ChatterBank2 mins ago
Listener No 4327 The Alcoholic Baseball Player By Waterloo
38 Answers
Hoho!! Cracker-style literary jokes from Mr Waterloo ... some suitably making one groan, others raising a broad smile: I particularly liked 40ac. Gentle romp. Happy New Year to all ABers and many thanks to Waterloo.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trux. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree that this may not have been up to the usual Listener tough standard but as many have said, it is a pleasurable start to the year. Can anyone give me a hint as to the "malapropism" for 36, please. The grid entry is pretty obvious and I am aware of a children's book/film that would suit but can't work out the sporting event.
IainGrace, 41d does breach the rules, but I suppose that as the indirectly indicated elements and the definition are so transparent the editors decided to allow it. I hope it's not the thin end of a potentially troublesome wedge.
I'm not convinced that 34a is kosher either. In the past the editors would have required an additional operator.
I see that solvers are a bit split on this, but that's normally the case with Waterloo. I didn't think it one of Waterloo's best but it was quite good fun and I was just grateful that it didn't take more than part of yesterday afternoon to complete it, following last week's marathon. I agree that some of the titles are very contrived and could have been better. It took me a while to decide on the entry for 9a. There were about three likely possibilities, but initially I could think of only two titles using two of them, neither of which could be reworked using the number of letter given. It didn't help that I found a Chambers word for tailor that could have been a corruption of two words, and that sent me up a blind alley. It strikes me as a bit unfair. If a solver doesn't know the work, or cannot find it despite extensive searching, I don't see how it's possible to determine the entry.
I'm not convinced that 34a is kosher either. In the past the editors would have required an additional operator.
I see that solvers are a bit split on this, but that's normally the case with Waterloo. I didn't think it one of Waterloo's best but it was quite good fun and I was just grateful that it didn't take more than part of yesterday afternoon to complete it, following last week's marathon. I agree that some of the titles are very contrived and could have been better. It took me a while to decide on the entry for 9a. There were about three likely possibilities, but initially I could think of only two titles using two of them, neither of which could be reworked using the number of letter given. It didn't help that I found a Chambers word for tailor that could have been a corruption of two words, and that sent me up a blind alley. It strikes me as a bit unfair. If a solver doesn't know the work, or cannot find it despite extensive searching, I don't see how it's possible to determine the entry.
The Listener lurches from time-waster to coffee-break puzzle, without exploring much of the middle ground. Try to be all things to all men, and you will end up pleasing none. I feel that this is not the fault of Waterloo - somebody on the editorial staff should be instructing him. Is there an editorial staff ? Wake up...
For this puzzle to challenge, the non-thematic clues needed to be more difficult. As it was, after about 10 minutes, one could pretty much guess the thematic answers. Some of the malapropisms were far-fetched and some of the clues were inaccurate (why should a finite number of stops be interminable ?) I did like the amalgam of 'Shabby Tiger' and the answer to 5. Mostly it was an exercise of reverse engineering just to prove that the initial intuition was correct. I couldn't be bothered in a couple of cases, my answers to 38 and 46 were clearly correct. 32 doesn't require checking at all.
Who's next ?
Meursault.
For this puzzle to challenge, the non-thematic clues needed to be more difficult. As it was, after about 10 minutes, one could pretty much guess the thematic answers. Some of the malapropisms were far-fetched and some of the clues were inaccurate (why should a finite number of stops be interminable ?) I did like the amalgam of 'Shabby Tiger' and the answer to 5. Mostly it was an exercise of reverse engineering just to prove that the initial intuition was correct. I couldn't be bothered in a couple of cases, my answers to 38 and 46 were clearly correct. 32 doesn't require checking at all.
Who's next ?
Meursault.
Apologies if this information has been posted before, but is there an official Listener policy on the Chambers inadvertently omitted words? I assume they are fair game, but I wonder if the setter will have to note any inclusions in the preamble. Sort of irritating to have to keep up with the list. Thanks.
More like this? I do appreciate a good pun, but several of these weren't. They ranged from the plausibly misheard (9) to the downright lame: does Sheridan make her susceptible to simple dyslexia (21)?
The biggest weakness was that five of the thematic answers (almost a quarter) were unchless and could be entered without needing to have solved their clues, including one answer of nine letters.
I'm sorry to be such a curmudgeon about a puzzle that has given pleasure to so many (including, I suspect, the setter). I shall probably be punished for my 35 with a stinker next week. Kea must be due to re-appear soon...
The biggest weakness was that five of the thematic answers (almost a quarter) were unchless and could be entered without needing to have solved their clues, including one answer of nine letters.
I'm sorry to be such a curmudgeon about a puzzle that has given pleasure to so many (including, I suspect, the setter). I shall probably be punished for my 35 with a stinker next week. Kea must be due to re-appear soon...
Overall I think I enjoyed this. A few weak puns and ones that did not work, but nothing that could not be worked out by typing the suspected word into amazon and finding a list of titles and imagining how they might be corrupted to make the title. In the end I have only one actual quibble and that is the fact for this to work the incorrect titles really need to be fake, and there is at least one that is the genuine title of a book (Jonathan Aitkin's autobiography - which I have not read, but by chance saw at a book exchange in a pub a week or so ago). But quibbles go, this must be regarded as at most minor. A fun start to the year, although there is a bit of my that thinks this was earmarked for a few weeks ago, but got pushed aside for the time dependent one of then.
Thank you Waterloo.
Thank you Waterloo.
Crosswhit99, it's not the order of the letters of the answer that is at issue, but the order of the subtraction. In the past, if the subtraction wasn't a series of consecutive letters the editors required an indication, such as 'scattered.' In this case the letters are 'scattered' (ie not consecutive) but also reversed. If 'scattered' is an anagrind there's no indication that the letters are scattered in the other sense.
Perhaps the editors have relaxed previous stipulations.
I thought the grid for this puzzle was poor. Ten answers have no unches at all, adding to the easiness of a puzzle with largely easy clues. The average word length was below the recommended minimum of 5.5 despite the long entry at 5d. The asymmetrical grid should have facilitated a much better grid in both respects.
Perhaps the editors have relaxed previous stipulations.
I thought the grid for this puzzle was poor. Ten answers have no unches at all, adding to the easiness of a puzzle with largely easy clues. The average word length was below the recommended minimum of 5.5 despite the long entry at 5d. The asymmetrical grid should have facilitated a much better grid in both respects.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.