| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
a) As far as I am concerned, the single most important criterion for a good Printer's Devilry clue is that it should make some sense in its devilled version, but should make *even more* sense in its undevilled version. Quite a high proportion of the clues fell down on this one point. Some examples: "Software's sales; they're record results!" reads far more naturally than "Softwares Alpha-test: hey! re-record results"; "How illiberal - error in Printer's Devilry!" makes better sense than "Ho! Will I be Ralph..." Extending this general principle, I would suggest that the undevilled versions should ideally read as sentences rather than headlines. "Cup hat trick scored by Law" would fall down here, for instance.
May I also suggest that if a PD clue needs any further explanation then it is not a good PD clue? The undevilled version should be natural enough to need no explanation to understand it. References to internet domain names or Greek tragedies (IMHO) should not be needed to understand how it works.
Another aspect that I would suggest can contribute to a good PD clue is a clear hint in the wording for the context of the sentence/statement/question in the undevilled version. On this count, the 'thief' in "Coe's running after thief!" makes us think of police. It still makes sense devilled, but makes even more sense (both grammatically and contextually) as the undevilled "Cop hates running after thief".
The last aspect that I looked for was a misleading context, often using clever (but not forced) changes in word spacing or punctuation.
Clue 3 "Blokes might call - 1:00, Mon." was an especially good one from this respect. The wording also has to be balanced with respect to hints of the real context, though. The late-coming clue, 32, got this right, I'd suggest. |
| 2. |
|---|
b) Clue (29): One of the few that made sense in both versions. The use of the word 'trumpets' indicated to the solver where to look for the missing bit.
Clue (3): This would have been tops had there been some indication that there was a link to speed. 'Speedy bikers often call....' rather than 'Blokes might call...' perhaps.
Clue (20): It would be difficult to make an indication to the solver what word was missing in using the construction 'coup- hatching', but it's probably a decent attempt.
Clue (14): The undevilled version looks OK, but the devilled doesn't look right. In any case, need a nymph be tall?
Clue (31): 'Top hates' is a rather clumsy phrase, but if it must be used, the word 'women' doesn't add to the clarity of the clue overall.
There are four ways that this word can be chopped up: p-hat, ph-at, pha-t, and phat. Of these the first was used 15 times, the second 10, the third 4 and the last twice. There are about 15 words beginning with HAT... in Chambers, only a few ending in ...PH, only one that I can think of ending in ...PHA and the only two I can come up with containing...PHAT... were actually used. It is not surprising therefore that the proportions were as they were, or that those which fell into each category were so similar.
Most clues were entirely predictable with little opportunity to be creative, but I was surprised not to have seen more 'toP HATs'! Most of them made little sense in either the devilled or undevilled versions.
With a few exceptions, a four- letter word is not much use in a PD clue, and PHAT must have been one of the worst of the lot. A disappointing word for one of my favourite clue types, but I look forward to the next outing with better hopes. |
| 3. |
|---|
c) I think we've demonstrated that good PD clues are not easy to write. Many of these (including mine, I should stress) display one or other of the common weaknesses of the form. These include the use of irrelevant proper names (I exclude "Ralph" on thematic and "why didn't I think of that" grounds) and contorted phraseology that seeks to provide a justification for differing contexts. My own preference is for some new word divisions outside the devilled part. That said, there were several I enjoyed - from the top down
#21 Elegant and clear. The notion of an alpha test for software is new to me, but I assume has technical significance (he said patronisingly!)
#6 The devilry is straightforward, but the clue's attraction lies in the ambiguity of "bowler", which is cleverly exploited.
#4 See above - but the more convoluted surface devalues it by comparison.
#19 More involved devilry, but the change in syntax from "shove" to "shatters" is an unfortunate weakness.
#5 Outrageously imaginative. It's always a shame when the context has to be pointed out, though.
For next month could we have a rhyming couplet including PHAT and with a seasonal theme, just to complete the set? |
| 4. |
|---|
d) When PHAT came up in the previous competition, I thought at the time it might have been better for a PD treatment - if only because it was so difficult to define! It seems that I was not alone - after a pretty iffy entry last month, we have one of the best fields of PD clues I can remember.
Obviously the criteria for judgement are rather different than for a standard clue - reliant on subjective aesthetic appeal instead of soundness. With that in mind, I thought I'd better think about what makes for a good PD clue.
For me, it is absolutely essential that the undevilled version should make some sort of reasonable sense. This is, after all, the only real confirmation (apart from checking letters in a real puzzle) that the solver has of the answer, so it should not be too obscure. If the devilled version can also make good sense in its own right, then you're approaching perfection! Conversely, a smooth devilled version but unconvincing full one is totally unacceptable. A case in point is clue 16 - what exactly does the full version mean?? I'd be very doubtful of having found the right word if that was what I ended up with!
A common mistake is to be too clever - trawling through a dictionary to find words that fit the checking letters, then trying to find any possible break soon becomes a chore rather than the entertaining challenge a crossword should surely be. This seems to be a particular danger in short clues (e.g. clues 9, 21, 22, 28)
That said, there were some real gems this month - certainly had to think long and hard before making my final selection!
5 points - clue 3: Blokes might call - 1:00, Mon / Blokes might call 100 mph a ton
An excellent example of a PD clue where both original and undevilled versions make perfect sense
3.5 points - clue 32: Love poem, Oz art that's typical of the modern generation / Love pop, hate Mozart: that's typical of the modern generation
3.5 points - clue 6: Cheater's promoting a controversial type of bowler / Cheap hatter's promoting a controversial type of bowler
Both these narrowly missed the top spot - for opposite reasons! "Controversial" reads slightly awkwardly in the devilled version of 6, while "Oz" seems somewhat contrived in the full version of 32
2 points - clue 5: Chastity belts stored in attic - a new twist to sex-war drama / Chastity belts stop hatred in Attica - new twist to sex-war drama
1 point - clue 13: How illiberal - error in Printer's Devilry! / Ho! will I be Ralph - a terror in Printer's Devilry? |
| 5. |
|---|
e) A number (mine included!) had "..at" coinciding with a word ending which is to be discouraged. Several others make quite clumsy reading - before after or both!
I'm awarding 5 points to 21, by far the neatest and snappiest, 3 points to 9, 2 points to 29, 1 point to 22 |
| 6. |
|---|
f) 5 points: clue 31 (much the best - good reading both devilled and straight) 4 points: clue 9 (again, two good readings)
Not so happy about the rest, but. |
| 7. |
|---|
g) I only picked ones with good surface readings in both versions.
6. Very nice surface reading in both sentences, and nice play on different meanings of "bowler". 5 points.
21. Very nice, very clean. 4 points.
18. Clever play on different meanings of "service", plus good readings. 3 points.
9. Very nice reading in both, not particularly happy with using the proper name "Coe" - but that's mitigated by the probably reference to Sebastian Coe, who is after all a famous runner. 2 points.
28. Weakest of my selections, in that the devilled version seems incomplete. 1 point. |
| 8. |
|---|
h) I admire the contributors who were able to do this in three or four
words, yielding phrases that make sense in both readings. Can we have a
master class to explain how they set about the task, please? |
| 9. |
|---|
i) Some great effort expended here, though in the end I thought only a small number were of really top quality.
In reverse order
5th 1pt #2 Both versions made good sense - I did need the explanation. 4th 2 pts #13 Very impressed at how many words changed between the two versions. 3rd 3 pts #6 Good, and I think this is very close to what you would see in a PD puzzle 2nd 4pts #32 The addendum that was worth adding on 1st 5pts #14 Very humorous, I thought. |
| 10. |
|---|
| j) My only comment is that entrants should make sure the undevilled version is not garbled in order to improve the devilled (as Azed is always telling us!) |
| 11. |
|---|
k) I have significant reservations about this particular sort of "special", especially in a clue-setting competition as opposed to a puzzle to be solved. It is extraordinarily difficult fully to meet the criteria (as I see them) for a really good PD clue, and the results are thus seldom satisfying - as I'm afraid almost all the entries to this competition demonstrate. (Indeed, even the standard PESTO example strikes me as pretty mediocre.) In my book, to cut the mustard a PD clue should have the following qualities:
a. the undevilled version should make sense and be a form of words that one can easily imagine being used in the real world, ie, it must have a convincing surface and not sound artificial;
b. the devilled version should also make sense and, ideally, be a form of words that one can easily imagine being used in the real world, though a little more latitude may be allowed in the latter respect;
c. there should be a contrast in meaning (the starker the better) between the two versions and
d. the effect of removing the letters of the clue-word should be to change a straightforward and unremarkable sentence, statement or whatever (the undevilled version) into something amusing and/or bizarre or even outrageous (the devilled version) and not the other way around;
e. it should not be too obvious where the letters have been omitted;
f. the omission should display ingenuity and originality in the choice of words.
This is clearly a big ask, and it becomes even bigger when one adds in the (to my mind, rather artificial) constraint that "the breaks before and after the word omitted (before and after omission)" should "not occur at the ends or beginnings of words in the clue". It may well be that my criteria (especially c. and d.) are more exacting than those that others look for, but it seems to me that, without c. and d., the whole exercise is rendered peculiarly pointless and rather boring.
My votes as follows:
4 points each
14. Is any mall beautiful, woman?
14. Is a nymph a tall, beautiful woman?
This is very neat, economical (without being too obvious) and provides a suitable contrast in meaning between the two versions, both of which have entirely convincing surfaces. It also achieves a satisfying connection between the undevilled version and the meaning of the clue-word (if not, strictly speaking, a definition).
31. Women reveal their toes in recent national survey 31. Women reveal their top hates in recent national survey
The omission is well concealed and the devilled version provides a moderately amusing contrast in meaning to the undevilled one, which has an appropriately straightforward and convincing surface.
2 points:
25. The ripest juiciest fruit makes Alan go
25. The ripest juiciest fruit makes "Alpha Tango"
This is one of the very few clues to meet my criterion d. Were there such a product as Alpha Tango in the Tango range, it would be very good (though it is rather obvious where the omission must be). But, as far as I can establish, a drink called "Alpha Tango" doesn't exist, which adds an unfortunate element of artificiality to the undevilled version. |
| 12. |
|---|
| l) You don't set criteria, but for my own part, PD being a particular favourite of mine, I always prefer both devilled and undevilled clues to be as natural and idiomatic as possible. |
| 13. |
|---|
m) I mark PD clues by first reading only the original (undevilled) line. I eliminate all clues where I think the original would not read naturally in a piece of prose e.g. a newspaper article. The best PD clues have a plausible meaning in both versions, certainly always in the orginal version. For me there wasn't an outstanding winner.
11. Cut Rick's cored bylaw / Cup hat trick scored by Law The undevilled version reads naturally. It's forgivable when the devilled meaning is obscure though better if plausible, better still if zanely humorous. The devilled version here is perhaps too obscure but solving it would give a nice PD (a PD penny drop).
14. Is any mall beautiful, woman? / Is a nymph a tall, beautiful woman? Nice, though the solver is expected to work out 'tall' for the original when nymphs ain't necessarily so (at least not here in Wales).
29. Tune to be played by human: go for trumpets / Tune to be played by Humph: a tango for trumpets
Nice clue that would have been more impressive if it could have been worked without the break in the middle.
6. Cheater's promoting a controversial type of bowler / Cheap hatter's promoting a controversial type of bowler The clue needs a better word than 'controversial' to allow the solver work out that the hatter is a 'cheap' hatter. It seems 'controversial' was used to suit the devilled version when it's the meaning of the original that's the more important.
13. How illiberal - error in Printer's Devilry! / Ho! Will I be Ralph, a terror in Printer's Devilry? Nice, but is 'Ho' used in natural speak? I think it's a touch unfair from what's given to expect the solver to know that 'Ho!' must be in the original.
7. Claims that he was frequently 'seen to' down Ascot, chemically refuted by abstainer / Claims that he was frequently seen to down a scotch, emphatically refuted by abstainer Nice clue spoilt by that comma. (Hopefully not Ralph's work, Derek?). Also rather too long for solving.
24. The chimp hates Tarzan but not Curious George / The Chimes, Tarzan, but not Curious George
Maybe this is better than I understand (is there a natural connection between a chimp and Curious George? It would need a note to tell me.). |
| 14. |
|---|
n) I think that, in the absence of the 'control' provided by a definition, the undevilled versions of PD clues need to be as meaningful and syntactically and orthographically straightforward as possible. This is all the truer if the solution is a relatively obscure word, as PHAT is for me. My selections have been made on this basis.
First, for 5 points, clue 31; the undevilled version is an entirely plausible, natural English sentence. Second, for 4 points, clue 9; unflashy, but eminently solvable. Third, for 3 points, clue 21; reasonably plausible, though I find the devilled version equally so. Second, for 2 points, clue 14; quite witty, but the rhetorical question is unfortunate in the undevilled version. Fifth, for 1 point, clue 7, which at least preserves the right balance of plausibility between the two versions. Also worth mentioning: clue 11, which had perhaps the best undevilled version but where I couldn't make any sense of its counterpart; and clue 5, for an allusion to one of the funniest plays ever written. |
| 15. |
|---|
o) Quite a nice lot this month, although there doesn't seem to be a lot to say about them. The clear winner was
1st (3.5 points): 5. Chastity belts stored in attic - a new twist to sex-war drama |
