Listener No. 4381: Awful By Towser

[AHearer]

In my version, it's terrible, but thanks to Towser for raising a smile.

[towsertaylor]

Thank you Neveracrossword, I really should have guessed that - and thanks Andrew G-S, I took your first comment for the cleverly sly remark it was!

[midgler]

Does anybody share my view that the clueing of 32D is less than elegant, given that this is supposed to be 'wordplay only'?

[Scorpius]

I agree with midgler about 32d. My view, which I admit is not shared by many setters, is that it's inelegant to break down a compound word into it's constituent parts except in such cases as Spooner clues, puns or cryptic definitions.

That's a very minor niggle in an enjoyable puzzle. I don't think I'd have twigged the rationale for the omissions if I hadn't visited this site.

[contendo]

Thanks Cruncher & Upsetter. Got there in the end.

[UglyUncle]

I saved this one for today but it was all over in no time at all. That's not to say it was anything other than amusing and well constructed.

But I agree with others that the clue to 32d was disappointing. While we're on the subject, turning to another of the thematic clues, does a simple definition of an answer count as 'wordplay'?

Nice to see Towser here, there and everywhere!

[jim360]

This weeks' EV is well worth a look, if I may say so.

[jim360]

weeks'??? week's, of course. Sigh...

[towsertaylor]

Thanks UglyUncle and to everyone for kind and helpful comments. I can advise that I offered two versions of the puzzle to the editors - who chose the simpler one to fit in with their overall pattern of complexity and I fully respect their decision. And Ahearer - 'terrible' ignores the thematic omission though I agree it is a more logical title.

[Contrarian]

"While we're on the subject, turning to another of the thematic clues, does a simple definition of an answer count as 'wordplay'? "

Yes, I think it does. I think wordplay is that part of the clue that remains when the definition is removed. Wordplay consisting of a simple definition of the answer would have been part of a double definition, before the removal of the other definition.

[Ruthrobin]

Towsertaylor, we would like a setter's blog on Listen With Others if that is possible. Do you need details of what to write (what is not 'allowed') and where to send it?

[towsertaylor]

Thanks ruthrobin - yes please, details would be helpful
Towser

[Ruthrobin]

Towser, email an address to [email protected]. We'll look forward to a blog.

[IainGrace]

Good puzzle and not too demanding. Agree with others about the title.

[sunny-dave]

Thanks Towser - I enjoyed that - have a Bonio :)

Cheers

Dave