Listener 4239 Laureate By Wasp

[dr b]

A fun puzzle, I thought. The theme was unknown to me, so some Googling once the message from the omitted letters was clear was needed. Wikipedia to the rescue. A little more work was needed to get all the unchecked letters to work out, but all in all not too difficult and an enjoyable workout.

[jockie]

Rule 2 (Rule 1 being about re-re-reading the Preamble) is Don't post until 10 minutes after you were planning to. PDM will always occur in this interval. Nice one Wasp.

[Scorpius]

TheBear69,
I may not have made myself clear, probably because I didn't want to give too much away, but the preamble use of 'more' in "six more thematic items" implies that the clued entries are also thematic; I don't see that they are, except peripherally, insofar as their missing letters spell out a thematic message.

Incidentally, I thought that the definition in 33 was very ungainly, and I cannot find support in the BRB for "German" or "German mark" in 29.

[TheBear69]

That implication is not there...something else is going on.

29d is fine as is. Take another look at the clue. 33a is fine if Yoda you are.

The wordplay in 21a eludes me though.

[contendo]

Not very satisfying I thought and I would have got nowhere without Google. The final step requires application of a rule which is not indicated in the preamble, hence the references to ambiguities in some of the posts here. Congratulations on your prize AG-S. I wonder why The Times doesn't go back to the old Listener's practice of sending book tokens rather than Brewers. There must be an awful lot of duplicate copies on solvers' shelves.

[tilbee]

Reading the comments so far, I believe that what I have interpreted as required for final submission is different from many. However agree there is some ambiguity here, particularly over one specific word in the preamble, so will need to wait 3 weeks to understand Wasp's actual intention.

Apart from this uncertainty, I enjoyed this, so thanks to Wasp.

[jim360]

It took ages to understand 21a but I got there in the end - wordplay is also find but surface wordplay is perhaps misleading.

[Philoctetes]

I don't think there is any ambiguity, but I can sympathise with those who do. I just wonder how one would find the necessary information without Google (Other search engines are available). Would anyone go in to the local library, even with all the clues solved and be able to find it without a pretty big push (OK so there is a big push there)? IMHO, it is just as bad as "Maxwell's Demon" - which was fine if you had heard about such a beast, but almost impossible if you hadn't. Has the time come to admit the internet is available (if only in your local library) or would that unleash a flood of puzzles based on Sumerian cat deities?

[Scorpius]

TheBear69, you're absolutely right about 29. I read it differently (and wrongly) though came up with the right answer. I've now seen what the correct reading should be. As for 21, it's a straightforward charade with some reversal (check BRB).

[Cruncher]

Jockie - I agree that this could become another KOHb furore. I think, if you read the preamble carefully, that there is no ambiguity and only one correct form of entry but I have no doubt that there will be some upsets and outrages in a couple of weeks time. Why do kids' books always seem more enticing than the the serious and worthy fiction that we adults are supposed to read?

[Whenland]

All done here, having initially had the same problem as some others with apparent ambiguity on the last 5 unchecked cells. Hope it doesn't give too much away to say that my nephew once looked out of our window, saw our cat in the garden, and said "it's a 10 down!"

[trux]

As far as ambiguity goes, in the end what you finally submit surely does depend on your interpretation of "ultimately"?

[jim360]

Yes, the ambiguity question is rearing its ugly head again behind-the-scenes... I await with bated breath the outcome, and am probably going to end up regretting sending in my entry so quickly.

[Cruncher]

Well I don't want to be a killjoy here but it is interesting to see how many posts have raised concerns about the possible ambiguity surrounding the entry of the surname below the grid. I guess I have an undue respect for the Listener team and suspect that they are several steps ahead of us at all times and in all places would not publish a puzzle with a potential ambiguity. Ergo....

[tilbee]

I believe that the penultimate sentence in the preamble removes any ambiguity.

[jim360]

Well it wouldn't be the first time -- two examples that jump out at me are 4222 "27", when some people never did delete the colours, others did, and both were accepted; and 4155 "Body of Evidence", where there was some disagreement over was "evident truth" was revealed.

In this case I expect it's more likely that I'll be kicking myself than that the editors made a mistake, but ...

[PureListener]

This was a really great crossword all round. Nice one Wasp! I also saw some ambiguiities whilst solving but they have totally evaporated now that I have finished. I am reasonably sure I have the right solution (with respect to the ambiguities at least) and the preamble now makes total sense. I guess that if you are unsure then you might not have successfully completed it.

[PureListener]

Could somebody tell me what KOBh means?

[PureListener]

Sorry I mean KOHb.

[Cruncher]

PureListener - it's a reference to a crossword last summer where the correct answer required the entry of a russian word for knight using, unusually, a lower case 'b' to resemble a Russian letter. Caused a lot of fuss.

[perseverer]

PureListener - this is a reference to a controversial Listener puzzle No. 4201 where an entry had to be KOHb - the Russian for Knight (as in chess) -many of us slipped up by just putting KOHB.