Listener No 4394: Against Expectatios By Duck

[AHearer]

I had to do a lot of cold solving before I could be sure which were the rogues, but once they were identified it all fell into place quite neatly. A few words to add to the vocabulary, too. Many thanks, Duck.

[Keepatit]

Never be sorry to disagree, Scorpius. It would be a crashingly dull thread if everyone was of the same mind. I trust you were just being polite. I completely understand your point. But I think you wed yourself too closely to this preamble. As written, of course you're right. And yet I remain of the view that a puzzle which allows a correct grid without accurate solution of all the clues is unsatisfactory. So tell me: had you "solved" all the "rogue" clues before giving them an alternative treatment? And if not, did you do so for completeness? I know I did. And I don't like puzzles where that is not an integral part of the solution. So I think an alternative preamble and structure, which would not have been a great stretch, would have been an improvement

[Philoctetes]

Interesting discussion! Surely only the treatment of the clue that is to be used in the grid is relevant to the puzzle. The fact that that particular collection of words might lead to another answer is irrelevant. In any one week one might find clues that produce defensible answers that are incorrect - that is an accepted part of the setter's guile, and is never seen as a structural weakness.

[tbayliss]

Found this one very tough. A few easier clues to get started mostly turned out to be red herrings when I got clashes and advice that made no sense and there was much more head scratching.
Can't agree with Keepatit about having to solve the rogues then do something else. It was painful enough having to work out which they were and what was needed. Painful but ultimately satisfying. Those of you who got the theme early, I'm amazed. Had to solve almost everything to get there.

[Scorpius]

Keepatit, I think there's a general issue and a particular one. First, the general issue: it's often possible to complete a puzzle in which the clued answer is not the entry without solving all the clues. That was the case with the recent Listener 4392 (I had four unsolved clues at the end), and there have been many such Listeners in the past. In principle that is not unlike those cases where a solver enters the only answers that will fit the grid without understanding the clues.
In this particular case I had two clues to which I had no solution if I treated them as normal clues, but they were not supposed to be solved as normal clues. Admittedly, they were intended to trap solvers into treating them as normal clues, and they were very cleverly constructed for this purpose. I don't think it would have been possible to require solvers to show evidence that they had solved the clues in two different ways without a convoluted, possibly confusing preamble, and it would detract from the elegance of the puzzle.
Your proposal for the extra letters to be written below the grid wouldn't be possible either. Consider how solvers have found alternative parsings that generate different extra letters; in those cases the hidden messages force solvers to reconsider their choices. If the extra letters from rogue clues don't contribute to anything, alternative valid parsings could lead to an alternative sequence of letters, hence - horror of horrors - ambiguity.
I think you would be on stronger ground to criticise the fact that it's possible to complete the grid without really understanding the theme, as appeared to be the case from some earlier posts.

[British_Olympics]

Personally I thought the 'rogue' clues were rather pointless and would have preferred an IQ-style grid with 6 unnumbered, unclued entries to be deduced. Like others, I suspect, I'd filled the grid without having the slightest idea how the 'advice' related to the 6 thematic grid entries (having worked them out from the heavy 'hint', the title and the checked letters in across entries) or having solved 2 of the 'rogue' clues. Apart from that though this was good fun, thanks Duck !

[Whenland]

We thoroughly enjoyed this puzzle and were not put off by the nature of the 'rogue' clues. Thank you Duck.

[Keepatit]

Ah well, if one is going to be in a minority, best make it a minority of one. To quote J K Galbraith "it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone". I'll get my coat. Taxi for Keepatit!

[olichant]

Definitely no need for anyone to be getting their coat, Keepatit! It's really interesting to have the discussion. And my initial reaction was the same as yours, I think (though Scorpius's very clear explanation has put the question beyond doubt for me).

Certainly one of the more esoteric things to have been debated on AB in the last few days, and all the better for it!