Listener No. 4453: Army & Navy By Shackleton

[AHearer]

I made heavy weather of this at first, and admired the way some of the misprints were quite deviously hidden. I was lucky in the end-game, spotting a likely anagram which turned out to be correct: I'm not sure I'd have solved the cryptic name indication without that. There was still more to do, though: what a rich mixture. Thanks, Shackleton, that was a fine construction and a great work-out.

[Ruthrobin]

As always this was an exciting crossword to solve. Shackleton manages to put so much into a puzzle. No wonder that he has won the Ascot Gold Cup for two years running.

[Hagen]

I've failed at the last hurdle. The clues were quite hard but solving sped up nicely after I'd cracked a few (no Jock, Will or Ed - hurrah!), and after a bit of thought I was able to make sense of the terrifyingly complicated instructions. BUT I can't find a name from the source material that fulfils all the coding criteria as I understand them. Unless inspiration strikes I'll have to concede defeat.

I can think of three ways that the modified title could be shown in the added line, but one is more likely than the others I suppose.

A very ingenious puzzle - thanks Shackleton - but for me the coding stage is one complication too many. Well I would say that, wouldn't I?

[AHearer]

I've just realised that I was a bit premature in posting -- the common name I had in mind is 6-5, not 6-6. Apologies.

[AngryUncle]

I'm amazed to find that someone (just RR, I think) has not only solved this but done so in four hours. I'm reluctant to be Angry with Shackleton, whose puzzles are always so full of intricate wizardry, but when I can't even understand what the instructions are trying to tell me (about coding and A) then it's time to give up. Actually, I think my Anger was probably triggered when I worked out the title and author, whose efforts made my eyes glaze over when I was forced to read them at school.

[midazolam]

The grid fill was unusually kind for a Shackleton taking me just under 1 hour 30 minutes. However, the endgame seems overly complicated (taking me longer than the fill) and some of the requirements seem rather forced and unnecessary. I do wonder whether the preamble is misleading somehow as I too, AHearer, have 6-5.

[TheBear69]

I do not have the source material and Google only leads me to sites that just have partial versions. So I am wondering if there is a remote possibility that the source provides a non-standard version of the code that would indeed result in 6 of each. This would be quite a stretch (and would leave with ambiguity regarding the blanks) so I imagine this is nonsense...but I am otherwise stuck with the same 6-5 dilemma.

[AHearer]

You might be right, TheBear69, and before I ran out of free internet access to a copy of the source I saw enough to convince me that the diagrams therein would suggest one fewer of the other items in question than are actually required. But I am more ready to accept incompetence on my part than such obtuseness on Shackleton's part.

[Hagen]

Another 6/5-er here. Glad it's not just me.

[Ruthrobin]

I understand the confusion about 6,5 or

[goodgoalie]

I've enjoyed doing cryptic crosswords for many years, but I have to say that though I look at the Listener crossword every week, I have never got beyond trying to understand the preambles. This one completely baffled me - couldn't understand it at all!

[Ruthrobin]

Sorry - or 6,6 but can say that you do not need to worry as Shackleton is being very subtle in giving code options but if you think it should be 6,5, you have probably got the right answer and entered it correctly.

[olichant]

I had thought I'd finished, but I too am foxed by 6, 5. Other than that, a delight to solve, and thematically dense.

[Scorpius]

As the relevant text does not appear to be on the internet, and as any synopses are sketchy, I have no way of checking what must be an error committed by a character in the source to give 6,6. There is no correction on the Listener site, so we must assume that 6,6 is correct and that the name common to both expeditions that I thought was intended is something else.
It's also not clear whether "H must be applied to the puzzle's title" in actual fact or just notionally. It's beginning to look horribly like the Hare puzzle.

[Ruthrobin]

No, Scorpius. No hare this weeK but as usual Shackleton is just far too brilliant and subtle for us ordinary mortals.

[Hagen]

You're right about that, RR - Shackleton has certainly been too brilliant and subtle for us ordinary mortals. I'm not sure that's a good thing, though, since we Listener solvers are all ordinary mortals!

[fyellin]

I'm running into the same problem as Scorpius. The source material is completely unknown to me, and details about it on the web are vague at best. The original source is not available.

[scooterbug]

I have a theory about the missing "d" (lower case), but I'm not sure if it's subtle or too clever by half. I'm not convinced by "(six each)", as being strictly descriptive of code options in D (upper case), nor by "to confirm A". A lovely puzzle, and fun, but I think the preamble borders on being unfairly deceptive. Ruthrobin, am I thinking what you're thinking?

[Hagen]

I have FINALLY found a way that "six each" unequivocally describes the code options. Presumably it was intended as a helpful hint, but it's turned out to be anything but, considering the amount of confusion it's caused. If I'm right about this, it's an unnecessary deception that takes the shine off an otherwise excellent puzzle, IMO.

[Osirun]

I think I've spent more time pondering "six each" and "confirm A" than I did over the actual puzzle at this point. When the explanation arrives either I will be in awe or else really angry! I thought this puzzle was brilliant enough without the extra hoops to be jumped through at the end needing such opaque instructions... surely a sourer aftertaste than was necessary.

[AngryUncle]

Despite my childhood aversion to the source material I did decide to bash on ... and, of course, reached the inevitable 6,5 impasse. Since entering that in the grid would leave three blanks - and ambiguity about where to put the third one - I cannot understand RR's assurance that those of us in this camp have 'probably got the right answer and entered it correctly'.

It does rather seem as if RR has a unique insight into Shackleton's mind. For my part I can't help thinking that if he'd meant us to arrive at 6,5 he'd have referred to 'code elements', not 'options'. And 'of each' would, in that case, have been more appropriate. Alas, I'm not brilliant or subtle enough myself to guess what I'm really meant to do.