A very good set of clues, I thought, which didn't make voting easy.
55 is a very natural English sentence, 'Chanel' and the 'starts to…' work perfectly, so I've given it 5 points.
22 also reads very nicely, simple but highly effective, 4 points.
36 is much more complicated but is timely and ingenious, so I've given it 3 points.
I liked the image of a boozy lunch created in 8A, to which I've given 2 points, although the definition seems slightly shaky.
Lastly, my favourite of the 'Herculean' efforts was number 56, to which I've given 1 point. 'eccentricity' is a little obvious, but nicely encapsulates the quirkiness of what we do! |
A lot of good ideas, but I found it frustrating that clues that were fully sound in definition & wordplay tended to have weak or even meaningless surfaces, while those with good & imaginative surfaces tended to be flawed. On closer inspection, quite a lengthy short-list had to be drastically reduced.
One error was to take a naively mathematical approach to equivalences of meaning and to assume (wrongly) that, because word A can be a synonym for word B & word B for word C, word A is necessarily a synonym for word C (eg, 12 – demise/death/end (otherwise excellent clue); 29 – awesome/dreadful/very bad). Other (to me) fatal flaws included: first-class (not same as upper-class) for U (49); comeback as a definition (relaunch might be a way to achieve a comeback, but is not same thing) (6); “the result of” as an a.i. (29); X introducing Y to indicate YX, when it actually means XY, producing NCHRELA not RELAUNCH (32 – otherwise excellent); too specific a definition (39). What is 54’s definition? Presumably, clue as a whole, since “Try once more” clearly inadequate on its own, but it isn’t an &lit, since “try once more” plays no part in subsidiary indication.
No less than five composite anagrams. Some think that each half of a comp. anag. should have an a.i., while others see this as a weakness. However, most would, I think, agree that, esp. if there is only one a.i., there must be some sort of connector – an equivalent of = – between the two halves, whether in form of words or punctuation, which rules out 1. 52 doesn’t have one either, but there is at least a natural break between two halves; not a very convincing surface, however (& “habitualness” makes it iffy as an &lit). In 28, it’s not clear whether author intended “arrangement” to be part of a.i. to first half - ie, nounal a.i., widely frowned upon – or (better), with “for”, to be a second a.i. governing second half . In either case, however, “writing” seems to have no role other than to make sense of surface, which dishes clue for me; pity, because surface is highly appropriate. On 14 & 51, see below.
4.5 points:
56. A fairly straightforward clue, but entirely sound & elegantly done, with a nicely appropriate surface. The best of the bunch.
2.5 points each:
14. The best of the composite anagrams, but with an a.i. that teeters on edge of unacceptability
43 Somewhat bizarre surface, but elegant wordplay in subsidiary indication & quite a clever definition, exploiting two senses of “bodies”.
2 points:
51. “dodging” a rather desperate compromise between needs for an a.i. & for a word conveying sense of avoiding to suit surface. Result a bit artificial in latter respect, even if one accepts that “a clash with R Teuton” was ever on cards.
1 point each:
10. Surface not entirely convincing – “stranded hookers” (even of meretricious sort) not naturally associated with “business rejuvenation initiatives” - but clue is sound enough & use of word “hookers” would almost certainly lead most people (fairly) up the garden path.
55. Unless Chanel is currently facing severe problems requiring a relaunch – in which case my apologies for my ignorance - the use of such a proper name solely for purposes of an anagram a definite weakness. However, wordplay is quite neat.
0.5 point each:
8. Is “chance” quite the right word in context of definition? Otherwise, sound wordplay & quite good & (fairly) misleading surface.
22. Sound & economical clue, but with pretty weak surface.
52. See above.
[Apologies if , owing to truncated style dictated by character count, arguments lack clarity.] |
