CCCWC April competition voters’ comments on Clue no. 25

CCCWC April competition voters’ comments

Clue no. 25: I can do role, paid or otherwise, reveals Oscar winner.

Back to competitor’s clues | All the comments | Other competitions

A clue to LEONARDO DICAPRIO.
4 comments refer to this clue (from 2 competitors, 1 other)
Move your mouse pointer over any bold clue number to see the clue.

Here is the text

Comments on the clue

1.	Nice surface
2.	Sound anagram clue. A weakness is the slightly unnatural sounding "I can do role" and the unconvincing overall surface sense.
3.	This is very good, the first half of the clue should really be in speech marks though.

Comments on the competition
1.
Given the size of the entry, I was slightly disappointed in the quality of many of the clues. It was very easy to make a shortlist of the most promising since many entries could be eliminated quickly because of weaknesses or faults in the cryptic grammar. With anagrams predominating, it was inevitable that a few noun anagram indicators would appear (1, 16, 28, 35). I’m not keen on these but was prepared to ignore my personal bias if the clue had other merits, but these don’t. In two of these cases it is hard to accept ‘accident’ or ‘problem’ as convincing indicators to jumble the antecedent. Two clues use the past tense inappropriately to describe the structure of the answer (2, 37). Some composite anagrams and ordinary anagrams have missing elements or words appearing to do double duty (3, 13, 24, 44, 57). One clue has an anagram of material that is indirectly indicated, a practice that is strictly taboo (18), four others have elements that are obscurely and unfairly indicated (15, 31, 46, 55). One clue breaks the established rule that capital letters of proper nouns should not be altered to lower case to suit the surface — 57. Three clues appear to define a role, film or event rather than the actor (1, 41, 48). Two have additional words intended to enhance the surface that ruin the cryptic structure (12, 43). Other grammatical faults in the cryptic syntax are exemplified by 47 and 53. Twelve clues are described as & lit. Four of these are not pure & lit (3, 8, 23, 39), though 8 and 23 are perfectly sound clues; others fail to define the actor. Ignoring the latter, there are four pure & lits ([30[, 37, 45, 59). PERIODICand PERIODICAL feature quite a lot in the anagram clues (1, 4, 22, 30, 35, 36, 49, 51, 60,) only the last four of those weave the word into a reasonably convincing surface. In the whole collection I thought only ten worth considering for points (8, 10, 25, 27, 30, 36, 45, 49, 59, 60). Of the & lit and semi & lit clues, 8, 30, 36, 45, 49 and 59 seem the best of the bunch. 10, 25, 27 look the most promising contenders in the non &lit field, with 10 standing out for its wit. 54 is a cleverly structured attempt at & lit but I feel the & lit definition doesn’t really work because of the personal element in the clue, and an initial reference to the actor that many would dispute. One clue is in poor taste and I hope it will fail to get any credit at all — 35. I'm not against bawdiness, and enjoy Cyclops in Private Eye, but this clue lacks any wit whatsoever.

Comments on the competition

Given the size of the entry, I was slightly disappointed in the quality of many of the clues. It was very easy to make a shortlist of the most promising since many entries could be eliminated quickly because of weaknesses or faults in the cryptic grammar.
With anagrams predominating, it was inevitable that a few noun anagram indicators would appear (1, 16, 28, 35). I’m not keen on these but was prepared to ignore my personal bias if the clue had other merits, but these don’t. In two of these cases it is hard to accept ‘accident’ or ‘problem’ as convincing indicators to jumble the antecedent. Two clues use the past tense inappropriately to describe the structure of the answer (2, 37). Some composite anagrams and ordinary anagrams have missing elements or words appearing to do double duty (3, 13, 24, 44, 57). One clue has an anagram of material that is indirectly indicated, a practice that is strictly taboo (18), four others have elements that are obscurely and unfairly indicated (15, 31, 46, 55). One clue breaks the established rule that capital letters of proper nouns should not be altered to lower case to suit the surface — 57. Three clues appear to define a role, film or event rather than the actor (1, 41, 48). Two have additional words intended to enhance the surface that ruin the cryptic structure (12, 43). Other grammatical faults in the cryptic syntax are exemplified by 47 and 53. Twelve clues are described as & lit. Four of these are not pure & lit (3, 8, 23, 39), though 8 and 23 are perfectly sound clues; others fail to define the actor. Ignoring the latter, there are four pure & lits ([30[, 37, 45, 59).
PERIODICand PERIODICAL feature quite a lot in the anagram clues (1, 4, 22, 30, 35, 36, 49, 51, 60,) only the last four of those weave the word into a reasonably convincing surface.
In the whole collection I thought only ten worth considering for points (8, 10, 25, 27, 30, 36, 45, 49, 59, 60). Of the & lit and semi & lit clues, 8, 30, 36, 45, 49 and 59 seem the best of the bunch. 10, 25, 27 look the most promising contenders in the non &lit field, with 10 standing out for its wit. 54 is a cleverly structured attempt at & lit but I feel the & lit definition doesn’t really work because of the personal element in the clue, and an initial reference to the actor that many would dispute.
One clue is in poor taste and I hope it will fail to get any credit at all — 35. I'm not against bawdiness, and enjoy Cyclops in Private Eye, but this clue lacks any wit whatsoever.

CCCWC April competition voters’ comments Clue no. 25: I can do role, paid or otherwise, reveals Oscar winner.

CCCWC April competition voters’ comments

Clue no. 25: I can do role, paid or otherwise, reveals Oscar winner.