Listener 4260 Nuts And Bolts By Mango

[perseverer]

Grid just about filled - theme understood - now I just have to make proper sense of the preamble!

Well worth persevering!

[borealis]

Wonderful.

[fallster]

Does anyone else feel the preamble is ambiguous with respect to the participants condition? That is, are the participants referring to the submitted grid, or both grids?

[Texasetes]

fallster - I've taken the preamble to mean: "Of the two passive participants in the earlier event", but I agree that it could be interpreted differently.

[olichant]

Hmmm. I may have made a mistake, then - I took it to refer to the passive participant in the later event. Oh well, it's in the post, so too late to worry about it!

[fallster]

To me, the ambiguity is compounded by the fact that the earlier event could have one or two passive participants depending on how one interprets the time span of the "event", so I can't use the fact that the condition mentions two passive participants to fix the first ambiguity.

[youngoffender]

My interpretation was the same as Texasetes'. One of the unclued entries confirms that the time span of this 'event' is being interpreted more broadly, and I think gives a clear steer for the surname required. The other option seems to me to be covered already in the parallel grid.

[Simplex]

The surname of a passive participant from one event is to be entered. As TheBear69 observed, there is some question as to the passiveness of that participant in the earlier event. And as JackDeCrow said, it seems a bit odd on one interpretation that the second grid has to be entirely discarded, losing the other passive participant. There does seem to be an ambiguity.

[perseverer]

My (eventual) reasoning was that 'Solvers must use the alternative choices, however, depicting the earlier event,' applies to everything being submitted.

[olichant]

That does make sense, although (with my lawyer hat on) I do think it is capable of the other interpretation. One aspect of the preamble in particular made me lean the way I did, but I can't really divulge without giving away something fundamental about the end grid. Ho hum - never mind.

[fyellin]

This sort of thing makes me unhappy. I don't mind when the instructions are deliberately cryptic, as these instructions certainly are. But they are clearly ambiguous, and open to multiple reasonable interpretations. I hope the setter reads this list. Which is the "other"? The other passive participant in this tableau or the passive participant in the other tableau?

I don't like it when I feel like my submission is a 50/50 gamble based on trying to figure out what's in the head of the setter.

Did I mention that this was an amazing puzzle, otherwise?

[olichant]

Either way, an absolutely stunning puzzle. I shan't be too annoyed if it turns out I did misconstrue the preamble!

[EAChaplin]

There are three setters involved in compiling Mango puzzles and I know two of them read these threads. I have solved every one of their Listener offerings but not unfortunately with 100% success. This one was as enjoyable as the others so Thanks Mango.

[TheBear69]

Just curious: Is it known with any precision what the ages of the various participants in both events were at the time of the event?

[perseverer]

Accepting that we are dealing with legends, it is suggested that the later event took place in a specific year which would make the participant about 23 at the time.

[Alan7777]

I'm going with the older passive participant from the earlier event and keeping my fingers crossed.

A brilliant puzzle nonetheless.

[JackDeCrow]

I agree about the ambiguity. My first response was to write down the surname from the discarded event (which in itself seemed a bit odd after deleting more than a surname from the grid). It was only when I completed the last unclued entry that I was more sure which surname was required at the bottom. I also agree that to call the first one an "event" is stretching it a bit - perhaps "story" would have been a better choice.

[Contrarian]

Superb puzzle.

I actually don't think there is any ambiguity. The two events collectively involve four participants, three of whom are passive (passive for the duration of the particular events in question). Therefore, the use of the definite article in "the two passive participants" has to mean that the implied context is one in which the participants referred to are present in the same event.

[Alekhine]

Very late completing this superb puzzle.

I finished the grid last week and fathomed the theme, but left the endgame until today ... not realising that it would take a little while. Memo to self ; avoid this approach in future.

Regarding the ambiguity, it seems clear to me that the entire second half of the preamble relates to the correct grid orientation and earlier event. Otherwise the unchecked letters don't work, do they? I further suggest that the younger passive participant is also so perfectly placed that any doubt must be immediately dispelled.

[grace_slick]

Yes, I took my time over this one too - enjoyed very much at leisure and well worth sticking with. I was fortunate in that I first completed the grid in the 'wrong' orientation. That of course left those letters to be reoriented in the correct version all nicely aligned and pointing downward, so I did not need to think too hard about that particular requirement for the endgame.
As a relative newcomer I have not done many Mangos but am already appreciating the artistry from that name.

[Philoctetes]

Jack deCrow - both "events" are just that, stories that probably never happened, but made popular because of their symbolism