| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
| Plenty of imaginative clues, I had difficulty drawing up a list of five and choosing between these. In the end, I decided that clue 39 clinched five points for wit, relevance and a clear definition. Clue 42 was the best using 'superhero', again benefiting from a clear definition; 4 points. I gave 3 points to clue 51, my only reservation being whether the definition is sufficiently precise. I hold the same reservation with respect to the otherwise excellent clue 27 (1 point) – is a 'live wire' really a 'powerhouse'? Clue 3 nicely exploits a football theme, and 'dynamo' seems to me a clear definition – 2 points. |
| 2. |
|---|
| What I noticed this month were several clues with bizarre or highly implausible surface readings, where the clue writer had forced unrelated elements together, perhaps in the hope of producing something amusing. Examples are 5, 13, 24, 36 and 11, whose long explanation was unconvincing. 3 on the other hand has a great surface, but I thought it marginally too difficult. Not many misleading definitions, but a few decent puns, the best of which is 23's "the one with the drive?". This is the one clue that made me chuckle, and I gave it top marks. 27 is concise and misleading, 39 has a good topical surface, and 9, 14 and 19 all read well. 37 and 43 contain original ideas, but neither works very well cryptically. Another good turn-out, and rather easier than last month to choose the best clues. |
| 3. |
|---|
| I was disappointed to see how many entries entailed simply a power + house construction. Such an approach needs to be really special (as indeed some were) to be worthy of consideration. I liked 35 but wondered whether "who's so…" might have given a more fluent reading. 27 needed a ?, I felt, to make the most of a very elegant construction. As some entries demonstrated, often more (words) means less (pertinence). |
| 4. |
|---|
Much less unsoundness than usual, and an abundance of well-crafted or at least perfectly acceptable clues from which to choose (though quite a few depended upon one of a handful of popular anagrammatic approaches). Top honours must go to those clues that were both sound and exhibited one or more of: especially neat and economical wordplay, originality of approach or a particularly convincing and apposite surface – in short, those with an extra bit of sparkle
5 points: 35, a particularly neat (and, for a refreshing change, genuine!) &lit.
4 points: 30, which offers a first-rate surface (even more topical now than when the competition was announced) and melds a sound definition entirely naturally with a cleverly crafted subsidiary indication.
2 points: 8 – an original well-crafted anagram, slightly let down by a definition which, though perfectly acceptable in itself, does not live up to the promise of an excellent surface offered by the subsidiary indication.
1.5 points: 49 – neat wordplay well melded with a sound definition and admirably economical, but, although it is arguably a semi-&lit, the surface is slightly artificial.
0.5 point each:
15 and 19 – neat and well-constructed, but a bit lacking in surface sparkle.
23 – a good twist to the definition, which is well suited to the surface, but the arbitrary introduction of a surname simply in order to suit the wordplay is always a weakness.
27 – hard to beat for economy and entirely sound, but not the most exhilarating of surfaces.
39 – a good topical surface, but the “not half” device has become a bit hackneyed.
Honourable mentions to 45 and 51, which deserve credit for originality of approach, but which are both too flawed to gain points against strong competition. In 45, even if one accepts ‘e’ for “electricity” (which is supported by Cassell’s Dictionary of Abbreviations, if not by Chambers),“generator uses” simply doesn’t hack it as an a.i. or as a connector or as the two together, causing the comp. anag. to fail. 51 offers a gloriously original anagram, but “Rufus T. Firefly, perhaps?” is, surely, inadequate as a definition of “powerhouse”. 52 too has admirable qualities (especially the double meaning of “supply”), but, in my book, “alternating” is not an adequate indicator for “take every second letter of the preceding two words”. |
| 5. |
|---|
Some very interesting ideas. The anagram of "How's Europe" and variants were just too over-used and none of the clues especially stood out, so they did not quite make my shortlist. 4 and 6 were both interesting ideas, but I thought 4 was too hard to solve and should also be "partner's" in the surface reading, while I could not see what "then" was doing in 6.
My favourite clue was 30, which I gave 5 points. Although I think the addition of a "Maybe" at the beginning (British H of C only an example of LH) and perhaps the use of "Commons" rather than "MPs" would have made it even better, the simplicity and topicality of the idea made it stand out.
I also liked the simplicity of 52 as an &lit and the "story" behind 8. The remaining clues that got my votes were 39 and 9, ahead of the others on my shortlist (27, 28, 35, 38, 48) mostly because of the more natural surface reading. |
