Listener 4493 - Devilry By Nutmeg

[olichant]

All done (bar, if I'm honest, resolving one PD clue, albeit I am certain of the entry). I found the gridfill pretty tough going and, to my surprise, the PD clues seemed to fall more easily than the normal ones. I'm not a huge fan of printer's devilry, but I liked the way it was put to use here - and some of the undevilled passages did make my smile. Thank you Nutmeg - you made me work pretty hard for that!

[IainGrace]

About two thirds done. Don’t recall a PD puzzle for some time. Trite to say it, given that solving some clues always helps with solving the rest, but one does seem to get into some sort of rhythm with PD puzzles so that the PD penny drops more easily as one progresses, regardless of the assistance afforded by cross checking letters.

[Hagen]

Olichant has summed up my thoughts on this one perfectly. I'm absolutely no fan of PD, because unless there's some technique I'm not aware of, the only way most of these clues can be solved is by trial and error. Having said that, some of the undevilling did lead to a smile.

I was relieved that half the clues were "proper" clues and it was easy enough to tell which was which from the surface readings. Nutmeg is an excellent setter and it is to her credit that in her hands the PD wasn't too much of a chore (for me). Nice neat endgame too.

So that's the PD out of the way - that just leaves the inevitable yearly Playfair...

[emcee]

This is fast becoming a vintage year for The Listener puzzle. I just hope the editors aren't going to use up all their best/ most difficult puzzles in the first half of the year.

I am a fan of PD puzzles and think this one is as good as it gets. A very able setter. Many thanks, Nutmeg.

[Liathach]

I have eventually stumbled over the line although I have a few PDs to fit into place. Things certainly got easier when I had the message. I agree that the clues are delightful at the same time as being absolutely rigorous.

[Scorpius]

I'm not a fan of PD clues and I've never seen the point of a clue that has no definition to confirm you have the right answer and superfluous baggage. I found several ambiguities, in one case three possibilities, none of which I could enter until I had more letters in the grid.

Some of the normal clues were very good, as is the norm with Nutmeg.

Like Liathach, I found things got easier once I had the message, but even so, finishing the NE corner was a struggle.

[HappyUncle]

Funnily enough, Scorpius, there is in fact what I suspect to be a deliberate PDD clue at 19. Otherwise all are straight PD but with a lot more subtlety than the old Ximenes example using MERCANTILE.

I struggled with many of them and still have one I just can't fathom in spite of there being only one possible answer. Mind you, I thought that was true of 6, which I entered with complete but misguided confidence.

The misprinted clues were very good, except in one case: both setter and editors shoud hang their heads in shame for the first word of 34, which just isn't right at all.

[Scorpius]

Yes, HappyUncle, I too was more than a little surprised by 34, which seems to be a refugee from the Guardian crossword. It certainly crossed a border somewhere. Much as I think we should do all we can to help hapless refugees from war-torn countries, I feel this particular one should have been denied entry as an 'undesirable.' At the very least it should have had a question mark or an exclamation mark attached to its back.

[Hagen]

I too was a little surprised by 34, although I've come across this trick often enough in other puzzles that it didn't hold me up or bother me. Far more egregious to my mind was the use of "Wally" to indicate PARIETAL in a puzzle last year. I don't mind false capitals but AFAIK "wally" does NOT mean "of walls" and despite a QM being duly attached, I felt this was very unfair in a puzzle where the answers followed meandering paths and the grid gave hardly any feedback.

Many people struggled with this clue but I was the only one to call foul. And yes, it's sad that I remember such things!

[upsetter]

A fair and rigorous work out - thanks Nutmeg.

[Cruncher]

As others have said this definitely became easier one a few answers were in and the message could be guessed. No easy clues here but a fair workout

[sunny-dave]

PDs are not my personal cup of hemlock - but this was much better than most and a pleasant enough way to spend a gloomy Sunday afternoon.

I agree that the misprinted clues were very good indeed - with some excellent misdirections within them.

Thanks Nutmeg

[starwalker]

Probably the hardest Nutmeg puzzle that I have come across. PD is not everyone's favourite, but I thought that the clues were fair and sometimes even fun. Thanks Nutmeg.

[icynorth]

Are you all being a bit picky about 34? I read it as required first time, so it can’t be as bad as that. And don’t these words collectively need to develop over time?

[sunny-dave]

I agree - obvious and acceptable. icynorth

[Alekhine]

Did anyone else notice the error in the Preamble?

[olichant]

Alekhine - I hadn't, and still can't. I'm wondering if I should be concerned. Unless it is the use of a particular four-letter word that I did find a little unusual.

[Alekhine]

The error is much more blatant, olichant ... but don't be concerned. It is of no consequence with regard to the puzzle itself.

I probably spotted it because I am cursed with a proof-reader's eye.

For those who wish to enjoy the hunt, the error is in the example provided in the Preamble.

[olichant]

Ah, that's a very good spot! And the hunt gave me a little extra entertainment (for which, many thanks).

[sunny-dave]

Aha - well spotted - I suspect that (like most of us?) I didn't even bother to read the example and so missed a mistake that would have been egregious in other circumstances.

[12barblues]

Bit late here as I only came to this after Chalicea. PD is not my favorite but enough gaps were clear to make a start and the ODs did raise several smiles.