Listener No 4478 Chapstick By Tangram

[Flocker14]

This was pretty tough. I have three of the five characters, so i hope it's just a matter of time and that I can shortly get back to listening and not listener. Highly engrossing - many thanks to Tangram.

[WessexGirl]

Pleased to have completed this, as the theme is not one that really interests me. Thanks to Tangram for a fair puzzle with well concealed misprints/missing letters

[Hagen]

Slow but steady solving the clues. The misprints and missing letters were very well disguised, but for once I didn't have two or more alternatives for any of the generated letters. I'm one solver who really appreciates such scrupulous unambiguity so chapeau to Tangram.

I suspect the theme may be rather like a certain yeasty spread. I suspect that solvers without good knowledge of the subject will struggle to find two of the names - I had to guess and check one of them and I'm a fan. That said, a logical guess at the form of the final highlighting may well compensate for this.

Thanks Tangram.

[Osirun]

I was temporarily miffed by the thought that I might have to own the pricey reference work to fully complete this, but it turned out to be easily enough findable online - which I suppose they knew. Another person for whom the theme might as well be in Sanskrit here, but the instructions seem to be enough to get you there even if you have no idea about the finer points at stake. A nice not too taxing Listener, thanks Tangram.

[Philoctetes]

Doable, though with the mixture of clue alterations making a tangy puzzle. I agree that most of the five characters, and the "entry" are quite obscure. Could be put in the GWIT pile.

[perseverer]

The characters are well enough known, if you are familiar with the theme, but not otherwise.
Not sure my highlighting looks like anything much!

[12barblues]

Hmm. Seem to have the right number of characters and squares, but not sure I’m certain of the result so guess I could be wrong. Found further thematic character which adds to the show but busts the preamble! Some tough clues to tease out, especially the short ones and the message stayed hidden for a long time.

[icynorth]

It’s one of my specialist subjects, so I found the grid stare pretty straightforward.

The clues were a curate’s egg. Some of the longer ones were too accessible but there were many sublime ones. 28 and 30 were particular favourites. I’m not sure 44 is standard, though.

Thanks, Tangram!

[Alekhine]

icynorth,

As a specialist, are you comfortable with two of the five characters? I am quite a fan too and, while three of them seem quite well-known, I'd rate the other two as decidedly 'iffy'.

My stylised object looks fine, but maybe I've missed something.

[icynorth]

I am happy with them. The most obscure of them is more closely related to the one nearest the top of the grid, but a particular achievement qualifies them for this.

[Alekhine]

And a spot of research reveals all. I, too, am happy now.

[emcee]

Nice enough puzzle. I thought a couple of the three letter answers were tough to get (which includes the distinctly dodgy 44ac).
I have the three items totalling 17 cells but am struggling to see how I can shade 5 more cells to give the extra two items.
Thanks, Tangram.

[Scorpius]

The trickiest part of this puzzle was getting a coherent statement from the misprinted/missing letters. I must have spent as long working out it out fully as on completing most of the grid (which didn't take long).
My ignorance of the theme is second to none, so I would have expected to struggle, but I am familiar with the two names in a line, so the rest was pretty easy since the stylised object revealed three others that I was able to check on the internet.

I wouldn't say 44a is dodgy. It's tricky to get (it was my last solve), but it's no dodgier than any double definition clue. It's probably intended as a & lit. The misprinted clue gives us wordplay and an overlapping definition; the corrected clue gives us another definition.

[icynorth]

I respectfully disagree with you about 44, Scorpius. I’d have expected a clue to stand up under its own right following the correction of a misprint, and I cannot see how this does (unless I’m missing something).

I prefer the term ‘non-standard’ to ‘dodgy’, as I welcome the principle of innovation.

In this specific case, however, I didn’t like it, personally.

[Philoctetes]

Surely 44 stands up better after the misprint is corrected!

[Scorpius]

Icynorth, this is not the first time we have had a clue like 44a. It's fairly rare, but I don't think it is non-standard. Solvers are told that there is a misprint in the definition, so that needs correcting, but the wordplay is not affected. In the case of an & lit clue, where the whole clue is both wordplay and definition, we end up with both the original clue, which is wordplay, and the amended clue, all of which is definition. I believe Azed accepts such clues in his clue competition. When I first encountered a clue of this sort it took me a while to get my head round it and accept it. Now I'm comfortable with it.

[emcee]

I didn't like the way the word was doing double duty. It was not even a consistent application (which is bad enough, in my book) as the word had to be changed.

[sunny-dave]

Hard but fair gridfill and then a fiddly message decoding.

I've done the highlighting (and am confident I'm correct) - but, like Alekhine, I think two of the characters (whilst worthy enough) are far from the stellar quality of the other three.

Thanks for a good test though, Tangram