Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Listener 4042: How to Put On a Little Weight by Charybdis
55 Answers
A while since Charybdis' last Listener (The difficult "Wot no Lines?" in 2007)
The grid fill here is much easier, and the quotation was got only after 12 entries. We are left with an ambiguity that raises the question: how many happier discoveries are we meant to highlight? The last cell of the first discovery (5 letters) has 2 intersecting happier discoveries.
Also, the second happier discovery I would say is not strictly a happier discovery.
I was hoping that something was going to be done with the "large" central cell, sadly no.
The grid fill here is much easier, and the quotation was got only after 12 entries. We are left with an ambiguity that raises the question: how many happier discoveries are we meant to highlight? The last cell of the first discovery (5 letters) has 2 intersecting happier discoveries.
Also, the second happier discovery I would say is not strictly a happier discovery.
I was hoping that something was going to be done with the "large" central cell, sadly no.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by midazolam. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"The last cell of the first discovery (5 letters) has 2 intersecting happier discoveries."
I agree that this ambiguity can be resolved as one of the options is an existing grid entry.
There is, however, another ambiguity concerning the second cell of the first discovery. I assume that can be resolved as only one of the options is in Chambers. Leaving four, and I think two each of two types, although the precise meaning of one of the four eludes me.
I agree that this ambiguity can be resolved as one of the options is an existing grid entry.
There is, however, another ambiguity concerning the second cell of the first discovery. I assume that can be resolved as only one of the options is in Chambers. Leaving four, and I think two each of two types, although the precise meaning of one of the four eludes me.
Another enjoyable workout, if a little gentle. It seems quite a while since we had a puzzle that lasted more than a couple of sessions.
I thought that the reference above to "old hacks" was gratuitously offensive. Further, no one was seeking reassurance, so much as engaging in a mature discussion and analysis. I won't speculate as to what actuated the author's childish name-calling, but his (or her) choice of pseudonym may be suggestive.
I thought that the reference above to "old hacks" was gratuitously offensive. Further, no one was seeking reassurance, so much as engaging in a mature discussion and analysis. I won't speculate as to what actuated the author's childish name-calling, but his (or her) choice of pseudonym may be suggestive.
I thought that this was one of the easier Listeners I've done, but perfectly enjoyable for all that. Just hope that the stinker that's due does not occur when I'm abroad in 3 weeks time.
I did have to double-check that the middle letter of the first new discovery was not be highlighted. It looks odd without that square highlighted, but sobeit.
I did have to double-check that the middle letter of the first new discovery was not be highlighted. It looks odd without that square highlighted, but sobeit.
Not my sort of puzzle, I�m afraid. Pedestrian till the end, where there is an ambiguity, as Deviant says, over whether to highlight just the happier discoveries, or the previous one as well. Given that both are mentioned in the part of the sentence before the semicolon, I don�t think it can be conclusive.
I am pretty sure that the correctly highlighted words share the same structure, which would probably rule out robinruth�s interesting idea, and some of the other �red herrings� which have already been discovered in the clueing, but I find the latter by their nature undesirable. What is obvious to the setter may not be so to the solver, and it needs a clearer pointer than a structural similarity which is not hinted at, and has to be inferred from a previous discovery, to confirm what is needed. In weeks like this I�m thankful I don�t submit them.
A shame, really, because the wonderful quote was ripe with possibilities, and deserved better (he says as a solver). This week�s Inquisitor was a much more ingenious and, dare I say it, Listener-like challenge.
I am pretty sure that the correctly highlighted words share the same structure, which would probably rule out robinruth�s interesting idea, and some of the other �red herrings� which have already been discovered in the clueing, but I find the latter by their nature undesirable. What is obvious to the setter may not be so to the solver, and it needs a clearer pointer than a structural similarity which is not hinted at, and has to be inferred from a previous discovery, to confirm what is needed. In weeks like this I�m thankful I don�t submit them.
A shame, really, because the wonderful quote was ripe with possibilities, and deserved better (he says as a solver). This week�s Inquisitor was a much more ingenious and, dare I say it, Listener-like challenge.
Ditto here mad max, although struggling with 46d (in which I have a 'Z' which I think must be wrong) and one or two others, and only 6 clues from last week, just never got going. But it's encouraging to have had a few puzzles from the easier end of the spectrum - just about doable by a young hack like me. Happy to miss some of the harder ones while I'm on holiday!
We don't need to highlight the "weight", I think that's been agreed now.
Segue, it's not giving much away to agree that your "Z" should be discarded. The clue is three words, of which we're told one will be "extra". I've never met a two word clue that wasn't a dd. I also note that it's rarely wise to be fooled by capitalisation.
Segue, it's not giving much away to agree that your "Z" should be discarded. The clue is three words, of which we're told one will be "extra". I've never met a two word clue that wasn't a dd. I also note that it's rarely wise to be fooled by capitalisation.
Segue - go back to the drawing board with (unclued) 49a, considering the Chambers definition of 16-17, which cites the 3 types of thing of which the unclued entries are examples.
A nice puzzle. Once again I agree with Robinruth: much prefer the subject matter to football (or baseball, come to that).
A nice puzzle. Once again I agree with Robinruth: much prefer the subject matter to football (or baseball, come to that).
naomirod, there is a thread which probably gives you everything you need here.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Quizzes-and-Puz zles/Question782599.html
midazolam's hint is far more elegant, but doesn't give chapter and verse in the same way, so perhaps try that first, and go to the thread as a last resort!
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Quizzes-and-Puz zles/Question782599.html
midazolam's hint is far more elegant, but doesn't give chapter and verse in the same way, so perhaps try that first, and go to the thread as a last resort!
An enjoyable puzzle and an elegant feat of construction and thematic sleight of hand by Charybdis. I don't understand, however, why Charybdis did not specify in the preamble the word length of the five different "discoveries" to avoid unnecessary ambiguity and endless headscratching on sites like this!
A puzzle I intend to recommend to a friend who believes she "can't do the Listener". I think the grid-fill was reasonably straightforward, the highlighting I'm afraid I found quite poor and am still not convinced I'm right. My four happier discoveries share the same construction but there is only a 'loose' connection between them.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.