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