CCCWC September competition voters’ comments
Clue no. 5: BS?
Back to competition result |
All the comments |
Other competitions
A clue to BONES.
3 comments refer to this clue (from 3 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. |
|---|
| Good to see many competitors keeping their clues short this time, even if the explanations are getting ever longer, 5 being the ultimate example of both. With so many definitions and so few letters, a BONES clue didn't need to be fancy. 13 and 27 stood out as simple ideas well handled to make satsifying clues, then 43 as a misleading definition and 32 and 39 as neatly worded & lits. 21's B(rian J)ones and 16's b(l)on(d)es both had the potential for a brilliant clue, but the cryptic elements didn't work for me. 23's definition 'hide inside' was too tenuous to carry an otherwise good idea. I also had my doubts about the promising-looking 36: for an & lit. 'remains of' must mean 'a part of' which it doesn't; otherwise 'of' must mean 'in', which it also doesn't. |
| 2. |
|---|
| Many of the clues were clunky and uninteresting. A number were unsound: e.g.42 where 'essentials' is doing double duty in the D and the SI (as I still prefer to call it), and 5 which is too clever by half, taking the concept of an inverted charade to a ludicrous extreme. In the end the honours went to 39 ( a very neat & lit),48(a nice double context), 6 (simple but effective), 11 (clever reminder of family parties in the 50s!), and 43 (for the juxtaposition of the two types of clothing). No. 2 just missed out. |
| 3. |
|---|
| This was an easy word to clue, but much less so to clue in an elegant and original way and so that the answer was not too obvious. Five clues, however, well achieved those goals (39 – 4 points; 43, 46], 47 – 3 points each; 2 – 2 points – though all of them arguably deserved to score even more highly). It was especially pleasing to see a clutch of genuine and accomplished &lits (eg, 2, 39, 46, 47), even if there are a few competitors (eg, 21, 51) who still seem not to understand that for a clue to be genuinely &lit, EVERY word in the clue must make a valid contribution to BOTH definition AND subsidiary indication. (Where 30 and 35 are concerned, I am left wondering whether there is some meaning of “bones” that I am missing. ) In most months, there might well have been points for 19, 24, 32, 34 and 36. 50 has a nicely misleading surface, but the definition is spoiled by the fact that “marrow” in the sense of bone marrow surely has no plural; “marrow” (singular) would have met the demands of both definition and surface. I havered about 5, but concluded that it was just too devious. 14 reads very well, but the “I presume?” seems to make no valid contribution other than to the surface. The surface of 38 is seriously spoiled by the capital letters, I can only suppose because the author decided, on the basis of the Chambers entry, that only Bachelor with a capital B could be represented by B; that seems over-punctilious to me. |
