Listener 4296: Playgroup By Ifor

[AHearer]

One of those frustrating ones where the last four clues took as long to sort out as the rest of the clues and the theme altogether. Apart from those four, it was all pretty clear, so thanks Ifor. I seem to remember the theme's having been used before, but the pleasure was not diminished by that. The only snag is that with time left over I'm having to ask myself whether to go back to that unfinished numerical....

[s_pugh]

After the infernal (and abandoned) numerical I was hoping for an easier ride this week. Wrong! Very tough indeed. While I'd agree that the construction was very clever to be brutally honest I found that it became more of a grind than a pleasure by the end. As for the author, that was just a lucky hit on Google as they are about as obscure as it gets (to me anyway). If it wasn't for Quinapalus and Bradford I think I'd still be working on this at Christmas.

[Mesnilpat]

I spent an idle fifteen minutes reading Wikipedia on the theme, last evening. I find I am really not much wiser - and happy to stay that way, not my cup of tea. Speaking of which, what does TEA (seen in some recent posts) stand for?

[EAChaplin]

I'm in agreement with the previous comments. I believe that setters of numericals are told to keep it simple enough that nothing higher than a GCSE is required in maths. Would a GCSE in Eng. Lit. enable a solver to find this theme?
How can the penny drop on some thing so obscure.
Tea (&sympathy) is a solving and setting aid which you must purchase. There is a better (free) one called Quinapalus available on line.

[Mesnilpat]

Thanks EAChaplin, I'll stick with Quinapalus, which I find excellent.

[jim360]

Quinapalus is also a setter of course, and won the Gold Cup last year for Elm. I'm convinced that one of these days he's determined to write a puzzle that his word matcher can't help with...

[perseverer]

Well, got there eventually with a lot of help from Quinapalus. Suspect that setters will appreciate this puzzle more than mere mortals (like me) might, especially getting all the across entries to be real words.

[contendo]

Having cold-solved 38 clues I'm still none the wiser as to how to reduce them for the entries, apart from some of the obvious across ones. Not a lot of fun. However this week's Speccie by Doc was entertaining.

[doctormatt]

Aaargh!! I have all but one grid entry, the links with the extra words, and absolutely no clue at all about the author! That makes two unfinished in two weeks.

[Philoctetes]

Finished, but very little pleasure. Just a grind from beginning to end, with no sequence of PDMs to keep one going. Working out what to do really had no internal logic to it, until you had completed, with not even a wittily subtle hint in the preamble. Even the preamble itself is, IMHO, incorrect. Bleurgh

[Ruthrobin]

Z cup, Philoctetes! You'll kick yourself when you realize how wrong one of your comments is, I should perhaps say two - to say more would give too much away but I hope you'll read the solution notes on the Times website in three weeks' time or the LWO blogs. Words are never wasted in the preambles.

Yes, indeed, Contendo, this week's Speccie was quite special.

[emcee]

Late due to constraints of marking examination papers and, of course, the difficulty of the puzzle!

I didn't really like this one either. Some (often) moan about the numericals; well, as a number cruncher myself, I feel I'm quite entitled to have a dig at the (to me) total obscurity of the author in this puzzle. Sorry, English buffs, but not for me at all. I'll stick to Agatha Christie ...

[trux]

Perhaps it would have been more satisfactory to have used the extra words in the down clues to identify the appropriate number of appropriate items more accurately in accordance with the work itself? Judging by quite a few comments here, this would have still been no give-away but at least would have been another link to the source. But, hey, it was still a most impressive construction, and my thanks still firmly go to Ifor.

[Cagey]

Found this one a bit of a slog too I am afraid. A good construction, but having finished well passed normal bed time, I have not bothered to find the rest of the extra bits in the downs, nor work out how the ones I have found relate.

[Cagey]

... At least "finished" this one though. Stumped still by the very last step of Ifor's Magpie one, which has some fun PDM. For the want of a better place to comment openly, Poor boy is great.

[crosswhit99]

Probably more fun to construct than to solve, with far too many long anagrams and a somewhat anticlimactic conclusion - otherwise not bad !

[UglyUncle]

Here I am at the tail-end once again, but only because the last few answers/entries have required much head-scratching. I was beginning to think that I'd just have to put in the obvious entry for 5ac without having parsed the clue (always unsatisfactory) until I finally worked it out: but surely it bends, if not actually breaks, a standard convention?

I'm surprised to find myself in a minority for having known the author's name as soon as the theme emerged, so the PDMs all happened at the start. How absurd!

[UglyUncle]

I've just had one of those breakfast-time PDMs: the clue to 5ac does indeed bend the rules, but it does so in what is clearly a deliberate, appropriate and amusing way. Thanks for the entertainment, Ifor!

[IainGrace]

Coming to this late, owing to holidays. Cracked theme, which is known to us, so should be able to reach a conclusion.

[IainGrace]

Good puzzle. Agree with RuthRobin that it would have been good if one had been required to show full analysis of the extra words element, which was clever.