CCCWC January competition voters’ comments
Clue no. 28: One becomes ceremonial when woven with this?
Back to competition result |
All the comments |
Other competitions
A clue to MIRACLE.
2 comments refer to this clue
Move your mouse pointer over any bold clue number to see the clue.
Here is the text
| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
Praise: I dumped any ideas that I had already rejected for my own lousy clue, so Claim re, re claim etc was rather too easy but 11's foul was a nicely judged misleading contextually well placed anagram indicator, and made me change my mind.
19 scored because I value brevity and had to figure out how tough it would be if we didn't already know the answer...
22 I liked but thought executed was rather strained to make the initial letters work. (Though what on earth could replace it is anyone's guess.)
30 I thought the gap between this and many was beautifully disguised
40 got on my list even though I felt blooming a slightly dodgy anagram indicator, just beating 24, where 'means' was very clever but I felt streched a point for middle (average, yes, but middle? - isn't that median?)
41 More brevity, but club a little obscure (compared to 'many drivers) and missed chance to incorporate driver.
45 I almost missed the subtle distinction of 'sings' not 'sing'.
Fainter praise:
Well, my own, obviously; then
3 L for Liberal not left?
16 smoky = smokey = too stretched
27 Flattering and deserved but overworked compound?
28 definition?
32 care? why?
36 High may help the biblical context but spoils the cryptic clue
39 should not contain 'a' 'a'? |
| 2. |
|---|
| The 'Hand of God' clue (11) stands out so clearly that I'm sure it'll be a runaway winner - definitely in the 'wish I'd thought of that' category. I liked the definition in 3, using the opportunity a word like this gives for a specific (but misleading) reference. On the subject of definitions, a couple of clues (26, 28) seemed to lack them altogether. The latter may have had a clever +lit definition with a Biblical reference that passed me by, but in that case it needed to be pointed out in the explanation. And I don't like being over-picky with homonyms, but I can't make 'eau vin' sound like 'ova'. |
