Listener 4387

[TheBear69]

Thanks, Emu, for a well-constructed homage a great work of art. Not among the more difficult Listeners, but that does not detract from its excellence.

I assume the ambiguity of one of the abbreviated obstacles is an unfortunate oversight.

[Contrarian]

Created a thread about a minute later. Sorry!

"Quite a gentle solve. A favourite theme of mine - I must revisit it one of these days.

Thanks Emu."

[Ruthrobin]

Yes, indeed, not over-difficult grid fill followed by a bit of grid staring but the end game made us smile. Thanks Emu.

[olichant]

I echo the Bear in every respect. I enjoyed that, and was hoping for something relatively gentle before the rugby tonight (speaking as a worried Welshman).

Hope everyone here has a great weekend.

[AHearer]

Yes, lots of fun and a reminder to revisit the object of the homage. I thought the unwanted characters were very tidily inserted -- yes, in many cases there was clearly only one option, but both the original and corrected clues read very nicely. Many thanks, Emu.

[upsetter]

A favourite theme for us as well - a little troubled by one of the abbreviations too.
Thanks, Emu.

[Pasquin]

That took me back many years, and was great fun to recall it. Nice touch with the end of the race. I'm not seeing any ambiguity, everything seems to be in its place. Thanks, Emu.

[TheBear69]

If you look above the line you drew thru one of the abbreviations you will see the exact same characters in s different straight line. Of course that choice would make the cell count different from 42 but if that is the instance you first spot, it does slow you down a bit and result in a disturbing image :-)

[fyellin]

What a lovely finish!

(And I'm glad I didn't notice the ambiguity.)

[lyrabelacqua]

Loved it. And liked that the rubric said unwanted characters must be eliminated...

[Scorpius]

TheBear69, I'm not sure that the ambiguity of one of the abbreviated obstacles is an oversight at all, but a deliberate red herring, especially as the other abbreviation also occurs twice, this time not resolved by a cell count. That ambiguity certainly delayed my insight into the theme.

There's something about the depiction that strikes me as not quite right so I need to check my grid carefully.

I thought the clue surfaces were excellent, and, as already noted, the unwanted characters very neatly inserted.

[Speravi]

Scorpius: regarding the depiction, if it's the lack of symmetry in a confluence, I agree.

[icynorth]

Not difficult, but very enjoyable. Some fine clues, 10a and 2d particularly. Thanks, Emu!

[emcee]

A certain amount of disjointedness in the depiction but, nevertheless, very clever. The theme is a classic which I need to revisit as well.

Great fun! Thanks, Emu.

[UglyUncle]

A clever piece of work and a nice reminder of a classic source. I was held up briefly by the red herring that could only be resolved by observing the cell count; I didn't spot the other one until it was pointed out by Scorpius.

I liked the preamble and the clues but I'm surprised that no-one has complained about the two double unches. Can they be excused on the grounds that sometimes the amount of thematic material makes some lapses inevitable? The symmetry of the grid, given those constraints, was quite an achievement.

The significance of the final cell was not lost on this solver ...

[olichant]

While double unches could I guess be considered to be inelegant, are they a serious issue here? Looking at the two seven-letter downs that have the double unching - they both have checked first and final letters, which is arguably more helpful than an entry with better-distributed unches in less solver-friendly places. And the two corresponding clues weren't the hardest.

A genuinely open question - I'd be interested to hear views from any lurking setters!

I thought some of these clues were really nice, and it has provided a great excuse to revisit the theme this evening. Thanks, Emu.

[Cruncher]

Quite a few red herrings here including an enticing lure in the 9th column. Hope my "representation" is the one intended. A few creaky joins

[icynorth]

Drawing a straight line through an entry could either mean 'strikethrough' (leaving the underlying letters legible) or you could use a thicker pen and obliterate it. Is either preferable, or indeed incorrect?

[olichant]

icynorth - I'd be inclined to keep the line thin. I think we'd have been asked to block out if that was intended, plus a normal line seems thematically more appropriate (to me, anyway).

[Scorpius]

To answer Olichant's point, I don't think I have ever submitted a puzzle with a double unch, mainly because I didn't think it would be accepted, and also because when I started setting puzzles the general consensus on the Crossword Centre forum was that it was a no-no. It's clear from some puzzles over the last eighteen months that double unches are permitted but I still resist them even when they solve a constructional problem because where tough cryptics are concerned I prefer to stick to the Ximenean rules.

I've always found that I could avoid a double unch by re-jigging the grid without loss of thematic material. The only Listener with a double unch that was probably completely unavoidable was Identity Crisis by Sabre, but that was thematically a very complex puzzle. In all the other recent cases there's been a way round the problem.

[sunny-dave]

Well that was good fun - a gentle 90 minutes of nice clues and a theme that I like very much.

Thanks Emu