it.
   Goujeers @ #1 – I’ve been setting subtractive anagrams this way for some time, so it’s hardly a new thing, and I’m not the only one – this beautifully succinct example from the FT’s Redshank more than two years ago has remained at the back of my mind:
   “Upright piano tuner worked without one” – PURITAN (anag piano tuner less o, n and e – FT 14499 on 18 December 2013)

4. I’ve nothing against subtractive anagrams in themselves.I use them myself sometimes. It’s just that I think there should be an indication that the subtraction is not of a whole word but the separate parts thereof. I think that’s fairer to solvers, especially in a daily puzzle.

   Composite anagrams are a level more complex than other clue types. I first came across them when I start doing AZEDs in the late 1970s, and it took a while to get the hang of them.

   Didn’t spoil my enjoyment of your puzzle, though!

5. Thanks Hamilton for a good puzzle (my first of yours) and GB for the clear blog.

   I (eventually) parsed 6 as RING has IN but THE LOOP (Circle) doesn’t, which may not have been as Hamilton intended but worked for me.

   Goujeers @ 1 & 4: I agree in principle with your view on unindicated subtractive anagrams, but for me 10 has REG ‘THROWN’ ie jumbled OUT of STAGECRAFT, then SCHOOL as the anagrind. Your point on 4 is completely fair.

   To each their own view, eh?

6. Composite anagrams are often found in the Daily Mail puzzle; when I used to solve it at work I’d say there was usually one or two composite anagrams per week, on average. For some reason they’re deemed too hard for broadsheet solvers.

7. That’s possibly because the one we know here as Redshank (and as Crucible and Radian elsewhere) sets them.
   In fact, this device is one of his trademarks.

   I never saw subtraction anagrams or composite anagrams or whatever one would like to call them as a problem.
   It’s actually quite a nice device.
   No idea why some think this is one level up.

8. Absolutely no need to pre-jumble the subtraction component of subtractive anagrams. It’s not the slightest help to the solver so how can it possibly be “unfair” if it’s not done – and it’s only “unsound” if you regard that as a rule.

   If so let’s see your rulebook – and, to save you the trouble – there are several other rulebooks and I don’t use yours – I use a different one – or rather – I deduce which one the setter might be using and follow suit.

   Simply remove the first letter – then remove the second letter etc. It’s really quite simple.

   There’s another rulebook in which it’s all OK if the main fodder is jumbled first. A rule it may be (in that book) but once again – it’s not the slightest help to the solver.

   @Simon S – your plea for 10a is a good try (I’d definitley engage you as a brief if I was up before th ebeak) but I don’t buy it. Neither do I buy “To each their own view, eh?”. Goujeers knows perfectly well that there are numerous different “rulebooks” by whihc puzzles may be set. He’s pretending that his is the only one. Standard ximnonsense. Will it never end?

   The Spoonerism is a visual one. As such it works – although I think I prefer out-loud ones – groanworthy if at all possible; an exact match can be dull, unless there’s something else in it to make you smile.

   I could never understand why poetry pedants are more insistent on rhymes working visually than out loud. That’s for folk old enough to remember when much poetry involved rhyme to some extent.

   Nice puzzle – thanks both.

9. Thanks Grant and Hamilton.

   I had the two subtractive anagrams and the spoonerism as my favourites – each to their own I suppose.

   I did wonder whether we should have had an indication for which King at 18dn but then the clue can be solved as is so I guess that’s fine too.

   I parsed IN THE LOOP as a ring has a hole but a circle is a flat plane.

   I always struggle on linked clues which end in …….. And start in ………. such as 18 and19ac. Can anyone tell me what the link is?

Comments are closed.