Celebrated clues
Noel Jessop
other than that are zany. I have yet to see a "Classic" cryptic clue
that did not have something gravely wrong with it. For instance ...
Gegs? (9,4) For Scrambled eggs - Where is the definition?Where
is the anagram indicator? Where is the crypticity? Since there is no
such word as gegs, obviously something has to be done with the letters.
There is only one thing that they can make, hence not a hint of cryptic
content. A simple-simon clue, worthy of nothing more than a raised
eyebrow. Would Lirgl (5,5) Be okay? It makes as much sense.
HIJKLMNO? (5) For Water - Has it escaped everyone's attention
that H to O is not the same as H two O? Can precision be so cavalierly
dispensed with for the sake of smart-arsery?
Sweet Lloyd? (5,7) For Dolly mixture - Correctly defined, the
answer would be Sweets, but that would not do!
Bust down reason? (9) For Brainwash - A very clever thought
indeed, but an absolute insult to all women with firm breasts, or more
than one brassiere. This is the sort of idea which should be regretfully
consigned to the unacceptable basket, and not lauded internationally as
one of the greatest.
O (9,6) For Circular letter - Precisely! This is simply not
cryptic since Circular letter is a clear definition of O.
Clues such as these represent the triumph of buffoonery over
intellect.
For successful tongue-in-cheek clue-writing try "Harry actually beat
Dick in play? (7,3,5)"
If brevity is required in a cryptic clue, the following might serve
...
O? (4-6)
O.? (4,2,6)
Noel Jessop
Yap Yok Foo
<jess...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>There seems to be a readiness to apotheosise some clues for no reason
>other than that are zany. I have yet to see a "Classic" cryptic clue
> O.? (4,2,6)
Please permit me to repeat what I posted on 25 Oct 1998
"A steady diet of strict kosher food may well be your cup of tea
(pardon the mixed metaphor) but once in a while, allow us to sneak
in a slice of bacon in the sandwich. Try it, my friend, you will find
it is just as nourishing and the taste is exquisite :-)"
Perhaps Mr Jessop might like to try it. And while you are at it, can
you drink some prune juice. Believe you me, it will improve your
condition :-)
**************From Uncle Yap**************
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
Please go to http://www.onelist.com/
Click on Find a list
Type in bmalaysia in the search box
Click on bmalaysia
Click on Subscribe to this list
Register
Once registered and subscribed, you will get the daily articles about
Malaysia delivered to your e-mail box
Bob Newman
> Gegs? (9,4) For Scrambled eggs - Where is the definition?Where
> is the anagram indicator?
In the answer, obviously. This is what makes the clue so clever. The lack of
a definition makes it rampantly unsound, of course, but it's still great
fun.
> O (9,6) For Circular letter - Precisely! This is simply not
> cryptic since Circular letter is a clear definition of O.
See earlier exchanges about "cryptic definition" clues. This is a fine
example of the species. The only "problem" is that you had the misfortune to
be born on the wrong side of the pond.
> Clues such as these represent the triumph of buffoonery over
> intellect
The day intellect steamrollered buffoonery out of existence would be a sad
one indeed.
Bob Newman
Ann Hodson
thread!
Noel Jessop wrote in message <363C01C2...@ozemail.com.au>...
>There seems to be a readiness to apotheosise some clues for no reason
>other than that are zany. I have yet to see a "Classic" cryptic clue
>that did not have something gravely wrong with it. For instance ...>
<snip>
I found Noel's posting splendidly humorous and thought it was a spoof.
Chuckled throughout until I got to ...
>Clues such as these represent the triumph of buffoonery over intellect.
<snip>
At which point - gulp! - I realised that he was serious.
All of which just goes to prove, to my eternal shame, that I am exactly the
kind of buffoon who should never be permitted to participate in a newsgroup
populated by contributors of Prof. Jessop's gravitas and intellect. Far too
easily amused and no intellectual discipline, that's my problem. Combined
with a pointless weakness for the occasional dash of creativity and lateral
thought.
I apologise to everyone concerned. Sorry.
Ann Hodson
PS I live in Connecticut. Does anyone round here do crosswords for fun?
Or do you all roll up your newspapers for a bit of self-flagellation if you
can't fill the grid? :-)
Bob Goddard
<jess...@ozemail.com.au> writes
>There seems to be a readiness to apotheosise some clues for no reason
>other than that are zany. I have yet to see a "Classic" cryptic clue
>that did not have something gravely wrong with it. For instance ...
>such word as gegs, obviously something has to be done with the letters.
>There is only one thing that they can make, hence not a hint of cryptic
>content. A simple-simon clue, worthy of nothing more than a raised
>eyebrow. Would Lirgl (5,5) Be okay? It makes as much sense.
Some people of an obsessive nature need to have everything neatly
labelled. If we refer to these clues as reverse anagrams would it make
you feel better?
> HIJKLMNO? (5) For Water - Has it escaped everyone's attention
>that H to O is not the same as H two O? Can precision be so cavalierly
>dispensed with for the sake of smart-arsery?
Does an experienced crossword solver need to refer to a set of
instructions (e.g. a homophone indicator) for solving every clue?
> Sweet Lloyd? (5,7) For Dolly mixture - Correctly defined, the
>answer would be Sweets, but that would not do!
By "correctly defined" etc, I take it you would prefer to see a clue
which complies with your nice neat set of instructions on "How To Solve
Crossword Puzzles"? Must be a real bummer when you have to think for
yourself.
> Bust down reason? (9) For Brainwash - A very clever thought
>indeed, but an absolute insult to all women with firm breasts, or more
>than one brassiere. This is the sort of idea which should be regretfully
>consigned to the unacceptable basket, and not lauded internationally as
>one of the greatest.
Let's keep your overactive imagination out of this and concern ourselves
with the facts. A bra is a device for supporting one's breasts. If a bra
is in the wash, it is not supporting one's breasts. Sufficient grounds
for the clue without invoking a protest from the political correctness
lobby I would have thought. If it makes you feel any better, please feel
free to write a clue about jockstraps - it certainly won't bother me,
even after having to wear the bloody things for a while following an
operation a year or two back.
> O (9,6) For Circular letter - Precisely! This is simply not
>cryptic since Circular letter is a clear definition of O.
This is certainly a very simple clue; but I also see many simple clues
which comply with the "cryptic rules" convention. Surely, in this case,
the question is not whether Circular letter is a clear definition of O,
but whether O is a cryptic definition of Circular letter. If, on seeing
the clue, one immediately gets the answer without having to adjust one's
terms of reference, then it is not cryptic. If one has to try several
possible approaches before finding the right one, then yes, the clue is
cryptic (this doesn't necessarily mean it's a /good/ clue).
Of course, if you require the clue to comply with your rules, then try
looking at it like this: Straight definition - O is a letter which is
round(ish) in shape; cryptic definition - O is a letter which appears in
the word "round".
I strongly suspect the ongoing argument over what constitutes a cryptic
clue stems from different usage of the word "cryptic". Here is the entry
on the word in one of my dictionaries (the one I can copy and paste
from):
cryptic adj
cryptic /'kriptik/ adj
1 secret, occult
2 intended to be obscure or mysterious <a ~ remark>
3 serving to conceal <~ coloration in animals>
4 esp of a medical disorder unrecognized
5 making use of cipher or code
synonyms see 1OBSCURE
[LL crypticus, fr Gk kryptikos, fr kryptos]
- cryptically adv
Penguin Hutchinson Reference Library
Copyright (c) 1996 Helicon Publishing and Penguin Books Ltd
Now, it seems to me that the supporters of the unstructured clue are
using the word in sense 2 above, i.e. as long as the clue obscures its
meaning in some way, then it is cryptic; while the supporters of the
strictly structured clue are using the word in sense 5, i.e. the clue
applies a set of rules (a code) which conceal the answer. Whether it is
nobler in the mind to apply a set of deciphering rules (a perfectly
acceptable intellectual exercise which I enjoy as much as anybody) or to
test one's ability for lateral thinking in the absence of hard and fast
rules I leave to you; I am happy with either (preferably all mixed
together in the same puzzle just to keep me on my toes).
>
> Clues such as these represent the triumph of buffoonery over
>intellect.
Personally I would be very unhappy if either "triumphed" over the other.
I guess in fairness I can't really snip the following without at least
having a crack at them. Unfortunately I'm not a very quick solver
(though I usually get there in the end) and my bedtime is well overdue.
Anyway, this is what I can make of them for the moment...
> For successful tongue-in-cheek clue-writing try "Harry actually beat
>Dick in play? (7,3,5)"
Haven't got this one yet - possibly a reference to Richard The Third,
though this may well be a red herring...
> If brevity is required in a cryptic clue, the following might serve
>...
> O? (4-6)
Love-letter? If so, why is this any better than the round letter clue?
> O.? (4,2,6)
>
Stop at naught? If so, again why is this better than the clues you have
criticised?
Bob
--
>---B---------| This space unintentionally left |---Reply to me--->
Goddard | blank. | at godwit
>---b---------| |---not nospam---->
David Plumpton
<jess...@ozemail.com.au> writes
>There seems to be a readiness to apotheosise some clues for no reason
>other than that are zany. I have yet to see a "Classic" cryptic clue
>that did not have something gravely wrong with it. For instance ...
> Gegs? (9,4) For Scrambled eggs - Where is the definition?Where
>is the anagram indicator? Where is the crypticity? Since there is no
>such word as gegs, obviously something has to be done with the letters.
>There is only one thing that they can make, hence not a hint of cryptic
>content. A simple-simon clue, worthy of nothing more than a raised
>eyebrow. Would Lirgl (5,5) Be okay? It makes as much sense.
>that H to O is not the same as H two O? Can precision be so cavalierly
>dispensed with for the sake of smart-arsery?
>answer would be Sweets, but that would not do!
>indeed, but an absolute insult to all women with firm breasts, or more
>than one brassiere. This is the sort of idea which should be regretfully
>consigned to the unacceptable basket, and not lauded internationally as
>one of the greatest.
>cryptic since Circular letter is a clear definition of O.
>
>intellect.
>Dick in play? (7,3,5)"
>...
> O? (4-6)
>
>Noel Jessop
>
As I contributed to thread "Best Clue" etc., this may overlap but I
still smile over Stiff Examination (4 6) which belongs to the category
I call Read & Read Again.
If answer required pick up aforementioned thread.
--
David Plumpton
Cogito,ergo doleo.Cogito sumere potum alterum!