| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
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. |
| 2. |
|---|
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. |
| 3. |
|---|
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. |
| 4. |
|---|
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.). |
| 5. |
|---|
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. |
