I write as someone who has never attempted advanced puzzles and still does a lap of honour around the living room if I manage to complete a standard cryptic. Therefore, I'm not really in a position to be critical of clues, but I do prefer those that don't use definitions that I would consider too obscure.
I like seeing a misleading context and therefore gave points to 10, 15, 28, and 48, which I think did this best, diverting the attention away from trains et al.
That said, I also liked the more simple 27 and 38, and the imagery conjured up by 51.
I look forward to participating in more of these. |
Quite a long short-list this time, though nothing truly outstanding.
Some definitions seemed either inadequate or inaccurate. For instance, although “caboose” can mean “a person bringing up the rear”, it can mean “a thing bringing up the rear” only in the specific context of a train; thus simply “it’s at the back” 37 surely won’t do, let alone “The bottom” 47 or “last chance for a few at the local” 50. A purist might also insist that the American usages should be specifically indicated as such, which would count against, eg, 2, 15 and 31, but, in the case of a word like “caboose”, in which the American usage is probably better known than the English one, even in England, that would extreme.
Although the spelling “boose” for “booze” (14,34) is given in Chambers, it is clearly stated that it is obsolete. This surely needs to be indicated (eg, by “once”) if “boose” is used in a clue.
There was a rash of dubious devices to indicate a single letter – eg, “head of the Admiralty” for A 14, “lead cook” for C 17, “east side” for E 26, “the last” for E 44, “finishes fare” for E 46 and even, apparently, “clock” for C 12 – and to indicate that a word was a letter short – eg, “docking blunder”21 and “breast reduction” 48 for BOO(B).
I also find it hard to accept imperative anagram indicators when they follow the word or words to be anagrammed, eg, 4, 52 – a great pity in the latter case as the clue has one of the very best surfaces.
Three &lits were claimed (1, 11 and 33. 11 is surely at best only a semi-&lit, since “in US” plays no part in the subsidiary indication (hereafter s.i.), while 33 has the distinction of being neither an &lit (what on earth has Roosevelt or his cabinet to do with a caboose?) nor a valid “compound [composite?] anagram”, since it has no a.i. and “kitchen” is left dangling with no role in the composite anagram.
My votes as follows:
2.5 points each:
1 An accomplished composite anagram, though the &lit definition is a shade vacuous.
5 Neat wordplay and definition and a good surface.
15 A sound s.i. and an acceptable definition combined in a convincing surface
27 A simple, but pleasing, cryptic definition.
1.5 points:
3 The most original idea for the surface on offer, but, unfortunately, “Affectionate sounds” is very weak in the context of that surface.
1 point each
2 An economical cryptic definition and “training” is clever, but “security staff” to indicate the guards on a train strikes me as slightly iffy.
11 The “in US” improves the definition by giving some significance to “primarily”, but significantly weakens the clue as even a semi-&lit, since it plays no part in the s.i. and is not itself a definition.
19 Reasonably convincing surface and sound.
0.5 point:
40 Although Azed makes much use of parentheses like “(large)”, it strikes me as an inelegant device, which produces far from natural English. Otherwise quite neat
prox. ac.
7 A sound enough clue, though the unfamiliar term “sea cob” rather shouts “anagram”
8 would have benefited from a question-mark. Not a very convincing surface, but otherwise sound.
10 A neat s.i. and an excellent surface, but the definition isn’t quite right. The answer to “Where’s the guard?” is not “caboose”, but “in the caboose.
31 The definition is marred by the(unnecessary) inclusion of the word “out |
