| On a first read through, a lot could be discarded immediately (eg the essay at 19 and a number of 'giveaway' swats-hard definitions, along with several clues that had dull surfaces, not to mention all the usual unsound stuff). In fact I found that I had very conveniently singled out five, so it was a matter of putting them in order. I put 13 first, a clever & lit using 'frets', followed by the easy-to-solve-but-elegant 15. With 31,9,51 it was more of a toss-up. |
| A good variety of treatments. 18 and 46's misleading use of 'hit the buzzer' was very pleasing, the latter double definition seeming stronger in the end for its simplicity. I didn't know the 'new ale' meaning or 'wat' as drunk, which 48 and 53 used to good effect. 51 I liked, but was a little uncertain about 'times' to indicate TS – 'times' = TT seems fair (as with 'news' = NN) but when would one use the plural form of an abbreviation like that? And 54 was very neat, but long – either half (the second with a question mark) would have done the job. Prize for shortest clue, of course, goes to 23, but NUS=swats? Not when I was a member! |
I was taken aback by the dictionary definition of “swat” as a “heavy blow”, which gives a quite different nuance to the word than what it suggests to me, but the meaning is unquestionably supported by both Chambers and the OED and must therefore clearly be allowed.
With a short word like SWATS, it is perhaps not surprising that a significant proportion (14.5%) of the entries opted for an acronymic (or, in one case (11), bathonymic) approach, while nearly half of all the clues employed some device to indicate the first and/or last letter of one or more words. These devices ranged from the unimpeachable (eg, “START OF tests”, “support AT THE KICK OFF”) via the nigglingly slightly unsatisfactory (eg, “STARTER FOR ten”, “HEADS FOR sure would applaud these students”), the iffy (eg, “Students working assiduously to secure FIRSTS”) and the distinctly dodgy (eg, “when HEAD”, “Science FINAL”, “PRIMARY school”) to the, surely, completely unacceptable (eg, “Demonstrates how flea that bites TERMINATES” – “terminates” can only be the 3rd person singular of a verb).
Two clues stood out, with an unusually large number competing for the remaining points. Among the latter, I decided to wink at minor flaws and to favour clues offering elegance and/or a convincing and original surface over those that, though entirely sound, adopted a more humdrum approach.
5 points:
18. Hits the buzzer with a starter for ten in two seconds! (The blend of (misleading) definition, wordplay and surface in this clue is so elegant that my niggle over “starter for” seems insignificant)
4 points:
2. Aims to undo flies in seconds, with a tug initially (A lovely definition and very neat wordplay)
2 points each:
15. Heads for sure would applaud these students! (A neat &lit);
29. Rebel in middle of lesson? They certainly won't! (“Rebel” for WAT is pushing it a bit, but otherwise elegant)
1 point:
35. Students working assiduously to secure firsts (I’m not sure quite why, but “firsts” (plural) as an indicator seems less unsound than the singular (eg, “win first”) employed in much the same way. This reservation apart, this is a neat &lit, though it would have benefited from a question-mark)
0.5 point each:
44. The debuts of Symonds, Waugh and Taylor – sensational knocks (The answer would be a little too obvious to the solver & “knocks” is a bit weak as a definition, but sound)
55. Worries about unloading Enfield’s lead slugs (Neat wordplay, but a slightly improbable surface – and would an Enfield rifle really use lead slugs?)
Two otherwise excellent clues marred by flaws:
51. Was rolled Times used for such blows? (“Times” for TS is, surely, not on);
53. What's drunk in Scotland's capital, Special Brew? (Doesn’t quite work. “Scotland” seems to be doing double duty: “What’s drunk in Scotland” = WAT and “Scotland’s capital” = S).
14. “Gunners, well-equipped for action, somewhat lacking home ground support at the kick-off” was ingenious, if a little on the long side, but, as far as I could establish, SWATS as an acronym (not in Chambers) stands for “Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting System” and thus can hardly mean “Gunners”, while to describe the U.S. police units called SWATs as “gunners” seems a bridge too far. |
