Listener

[Ruthrobin]

Oh what a challenging one. I don't know how anyone gets to the full grid (as we have just done) without the help of devices. Now we are enjoying sorting out the godly mix up. Many thanks, Stick Insect for a tough work out.

[s_pugh]

Simply incredible construction - and a number puzzle even I could get my thick head around! Thanks Stick Insect. Amazing.

[fallster]

When the final pennies finally dropped: well, hats off to Stick Insect, and thanks for one that deserved the effort to finish.

[pushmi-pullyu]

The glass of wine having failed, I'm hoping a couple of days away in Lille might do the trick.

[borealis]

Lovely. Like Jim360, I found the final entries while still stuck on the "information leading to further changes". Eventually, of course, I realised that carelessness had let me skip a clue in one of the 8 possible codings I had looked at... Ah well. Didn't detract from the admiration of the construction. Thank you, Stick Insect!

[Ruthrobin]

Sorry, Contrarian - my 'devices' wasn't intended to hint or mislead but I am very wary of beginning a thread with a spoiler and wrecking all the hard work a compiler puts into one like this. My 'devices' are almost invariably Quinapalus, Tea and Bradford. It was Tea that was invaluable this time.

[tenflags]

clever
TVM Stick Insect

[stymied]

Agree with all the plaudits above, but am I being obtuse in thinking there's something wrong with clue 17W? A careful reading of the BRB would suggest that "Rages in Inverness" should perhaps replace "Inverness clubs"?

[EAChaplin]

Clue 17W is perfectly OK as any Scots golfer will confirm.

[Contrarian]

EAChaplin,

I had the same thought initially. Perhaps you are using the iPhone Chambers app too? This, incorrectly, shows the answer as a Scottish form of only sense 2 of the English word, when in fact it is a Sc form of both senses 1 and 2.

[Contrarian]

Sorry, that should have been addressed to Stymied.

[Cruncher]

Another little semantic grumble. Did anyone else feel that 30E required a little grammatical licence with the verb?

[stymied]

Contrarian: I used my battered paper versions of the Chambers (11th & 12th eds) and could only find the scottish form under the second meaning (it may be under the first but I couldn't find it) - I don't doubt you're correct that the sc version is used for both meanings. If a word or meaning is missing from stated primary reference, I think the setter should tell us (as they often do).

[Whenland]

Re 17W, we found the same discrepancy between the Android BRB app and the paper version - the latter being essential to confirm our solution.

[perseverer]

Stymied - if you look up the Scottish version in BRB it gives it as being the Scottish version of both meanings, but if you look up the English version it only mentions the Scottish version under the second meaning - so Stick Insect is in the clear as far as that is concerned.
I use the I-pad version of Chambers, and find quite a few discrepancies and omissions. Similarly, the Kindle version of Bradfords has a number of errors and omissions, for example there is no list of philosophers.

[freiheid]

I've cracked this one, and the final step was amusing and enjoyable but I thought some of the clues were of the "yeah, that'll do" variety - not that inventive, and some weak surface readings here and there

[tristram37]

I believe the definition in 31NW is wrong. Surely there should be a different word starting with the same letter but one letter shorter. That would comply with the BRB.

[AndrewG-S]

While not finding this as challenging as others (probably through some lucky guesses), I thought it was a fantastic crossword. I really appreciate the challenge of using the whole grid and this was done most elegantly using many artifices to get there. Minor quibble on number of short clues. For sure this is a contender for POTY and was a joy from start to finish. Thanks stick insect.

[Scorpius]

Cruncher, the verb in 30E is perfectly sound if you read it as a past participle, not just past tense.
I agree with tristram37 that the definition in 31 doesn't really conform to Chambers or to common usage.

Once again, I'm out of step with everyone else on this forum. I thought the clues mostly very uninteresting, and a puzzle consisting of 60% four-letter words and an average word length of 4.5 (well below the 5.5 minimum advised by the editors in their notes for setters) doesn't have much appeal for me. I realize that the theme and manner of its execution has imposed constraints (such as the need for a fair number of easy clues because of the multiple clashes) but if interesting words and witty clues are sacrificed, then a major delight in the tough cryptic has been lost.

I also found the two main stages of the endgame somewhat tedious, though I know that some solvers delight in that sort of thing. I was never a great fan of Sabre's 'Author', though the endgame there was admittedly far more tedious.

[contendo]

Stymied, you'll be able to consign your battered copies of Chambers to the dustbin this week. New edition out on Friday.

[jabone]

I am lost in admiration for someone who can set something as complicated as this, and I confess slightly pleased with myself for being able to complete it. But will have to get other half to (proof) read through submission! Thanks Stick Insect.