Listener 4186 Cuemasters by Tangram

[Zabadak]

I think I've got there, though held up for a long time in the NW of the grid and an overenthusiastic wrong answer to 1 down in particular. A wrong assumption about probably the most critical missing letter sent me chasing after several wrong answers to the question, too.
Rather hard work, this one, with several possible dead ends cluttering up the solving process, and a grumble about doing word searches averted by spotting the Answer after carefully rereading the blurb.
Not bad, a proper Listener workout. Thanks to Tangram, and best wishes to all who gather here

[Japp]

Given the title, I think this may have been a case of "too good an opportunity to miss", but actually there doesn't seem to be a huge amount to do with the source material, which probably accounts for some of the feelings of underwhelm.

[Coalminers]

I am in the camp that is surprised that anyone found this more difficult than last week's. I can only imagine that those people don't use Quinapalus, which, for this puzzle, I found helped tremendously.

[Philoctetes]

Harder, inasmuch as some of the clues were a little sloppy. (Last week they were hard, but you could trust the setter). 14a, 30a,7d, 8d did not appeal.

[contendo]

Off to a late start this week, having been away over the week-end. The end is in sight but like others I am held up in the NW corner. I have an indirect anagram at 1dn which someone suggested last week is not allowed, so maybe I need to rethink it. I have most, but not all, of the question. the last two words of which gave me the theme, but I haven't found the answer yet.

[contendo]

Aha! Got the answer and thus the entry in the middle square. Still grappling with 1dn.

[Whenland]

Contendo - in a very similar position here. Struggled with 1ac for a while before I realised that there must be a mistake with 1dn. 1ac now done and thinking cap on again for 1d.

[JackDeCrow]

Is anyone else left with a nagging feeling that the "obvious" letter might not be correct?

[contendo]

I think the "obvious" letter has to be right JdeC. Why not?
My goodness the NW corner was a lot harder than the rest of it and I am left with the feeling that I must have got 2dn right but not really understanding the word play. I think, also, that it stretches the meaning of "essentially" somewhat.

[jumperjudy]

I'm new to listener crosswords, so am finding this quite tough! I'm still struggling for a couple in the NW and SW corners. Can anyone enlighten me as to what BRB is? I'm using a chambers 2007, as well as various online tools.

[BlackHugh]

Judy - BRB = Big Red Book i.e Chambers. I think for this one you should be alright with a 2007 copy.

[jumperjudy]

Thanks - Only problem is, it means I've got no excuses for not finishing it :)

[silversolver]

JackDeCrow - know what you mean; I have that nagging feeling too...

[ArchieLeach]

I too am uneasy. How is this homologous with the title? And does the title mean "cuemasters" or the other title?

[contendo]

"That answer" with the letter is homologous with the crossword title with the letter.

[Whenland]

ArchieLeach: Try looking up "cuemasters" in the BRB.

[teuchter2]

Only returned home last night, so had been tackling this without any reference books. Had a last stab at last week's and got it finished this morning. Like others, I am struggling with NW corner, and perhaps am enjoying the cuemasters in Sheffield too much to concentrate on task in hand. Have only really got last two words of quotation in their entirety, reminding me of something my mother used to recite, which could be quite appropriate to the crosswords we so love to attempt. But I can't see how the rest fits in with that as yet.

[borealis]

Enjoyed this. Perhaps not so challenging as last weeks, but some obscure stuff here, although I would agree that some clues were loose. I would have thought that having every single entry missing letters means that having more thematic material in the grid would be very difficult.
I suspect those with a nagging feeling are pausing over the homology, as did I.

[JackDeCrow]

I guess my nagging feeling is two-fold. 1) How does a letter make anything homologous with anything else? Depends what you do with it. That on its own could just be me being pedantic (no, surely not I hear my friends cry!) but 2) if you do add that letter to both the title and "that answer" I'm not sure I'm convinced that makes them "agreeing" or "of the same essential nature". Related, yes, but not really those things.

[Zabadak]

Just an additional comment that it seems so many of us saw the same indirect anagram at 1 down and thought it so obvious that it must have escaped editor's censor as a rule-breaker. Nice to know rules is still rules.

[Alan7777]

I found this quite hard and at one stage thought of giving up. I wasn't helped by having a very plausible but incorrect answer for 28d. On reflection I shouldn't have struggled so much. The endgame was a little underwhelming.