Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Coot becomes moot

C (100) becomes M(1000) so it swells tenfold.

I sense I am going to kick myself, but can someone explain 1d? I have everything else and was also grateful for an easier one. Last week was really beyond my means without huge input from this forum and it left me wondering 'when is a crossword not a crossword?'. In effect, all the clues had to be cold solved as the clashes could have been deemed as more of a hindrance than a help (unless someone kindly tells you how many there are in each line 8-))

Putamen (fruit stone).
Shot (put), from (a), ships (men).

Thanks djawhufc, so simple when explained.

Well, just off the top of my head since I throw the puzzles away, we've had Lear twice, Swallows and Amazons, then last week was also a children's literature theme, albeit with a difference. Which comes to 4 puzzles out of how many puzzles this year not including numerics ? About 30 ? It seems that's a very high incidence of children's literature.

"Occasionally the source itself is sufficiently interesting or unfamiliar to be worth researching, but that is a bonus."
I disagree with this. Why should an interesting or unfamiliar theme be merely a bonus ? Don't the solvers deserve both quality in the construction of the puzzle and imagination in terms of the theme ?

I think, Dryden, that you are too ready to forgive laziness.

My mistake, Meursault, I forgot Swallows and Amazons.

As for forgiving laziness, absolutely not, and I'm puzzled why you should accuse me of such. It's the one thing I abhor in crosswords, both in grid construction and in clues, and the 'crossworld' s littered with examples of laziness in those. The particular crossword I cited from a few weeks ago was not the product of laziness on the part of the setter.

I am a setter myself, so I know exactly how much time and effort a particular grid will have demanded. This week's grid would have presented few or no constructional problems . I'm not accusing the setter of laziness, but his task was far easier than any of those other four, especially as he got round one problem by omitting a word.

Dryden, we agree on more than we disagree. I didn't know that you were a setter, probably better that I don't know under what name, in case I should be ruder to you than I already am...

I agree about the shortcomings of this puzzle also. The only reason I've not made a criticism this week is that I must by now sound like a broken record with my weekly criticisms.

The Lear puzzle from a couple of weeks ago involved a repeat of a theme from just a few weeks earlier. Never mind that the construction was reasonable (certainly an improvement on the one where a few very short trees were obscured by billboards), why can't we have both original theme and good construction ?

Instead it seems to be a question of Either/Or, which to my mind is simply not good enough. An insipid theme spoils a good construction, as does a poor construction spoil an interesting theme.

But it's good to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of the puzzles, and setters, rather than just the lame, "Thank you setter" that can be had elsewhere...

Meursault, I agree that the ideal is an original theme (or at least an original treatment of a theme), a well-constructed grid and a set of engaging clues. Some solvers want an interesting endgame as well, though I don't regard that as a sine qua non if there is sufficient interest elsewhere.
In the case of the fairly close proximity of two puzzles based on Edward Lear, that's an editorial scheduling decision, that has nothing to do with the individual setters. A puzzle can be with the Listener editors for several years before it gets published (though the norm is around eighteen months) so no setter can be confident that a thematic source he or she uses isn't also the subject of another puzzle that has already been submitted.

I've long said that the editorial board isn't up to the job.
But this kind of thing is obvious, and setters cannot shrug and say that it's not their problem. If the Listener editors prove to be clowns, then setters should take their puzzles elsewhere. Or at least say that they will, unless the editors sharpen up their act. It has to be a team effort. If either editors or setters fail, then the result is a poor puzzle. And for the sake of puffing out ones chest and saying "I'm a setter now, you know..." (as one setter wrote to me a couple of years back) do you need to be associated with poor editing ? And if that happens often enough, solvers will say (as some have already said) that they're not interested any longer.

I thought this was pretty good, and a bit harder than some seem to have found it. Got stuck for a while 2/3 of the way through. Don't understand the wordplay to 10d, would appreciate an explanation.

Good to get it knocked off on Sunday, now can return to last week's, where only 9 clues have yielded so far. Expect a depressed post from me on the other thread around Thursday.