CCCWC February competition voters’ comments
Clue no. 25: It's little money and constant work!
Back to competitor’s clues |
All the comments |
Other competitions
A clue to MCJOB.
6 comments refer to this clue (from 6 competitors, 0 others)
Move your mouse pointer over any bold clue number to see the clue.
Here is the text
| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
| I decided in advance (a) that any clue based entirely on initial letters would have to be quite exceptional to score and (b) that job = work or the equivalent in the wordplay would disqualify (pity about 25, therefore). The two stand-out definitions were in 43 and 11, but I couldn't understand the MCJ in the former. I think the latter will be a runaway winner. The author of 12 should perhaps look afresh at structures, and see that the splits used are unconventional. |
| 2. |
|---|
| Clue 25 stood out for me because of its pithiness and &lit. nature – none of the fussy complexity of some of the others. |
| 3. |
|---|
| An excellent turnout of 53 entries and a nice mixture of clues with much inventive wordplay, though sometimes perhaps at the expense of an effective definition or fluent surface. 44 was an outstanding & lit., trailed by 25, and 11, 19 and 45 the best of the punning definitions. The main weakness of a lot other clues was a strained surface reading rather than unsoundness (36 for example), but there were a few I thought faulty: 1 is an indirect anagram with 'second digger' only providing a clue to the anagram material; similarly 'compare' in 12 is an indirect homophone; in 46 I don't think m=man is justified (and m=male=man is indirect) and the solution requires 0 in CJB not JCB; finally the author of 48 needs to sort out their apostrophes and capital letters if they're to have any chance in this competition. |
| 4. |
|---|
| For the most part, as uninspiring a set of clues as I can remember, almost all being marred by one or more of unsoundness, an unconvincing surface, clumsiness, contorted over-complexity or rather tired predictability. There were, however, a few very honourable exceptions. I found I couldn’t separate 16 and 25 for quality and gave them both 5 points, the latter as neat and economical an &lit as one could ask for and the former offering an excellent anagram and the most original and pleasing surface. 38 – 3 points – is very good too, but slightly spoiled by the rather heavy-handed indication of Job. 19 – 2 points – much the most successful of the many clues using the “first letters” device, melding it with a good and well-disguised definition into an original surface, is let down by the slightly dodgy “to distribute” as an anagram indicator. |
| 5. |
|---|
| Far too many clues using the initial letters device. 25 is a very nice concise +lit, but after that I went mainly for original definitions – 29's 'lousy service station' is a stretch but I like it, 27 is a good CD and 44 is of course an outrageous slur on the fast-food industry, but will ring a bell with anyone who remembers John Gummer feeding his daughter a burger for the cameras at the height of the BSE crisis! |
| 6. |
|---|
1st (4 pts): 16 (smooth and efficient — the explanation suggests an Azed regular}
2nd= (2.5 points each): 10 (nice image, although I thought the reference in the explanation to CMJ's job was irrelevant) and 25 (neat, but is the exclam really necessary?)
4th= (1 point each): 2, 19, 26, 30, 34, 35 (most of them initial letters clues, all of which were fine although perhaps a bit of a cop-out; but the clue-word was so hard that this is forgiveable) |
