| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
| I found this the most difficult of the competitions I've scored, as there are several clusters of very similar clues. I fear I may not be doing some very worthy clues justice, but here goes: First place, for 5 points, I award to Clue 34, which, while slightly wordy, is witty and original. Second place I give to Clue 11 (4 points), which has an excellent surface and a neat 'hidden' indicator. Third place (3 points) I give to Clue 32; I'm a little hesitant about how well known the film reference is, but overall it seems to work very well. I thought the best of the 'Offensive' clues was Clue 25, to which I give 2 points, and the best of the 'batter' clues was Clue 9, to which I award 1 point. Near misses for clues 24 and 39, which stood out for originality. |
| 2. |
|---|
Some general thoughts first. #22 was I think the only entry to pursue the plant option - unwisely, I believe, given that there seems a convention that Spenserian language must be signalled (why?) but that apart from the ubiquitous "Ed" no-one seems to have any cryptic way of doing so. A bland "fish" as the definition, unless qualified or concealed, strikes me as neglecting the sorts of opportunities for a misleading surface that most of the better clues have taken. And a concealed clue has to be really good to pass muster, given the friendliness of the letters.
On specific clues - I think there is matter for debate about #32. I would solve it instantly (even not knowing of the fish, the letters hang together) but not understand it, not having seen the film. At what point does a setter's expectation of a solver's knowledge reasonably stop?
My favourites (top down) are
#37 Despite my comments above, "Tet" is I think justified by precedent (it was used without qualification, as here, in a recent Listener). The notion of offensive + gunners probably occurred to many of us - it's the "tank group" that makes the clue.
#11 As I said, a concealed clue has to be really good - and this is. Lovely evocation of childhood.
#21 I'm not so sure about the ! but the construction is admirable.
#5 Another clever definition. "Retro" is I think pushing it a bit, however
#12 I nearly decided against this on the grounds that "out" is not a verb in
the sense of going out. Fortunately a check revealed my error. Very elegant construction. |
| 3. |
|---|
| 21 - Excellent choice. 12 - Also turned my head. 32 - Well spotted. 40 - Good compound. 34 - Nicely disguised. |
| 4. |
|---|
| 1st= (3 points each): 24. "Odd glimpses of The Eternal that could come to those fishing on lake?" [not sure if the question mark is really necessary, but an old idea done very well] and 32. "Seconds from stifling Ken, Otto brazenly eats a fish" [remarkably fortunate but extremely clever] 3rd (2 points): 21. "It's great foremost in tank, less good battered!" [unnecessary exclam but a nice idea excellently done] 4th= (1.5 points each): 11. "Fish paste.Traditional sandwiches!" [messy punctuation - a dash would I think have improved it, but otherwise an excellent hidden, the best of several], 30. "Retrospective of paintings, etc, etc - no place for severed head of cow or confounded fish in tanks?" [too long and cumbersome, but a very good idea that just about works], 37. "Tank group offensive, supported by gunners" [rather banal wordplay but a very nice definition which is I think OK: is it the name of a group?] and 43. "Who's this we find swimming in fresh hot waters?" [almost a very good comp. anag., marred by the "hot", which suggests the water that comes from a hot tap]. 8th = (0.5 points each): 3. "Brilliant swimmer's caught in elaborate trap" [unexciting but sound] and 9. "Fish in batter topped with dressing" [quite nice, but the anagram indicator is a bit weak] |
| 5. |
|---|
I chose number 32 as my winner for its flawless surface reading and clever allusion to the well known film. A very original treatment, making it stand out from the crowd. Excellent.
'Hot' on its heels is number 13, using a clever technique to indicate 't' and 'r'. So well written I get hungry every time I read it! |
| 6. |
|---|
Well - not quite the glut of fishy treats I'd expected! I suppose it was too obvious - I certainly went through agonies of second- guessing, as I'm sure did at least forty others!
Curiously the two that did stick with the idea failed (for me) in opposite ways. If 15's simple "Fishy treat" had been given a question mark, it would have been the perfect &lit! 16, on the other hand, having got that right, blew it with the superfluous "Hardly"! I wonder how many of us are kicking ourselves?
Similarly, in clue 18, "Ate trawler full of fish?" (with question rather than exclamation mark) would be perfectly adequate. What function does the "I" serve?
Over-complexity seemed to be the order of the day. Perhaps given the shortness of the word people were afraid of being too obvious - or of duplication. A case in point is Clue 7 - the additional definition was again superfluous. "Fish and tater stew" or "Tater stew for four?" would have been fine. Using both reads rather clumsily.
That said:
1st - 5 points - Clue 5: Chromatic scales are a feature of this 'retro' quartet? Without question! A perfect marriage of surface and cryptic readings
=2nd - 3.5 points - Clue 6: False red nose is a little fishy? A good example of the "less is more" approach
=2nd - 3.5 points - Clue 32: Seconds from stifling Ken, Otto brazenly eats a fish Very clever - though I'm not sure I'm entirely grateful for being reminded of that particular scene! ;-)
=4th - 1.5 points - Clue 11: Fish paste.Traditional sandwiches! More ghastly memories I'm afraid - I still get nightmares at the thoughts of Shippham's! (Are they still going, does anyone know?)
=4th - 1.5 points - Clue 13: Fish supper, sprinkled with just the right amounts of salt and vinegar Again - simple but elegant (and much more palatable than 11!) |
