XIMENES CROSSWORD No. 178

HIDEOUS

1.  E. W. Richart: All too plain! Composition of House changed, but divided about as before (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

2.  C. E. Gates: The little I had has been sunk in a jerry-built house. It’s simply shocking! (I’d in anag.).

3.  G. T. Herring: It’s frightful what a tanner buys us—next to nothing (hide² (n.) + 0 + us; tanner = sixpence).

H.C.

Mrs F. Begg: How ghastly if the reassembled House should have the same brief occupancy (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election, 20 months after previous one).

H. Bernard: It’s pretty grim: but if you’d remove I’d see you’d get a house somehow (i.e. hideous less I’d is anag. of house).

J. A. Blair: Slovenly housemaid can be simply frightful when Mother’s away (anag. of house(ma)id).

M. L. Booker: What a ghastly result! With so little change the House is about the same (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

F. L. Constable: Unattractive? That’s putting it mildly! It’s just the same inside the blasted house! (id. in anag.).

T. Dwyer: The house is a wreck: it’s the same inside—ghastly! (id. in anag.).

M. G. Ellis: It’s ghastly, having the house in a mess outside, and the same inside (id. in anag.).

Maj A. H. Giles: I had contracted to occupy a house which was jerry-built—now not fit to be seen (I’d in anag.).

C. P. Grant: House reconstituted, but just about the same; a ghastly result! (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

R. J. Hall: Having monster cast, yet finally presenting us next to nothing on screen (hide¹ (vb.) + 0 us; cast = quality).

N. McMillan: The Parliament nearly ending has only one undeveloped idea in it—and even that’s not pretty (ide(a) in Hous(e); ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

T. W. Melluish: Wouldn’t it be ghastly if the House on reassembling were about the same? (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

D. A. Nicholls: Only a slight change in the House; the result is about the same. It’s ghastly! (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

E. G. Phillips: If we get just the same as before in the reconstituted House—that’s horrible! (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

N. J. Reed: The sort of house I’d not like one of the fair sex to look at (anag.).

D. W. Reeds: House’s new set-up contains shortcoming same as before—outcome is greatly feared! (id. in anag.; ref. 1951 Gen. Election).

T. E. Sanders: It’s most unfair to thrash us for nothing (hide² (vb.) + 0 us; i.e. nothing getting us).

Mrs E. S. G. Sheehan: I had contracted to go into a house in bad order that is very ugly (I’d in anag.).

W. K. M. Slimmings: Fell, nothing on, in front of bus—head knocked off—horrible, very! (hide + 0 + (b)us; fell⁴, fell = slain).

Miss R. E. Speight: It’s dreadful to have a jerry-built house with nearly all the roof fallen in! ((l)id in anag.).

RUNNERS-UP

Lt Col P. S. Baines, Miss M. Behrendt, G. R. Booth, G. Bowness, B. C. Cubbon, W. J. Duffin, Mrs N. Fisher, B. Freedman, Mrs D. Fuller, P. Glennie-Smith, H. J. Godwin, S. Goldie, Mrs K. N. Graham, G. M. Gwynn, P. T. Heath, W. Islip, Mrs L. Jarman, L. W. Jenkinson, J. Jones, G. G. Lawrance, E. W. Lee, T. A. Martin, D. P. M. Michael, C. J. Morse, F. E. Newlove, R. Postill, A. Robins, J. L. Ruddle, E. O. Seymour, G. A. Shoobridge, E. Thomas, J. Thompson, F. L. Usher, J. Ward, R. F. Zobel.
 

COMMENTS—256 correct and very few mistakes. Solvers as a whole seem to have found the S.W. corner exceptionally difficult. There were several queries about the spelling of ALLECTO. Allecto, is, of course, normal and is regularly used by English ref. books: the second L is, however, very common in Latin texts, e.g. Postgate’s Corpus and Sidgwick’s edition of Virgil, and it was therefore admitted by me with a definite subsidiary clue to cella to settle the matter for the uninitiated.
 
The judging was much complicated by the numerous versions of the topical “id. in House” idea—obviously a good one. Mr. Richart’s version had two features which made it, in the end, stand out—the slightly misleading, but perfectly sound definition and the reference to division, which enables it to give the most accurate picture of what has actually happened. I decided that I preferred it to the two best of the other clues, but that I preferred them to the rest of the “id. in House” clues. The margins are small, but definite—like the political swing!—and I am not merely kidding myself to escape a division of the prizes. Actually there is one other “id. in House” clue which I like better than the general run, though not as much as the prizewinners—that of Mr D. W. Reeds: he would be 4th if there were one. Several senders of other versions are, because I didn’t like their wording so well, among the runners-up. Finally there were some unsound versions, three of which I’ll quote to help the less experienced:—“The House is about the same, with one part showing a Leftish tendency.” This contains no definition: a definition of some kind, referring to the meaning of the whole word, is absolutely essential—“The same abbreviated House—ghastly.” This is presumably meant for an anagram, but anagrams must be indicated, though the indication should, of course, be veiled if there is no indication the clue does not say what it means. “I’d get into the newly-formed House if I wasn’t so ugly.” This doesn’t say what it means either: “get” won’t do for “gets” and the whole thing is completely illogical. The first part is supposed to show what does, in fact, happen in the word “hideous,” which is ugly: the second part, therefore, becomes meaningless. The intended sense has been sacrificed completely to the misleading sense.
 
Note:—A few solvers do not put their name and address on the sheet containing the clue: please do so. Entries and stamped envelopes have to be separated.