I thought this was a deceptively tricky word to clue; the letters seemed promising, but the word was surprisingly difficult to define in any satisfactorily misleading way. As often seems to happen with the stiffer challenges, a fair amount of unsoundness was evident amongst the entry as clue-writers struggled to inject that little bit of extra zest into their clues.
I went with #8 as my winner for a well constructed comp. anag. & lit. even though it failed to adhere to my preference of there being an equal or lower number of extra letters added to make the composite anagram than there are in the clue-word itself. 2nd place went to #48 for a good solid &lit., though the surface is not wholly satisfactory (original relic?). 3rd place went to #32 for one of the more imaginative definitions and a nice, misleading surface. I gave #18 two points - not the greatest surface, but it does hold together as a possible, if unlikely, real-world sentence. I gave #20 5th place - again one of the better definitions (perhaps, even the best), but let down by the lack of a convincing thematic connection between the definition and the wordplay (anyone could be reversing a vehicle, why particularly a law-breaker?)
A couple that came close to the points were #3 and #5, which both displayed some nice wordplay; however, both contained an entirely superfluous word between the definition and wordplay parts. I also thought #41 was a good contender, but, for me, 'club' was far too vague an indication of RAC. |
Generally, a better crop of clues, I thought, than last month and, despite there being twice as many entries, easier to judge, especially as there is, in my view, a very clear winner. Several perfectly acceptable clues (eg, 2, 13, 34) missed out on the points only because they struck me as a little bland.
5 points: 48. What a martyr's original relic might generate? A superbly crafted and completely natural-sounding &lit.
2 points each: 6. Dodgy claim re bleeding statue? Neat and economical, and, although it is not in fact claimed as an &lit in the explanation, it surely has a much better claim to be one (or at least a semi-&lit) than many others in these competitions that make that assertion. Some Catholics might, I suppose, find the suggestion mildly offensive, but, set beside Clue 10, it is mild indeed in that respect!
24. Means of achieving insurance claim, after accident? 40. What initiates rapid conclusion to insurance claim? Blooming this! I find it difficult to separate these two seemingly heart-felt side-swipes at the insurance industry. Clue 24 is punchier, has a more natural-sounding surface and marginally smoother wordplay, while Clue 40's surface meaning for the &lit is more accurate and more precise. The comma in Clue 24 is perplexing.
1.5 points each: 29. One darner ultimately stopping monstrous camel achieving this? This original, intricately constructed and daring attempt seems to me to fall short of complete success as an &lit, but it is, I think, the most interesting approach on offer. Although it would indeed be a miracle were a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, it isn't really accurate to say that it is the needle that prevents the camel from achieving that miracle; what's more, unlike the wedding at Cana, the calming of the storm, etc used by others, the episode of the camel and the eye of the needle is not a miracle, but a parable. The surface reading is also a little strained.
42. Wonder drug seized by porter on remote station The definition is straightforward and only very lightly disguised, but the subsidiary indicator has rather more to it, offering a convincing surface (fairly) leading the solver well away from any idea of miracles. However, "porter" = ALE is a case of defining the general by the particular, which is a weakness, if not a very serious one in this case. (I don't feel competent to take sides over the contentious issue of whether, technically, porter is in fact an ale; Chambers seems to suggest that an ale is a beer that does not contain hops, but this is clearly not the view of most beer aficionados on the web.)
0.5 point each:
11. 'Hand of God' claim re foul This is very neat and has an immediately recognizable reference, but I am a little uncomfortable, for all that the overtones are right, with "Hand of God" as a DEFINITION of "miracle".
18. It's no small wonder Michael's confused: Henry's out and Ray's first in An acceptable definition and accomplished wordplay, but, although the surface makes sense, it has no obvious reference to anything - why should it be confusing that "Henry's out and Ray's first in"? |
