An interesting challenge; not the easiet phrase to find a good definition for. Those who chose "downtime" (3, 17, 38, 39) selected one not quite right in my opinion – nor in that of Chambers, seemingly. Very much liked 33's reference to D-Day, but "overlord" felt like it didn't make sense in the reading. A merit for it, nonetheless.
Points to:
5: 6 – I'm not the biggest fan of compound anagrams, but the surface is excellent here.
4: 26 – I'd say more of a cryptic def. than an &lit – but the clue is still perfectly serviceable.
3: 11 – Another excellent cryptic def. 8 was very similar, but didn't read quite as smoothly.
1.5 each: 24 and 32 – Nice use of the anagram. |
The definition was the trickiest part of this challenge and thus the trickiest to judge. This is a relatively recent coinage, and the dictionary authorities seem not to be in full agreement as to what precisely it means. There is unanimity that a duvet day is one agreed with the employer, and the majority states (a) that its purpose is to alleviate (genuine) stress and (b) that it is typically granted at short notice. Only Chambers (11th edition), in one of its whimsical definitions, suggests that the reason given by the employee is necessarily specious and that the employer knows this, but turns a blind eye. The OED, surely the ultimate authority on English usage, defines duvet day as “a paid day’s leave from work, granted at short notice for rest or recovery from stress, etc”. Nevertheless, a definition that picks up the full flavour of the Chambers definition must presumably be allowable, simply because Chambers, even in a minority, is our standard bible. On the other hand, a definition (eg, 1, 15, 30) along the lines simply of time-off is probably insufficient. It is clear too that a duvet day is (a) a noun and [b] an occasion and not the excuse given for taking it or even the act involved in taking it – which rules out, eg, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 29, 31, 32, regardless of other considerations. More problematic is a definition (eg, 4, 5, 21, 28) that implies either that the reason given is not genuine or that the reason is the alleviation of stress, but does not state or imply that the employer’s agreement has been obtained. I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to these, if only because to exclude them would leave hardly any otherwise sound clues eligible for points. 4, however, was ruled out for me by the inadequacy of “Abandoning” as an a.i.; similarly, the definition in 41 is unexceptionable, but the a.i. is, unfortunately, fatally flawed by the little word “to”.
5 points: 6 This ticks all the boxes with respect to the (Chambers) definition. Some purists might object that a composite anagram should have an a.i. in only one half, but that seems unreasonable to me when the “redundancy” contributes to so neat a surface.
3 points each:
21 skillful wordplay, and the definition neatly side-steps the traps identified above
28 a refreshingly different approach, deftly done
2 points: 36 This cleverly achieves the element of employer’s permission, but sails perilously close to defining duvet day as an act rather than an occasion, though I think that the use of “This” just avoids the charge.
0.5 point each:
3, 17, 39 These deserve some recognition for their brevity, combined with the play on the word “down”.
24 This has the merit of neatly incorporating the idea of employer’s permission, but the use of the arbitrary “Dave” simply for the sake of the anagram is a weakness (in my own clue too!). |
