Never knowingly undersolved
John Not a bad example of the new Everyman, with some quite good clues. My criticisms are more often of the ‘Well I wouldn’t do it that way if I was writing a clue for this word’ type than of the ‘This is quite appalling’ type.
Definitions underlined in crimson. Indicators (anagram, homophone, hidden etc.) in italics. Link-words in green.
A pleasant crossword from Everyman. There were several anagrams — no bad thing in a crossword that’s intended to be on the easy side, but some of the fodder was a bit tortuous and didn’t really lend itself to elegant surfaces. I often didn’t get them until I had plenty of crossers.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (for anagrams, homophones, first letters, reversals etc) in italics. Anagrams indicated *(like this) or (like this)*. Link-words in green.
For much of this crossword I was thinking how pleasant it was, but towards the end some of the clues seemed to become rather tortuous. Who knows if I’ve actually got it right — I may be barking up the wrong tree — but there were some clues that I’m a bit doubtful about. Which will encourage the poster a few months ago to mention my crabbiness. Sorry — I’m hard to please!
Definitions underlined in crimson. Indicators (homophone, hiddem, anagram etc.) in italics. Link-words in green. Anagrams indicated *(like this) or (like this)*.
Some good clues here: Everyman has been clever in discovering several apposite anagrams that make for lovely extended definitions. I’m still a bit unsure about one or two of the explanations though, but am sure people will do my job for me. We have the long alliterative clues at 1ac and 26ac, also 5dn, the first letters extended definition, and the self-reference at 9ac.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (reversal, homophone, hidden, etc) in italics. Link-words in green. Anagrams indicated *(like this) or (like this)*.
I find it hard to believe that Everyman is just one person, unless there are days when they’re badly off form. This crossword was so much better than the one I blogged last month: no clues are seriously unsound and the surfaces, although not in every case really up to a lot, are generally pretty good. And Everyman makes things quite demanding for him/herself: there are the long onomatopoeic (yes, alliterative, as several pointed out; wrong word) answers (potato peelers, penalty points, private property), the first letters homophone clue (1dn), the self-reference (20ac), and maybe others that I’ve missed, and they all fit in without strain.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (anagram, homophone, hidden, juxtaposition etc.) in italics. Link-words in green. Anagrams indicated *(like this) or (like this)*.
This didn’t seem to me to be so good as some of the recent Everymans: it was sound enough but I think one or two of the surface readings are a bit tortuous, not reading very naturally; and what picture is painted by 12ac or 3dn for example?
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (anagram, homophone, hidden, juxtaposition etc.) in italics. Link-words in green. Anagrams indicated (like this)* or *(like this).
A good crossword from Everyman this week. No major criticisms and few minor.
Definitions underlined, in crimson. Indicators (anagrams, homophones, hidden, etc) in italics. Anagrams indicated *(like this) or (this)*. I’d like to indicate the link-words in some way, but my fear is that I’ll make it all so complicated that it will be pointless; however, I’ll make them green (actually there aren’t many — the sign of good tight setting). Let me know if this helps.
This is one of the best Everyman crosswords that I’ve blogged. The clues are apparently (with the odd exception, which is quite possibly because I’m missing something) sound, none of them are incredibly difficult, and the surfaces are often very good.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (anagram, homophone, hidden etc) in italics. Anagrams are indicated *(like this) or (like this)*.
There are some nice clues in this crossword, but also a few that I’m not comfortable with, as will be clear from the blog.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (anagram, reversal, homophone etc) in italics. Anagrams indicated like *(this) or (this)*
There are several features of ‘the new Everyman’: rhyming answers (although I always have trouble finding these — Quito – Cointreau?), the ‘Primarily’ clue, which always provides a nice easy way in, the clues to these (as here) often being very clever, the reference to Everyman as ‘me’ which so far as I can see always appears quietly somewhere (in 12ac this time), and possibly others. Within these restrictions we are usually nowadays given a sound crossword. My criticisms below tend to be very minor. One might carp about the fact that there are as many as three (I think) reversals of the whole thing.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (hidden, reversal, homophone, etc) in italics. Anagrams indicated (like this)* or *(this).
The problem with the current Everyman crosswords is that their difficulty varies so. There are some easy enough clues, of which many are quite good I think, but one or two really difficult ones. The aim, surely, is to have some sort of a gateway crossword which encourages new setters (yes I mean solvers, silly mistake, thanks Michelle@3) , and in its present form the Everyman crossword fails to do so, I should have thought. I’m not a fast solver at all, but the old Everyman used to take me about 20 minutes. This one so far (and I seem to have solved it and spent much time on the blog, but there is still quite a bit of tidying up remaining) has taken me about 2½ hours. If I weren’t doing the blog I’d probably have taken approaching an hour if I wanted, as I do (unlike most speed solvers), to be sure of the parsing at all stages.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (anagrams, hidden, reversal etc.) in italics.
All was pretty straightforward and it seemed that this was another crossword from Everyman that maintained the recent good standard. But, although they were both quite sound, I took absolutely ages on a pair of clues that I just couldn’t do. One of them was fine really, and I kicked myself afterwards; the other was rather obscure I thought; if an answer is going to be an obscure word, then in my opinion the clue should be pretty straightforward. This one wasn’t. Thank goodness I eventually got there.
Definitions in crimson, underlined. Indicators (anagrams, hidden, reversal, etc) in italics. Anagrams indicated *(like this} or (like this)*
The Everyman crossword is definitely improving. There were some nice clues here, and I only had a few very slight doubts in places, as you’ll see in the blog. More like the old Everyman: not all that difficult but sound and a good starting puzzle.
Quite a good crossword from whichever version of Everyman produced this one. I don’t want to be seen as damning it with faint praise, but after the past few weeks, when there has been some criticism of the crossword, this comes as a pleasant surprise. Recent surfaces have been a bit meaningless, but here Everyman seems to be making an effort. There are a few little points which I make in the blog, but on the whole it was all very enjoyable.
Indicators (anagram, hidden, reversal etc) in italics. Anagrams indicated (like this)* or *(this). Definitions in crimson, underlined.
I looked at the blog of the previous Everyman and someone was saying what fun this was. Whether it was great fun I’m not sure, partly because I found it very hard, with two problems caused by my entering the wrong letters and trying to think of a cocktail whose first word was D_S, and later failing utterly on 13 down and being totally unable to make head or tail of it until I realised that the sausage was a chorizo not a choriza. There are some quite nice clues here, but the old days of a simple but sound crossword that was a gateway for beginners seem to be in the past. I wonder if we will ever return to them.
And I also looked at the blog of the one before that, which was criticised by several people. Two regular setters from several other papers dropped in to the comments and one of them said ‘Sorry to have to say, but this really is just bottom-of-the-heap Guardian stuff, and a far cry from the craftsmanship we once knew.’ I don’t think this one was so dreadful — there are probably a few setters of The Everyman — but the elegant surfaces and penny-drop moments that one gets from various other crosswords were still largely absent.
Definitions in crimson. Indicators (hidden, anagram, reversal etc) in italics. Anagrams are indicated (like this)*, or possibly *(like this), depending on whether the indicator comes before or after the letters to be jumbled.