Rookie Corner 498

50 comments on “Rookie Corner 498”

1. Thanks ALP for raising your standard above Rookie Towers!

   I had some problems getting stuck in; that’s no criticism though as I always have wavelength issues with new setters. After a few reveals to get started, there were some nice ideas here and lots of amusing cheeky surface reads – probably more than I’d try getting away with, and that’s saying something 😉🤣 A fair few I couldn’t parse but I’m absolutely no expert so I’ll await the good ship Prolixic 🛳️👍

   My favourite by far was 19d, and 9a a very clever anagram, 10a also clever. 15a and 18d got ticks too. I liked the topical 1d.

   The only constructive criticism I’ll venture is for 14d, thirteen words for a three letter answer is not ideal, maybe try to keep those shorter? Three/four-worders can sometimes be a nice easy entry point for solvers to get going and grab some juicy checkers.

   My advice is to have a slow measured perusal of all the comments, digest Prolixic’s wise words, and get cracking on your next puzzle which I’m looking forward to!

   1. Hi AgentB. You made me laugh, as ever, with your notion of my raising my standard when actually all I’ve done is lower the standard! I blame you entirely for persuading me to have a crack and I blame you even more for putting up such a peach last week that exposed me even more horribly. As I said then, I could only admire your brevity. 14d was, of course, way too long. But thank you for being so kind. This was as far from the finished article as it was possible to be, I realise. I do think that to have a go here requires talent, arrogance or masochistic stupidity. One out of three ain’t bad! But I just felt for too long like a carnivore who thinks meat is born in a packet so I felt honour-bound to try. On the upside, the exercise has certainly made me a better solver and has only accentuated my huge admiration for those who make it look so easy when it is, in fact, anything but. I look forward to business as usual being resumed next week. I will, however, digest and, hopefully, absorb all feedback. I’m here to learn. All best.

      1. Not at all ALP, it’s great that you had a go and I really think you should carry on having a go – lots of great ideas and wit in there – you didn’t lower the standard at all! Over the last few months I’ve looked at tons of past RC crosswords here and read the comments, some are hilarious for all the wrong reasons. I especially recommend looking at the guy who withdrew his puzzle in a huff 🤣🤣

         I’m really no expert but like to chime in anyway. Rabbit’s advice is always very useful, in-depth and has lots of things you’d never considered. Maybe think of RC as a jigsaw, a fresh bag of pieces arrive in the post each time you appear, and over time you can see what it’s all about.

         As for crosswords, keep your own style as it emerges. You’ll maybe find yourself disagreeing with some comments as you wade the sordid quagmire of solvers’ personal preferences 😅 But seriously, puzzles don’t have to be easy (look at Elgar), clues don’t have to be brief (look at Django), you can do what you fancy really.

         At the very beginning I found gauging difficulty impossible. I still do, but err on the side of caution a bit more, or just disguise it with a cheap joke (and get told off!). Avoiding very obscure words was a harsh lesson early on. You’re spot on to say that setting will help improve your solving a great deal too 👍 The opposite is also true.

         So what’s not to like. Enjoy, don’t beat yourself up under any stretch, and be back soon. Still lots of comments to come – it’s the worst bit – your baby’s on display, what will the scary grown-ups say 😅

         1. Ha! I will certainly take a look at the chap who withdrew in a huff. Brilliant, I missed that. I can’t say I’ve disagreed with any comments so far. And I’m not beating myself up at all, thought I probably should! I don’t think Brian has a pop at these which, personally, I think is a shame as I always enjoy his comments. No doubt this would have made him spit his teeth out. Scary grown-ups, eh? What a terrifying notion, as in my head, I’m about 12! I was very tickled about your take that I used even more Carry On surfaces than you. And I thought I was being quite restrained..

            1. I’m not sure if you read The Beano as a kid, but you’ll be on the wrong end of Jane’s elephant-hide slipper if things get too crude 🤣 It’s all good fun!

               1. More of a 2000AD chap myself! But my veins certainly run with Viz. And yes, I do live in fear of Jane’s slipper. Elephant hide sounds very uncomfortable..

2. Welcome to Rookie Corner, ALP. This was very tough, and I found it an extraordinary mixture. There were some accomplished clues and some incomprehensible (to me at least).

   I needed to reveal letters to complete three clues: 11a, 2d & 21d and, even with the answers in front of me, I still can’t parse them. I guessed the answers to 1a & 23a from the checkers, but I can neither work out the definition nor parse them. There were a further two answers for which I could identify the definition but was unable to parse: 27a & 16d.

   A few specifics:
   17a – feels rather “same-sidey”
   26a – I think needs a question mark
   3d – I am not convinced that “off” = “above”
   4d – I don’t think this clue works at all
   7d – should be “jerk” not “jerks” to clue “tic”
   12d – it looks as if you have taken “shabby” to be a synonym for “scaly”, which is too much of a stretch for me, but I might have parsed it wrongly.
   19d – unless our American friends have “verbed” it, you appear to be using “frauds” as a noun to clue “rooks” as a verb.

   On the plus side, I had a lot of ticks and your surface readings are generally very good. My top picks were: 9a, 10a, 25a & 5d.

   Well done and thank you, ALP. Do heed to the wisdom of Prolixic and please dial back on the difficulty for your next submission.

   1. Thank you RD, for taking time and trouble and I do rather like “extraordinary mixture”. I can’t disagree with any of your points except of course “some accomplished clues”. I’m not sure about that! 17a was undoubtedly same-sidey, scaly for shabby was mean of me, and 4d was terrible, I couldn’t agree more. I painted myself in a horrible corner with that one and had absolutely no idea how to clue it. Rooks can be a noun and I’m sure I’ve seen singular tic used for plural jerks, as in a series of spasms. But again I concur. Both were pushing it, to say the least.
      I will definitely heed your wisdom, et al, and, of course, Prolixic. Thank you for being so incredibly kind – I was dreading withering brickbats galore, not such gentle and sage guidance. There’s still time, of course! Difficulty is so hard to judge isn’t it? What’s clear in one’s own head is so often anything but on the page. This did, in face, break my test solver – AKA my wife. So I should undoubtedly have heeded her tutting. But huge thanks again. Your very detailed appraisal is incredibly helpful. Thank you.

3. Welcome to Rookie Corner ALP

   I too took a while to get on your wavelength and found parts of the crossword very tough indeed. I did reveal some letters to get finished and don’t understand the parsing of several clues. I thought there were some splendid anagrams

   Thanks for the crossword – take note of Prolixic’s review and other comments and then return with another crossword in due course

   1. Thank you CS. If you found it tough, then it clearly was absurdly tough because you’re obviously brilliant – your 1*s are invariably 3*+ for me. I’m not sure about “due course” – ie, that may be never! –  but I will, of course, take very careful note of any and all comments. I am fascinated by crosswords and very much wanted to have a go. And I’d love to be better. But it proved even more difficult than I’d feared, ie very difficult indeed. Even the name Yoko Ono will now, I fear, haunt me for life..

4. I’m with those who found this very tough. I resisted revealing letters as long as I could but succumbed in the end. I still can’t parse several clues fully (or indeed at all in some cases).
   On the plus side I thought that some clues were excellent. I really liked 5a, 10a, 12d (Better halves of football – superb) and 19d.
   Well done on producing a real Toughie (and a pangram to boot), ALP, but please be a bit more gentle with us next time.

   1. Hi Gazza. Sorry, I really hadn’t intended to make it so tough, AKA not up to scratch! “Or indeed at all in some case” – oh dear! My fault entirely – bad clueing from an addled brain. But glad you spotted the (entirely accidental) pangram. Solving and setting are, clearly, as chalk and cheese. Well, for me, at least. Sincerely, thank you for your very kind words and for wading through my laboured tomfoolery.

5. Thanks for posting this, I particularly liked 5a, 9a, and at the risk of bucking the trend 4d.

   Some of the parsing remains best guess and I look forward to enlightenment on 16d where I got no further than the defintion.

6. Thank you Jonners. A vote for the appalling 4d – huzzah! Very touched that you liked 5a too as I thought that was especially dodgy!
   16d was a definite hum, yes. It was meant to be a double definition of “tearing up”, ie moist of eye and “green” as in inexperienced with “bowling” intended just as a connecting “delivering”. Yet another one that was crystal clear in my own mind but undoubtedly baffling on the page. Seriously, thank you for taking the trouble to comment. Much appreciated. I’m just sorry that so much of my parsing was too loose.

7. Welcome to the Corner, ALP, and well done for sticking your head over the parapet. Like others, I had to use a few reveals to arrive at a full grid which perhaps suggests either inaccurate clues or problems translating your thoughts into words. Think I would agree with you that you should have paid more attention to your test solver’s reactions. She doubtless knows you as well as anyone and better than most! 12d did put me in mind of a particular ‘other half’ whose name must not be mentioned for fear of being sued and I think 18d was my favourite clue.
   I await Prolixic’s review with a great deal of interest as you’ve got me foxed with several definitions to say nothing of parsing.
   Thank you for bringing us your puzzle and I hope we see a new, improved version of ALP on your next outing.

8. Thank you Jane for indulging my woolly-headed dirge. Memo to self – always listen to the wife! I too await Prolixic’s review … with dread. It was, I realise, very rough. But again, thank you for taking the trouble to take a look. And I’m glad at least to have avoided your elephant-hide slipper (© AgentB).

   1. Don’t make things worse ALP! Cheekiness will be the end of us one day 😁

      1. *chuckling*
         Again, I blame you entirely!

9. Enjoyed that although one or two problems to resolve tomorrow. Great challenge, thanks; total respect to anyone who can put together a complete grid which entertains as well. Personal favourites were 4D along with 5A & 10A but COTD, for me, had to be the very very clever 9A. Thanks ALP

   1. Wow! Thank you, Deebee. That is incredibly generous of you. This whole process has felt very like waiting for my finals results (100 years ago) and so far the results have been largely similar – criticism thoroughly deserved each time. But the lovely people on here are, of course, much kinder than my old professors. I probably spent more time on this than reading Livy (zzz), even though that may not show! Thank you for liking the dodgy 4D. Bless you. As for 9A, I wasn’t quite sure how many people would remember Carol Drinkwater but when I clocked the anagram, how could I possibly resist?! All very best to you. You’ve cheered me up no end. Thank you.

      1. Carol Drinkwater is a well-known name in our hutch. She went to the same school as Mrs RD and was a close friend of her sister.

         1. Good grief! How marvellous. I still think her Helen Herriot was the one and only..

10. Welcome to Rookie Corner, ALP.

    I shan’t repeat what others have said about the difficulty level as I think you know yourself by now that you over-engineered certain clues and made others very difficult indeed. I felt there were quite a few “nearly but not quite clues”, i.e. good ideas on paper that didn’t necessarily translate well into cryptic clues.

    I thought the surfaces nearly all read extremely well and I would say that 9a is an outstanding anagram, perhaps the best I’ve seen anywhere this year. Overall I had more crosses than ticks on my printed page but I still found this a very creditable first puzzle and I would be very keen to see how your next one compares.

    Well done and thanks very much, ALP.

    1. Thank you, Silvanus. It is, of course, an absolute honour to be appraised by such a total pro. And the mere fact that were any ticks on your page at all is, frankly, a miracle. I’ll more than take “creditable” despite it being absurdly generous of you. You’re too kind re the 9a anagram – wow. Thank you, also, for your lovely comment re the surfaces. I was keen to at least try to get some half-decent reads, though I fear I did rather sacrifice parsing etc as a result. But, as I’ve said, I came to learn. So I will only come back if and when I can absolutely convince myself that I can do a much better job. Huge thanks again.

       1. Silvanus has some cracking advice here, ALP. Ideas are the best bit, everything else will follow.

          I should’ve mentioned, it’s well worth reading Prolixic’s fab PDF (on this site) several times over – memorise it even – and your ideas will begin to parse much better. It’s worth paying a lot of attention to the opening chapter Ximenean vs Libertarian, ‘house styles’, etc. This chapter includes the hard-and-fast rules that must be followed to stop cryptic anarchy, as someone very aptly said recently. Silvanus writes some of the most Ximenean crosswords you’ll find, and I’d recommend printing off several of his NTSPP’s and early RC efforts; that discipline will quickly rub off. They can be hard though! By contrast, Dada’s Sunday slot often takes liberties (yesterday’s 7d is a prime candidate). This can be amusing or infuriating depending upon where one sits. Luckily there are more than enough seats in crosswordland for everyone!

          Anax has an article here called “Actually setting” which I found very helpful. Also Big Dave’s authoritative guide to solving in Word doc format.

          1. Huge thanks, AB. The lovely Mr K (the man has the patience of a saint!) recommended Prolixic’s PDF which is indeed fab but I clearly didn’t take it enough to heart. I will absolutely check your other recommendations, ta – I need all the help I can get. As for Ximeneans vs Libertarians, I fear I’m innately of the latter school, a lifelong habit I really must try and break. Though I did love Dada’s 7d yesterday. Does Django fit within Ximenean parameters? I guess he does. I thought his Sol Campbell the other day was quite majestic. But I’m still gibbering over the peerless Robyn’s “rugby goal” for H! But, as you imply, you can only break the rules when you totally understand them. I’m no way near, so my rule-breaking is entirely accidental. Anyroad, thanks again – you’re invariably kind and funny – I thoroughly look forward to your next outing and seeing how it should be done!

             1. To be honest I’m still learning all of it, the line is fine, as Travis used to sing. But other than the important stuff that allows solvers to solve, be who you want to be. My favourites are Robyn and RayT. I’m in awe of the solvers who discuss Elgar and EV puzzles as if they’re reading a takeaway menu – it may as well be Swahili 😅 I like Django (always been a DG fan, Googlewhack is still amazing), but long clues addle my poor noggin. Purely personal preference though – and preferences are not rules 😉👍

             2. Sol Campbell was sheer brilliance. The day you tear up a crossword and yell to the dog “DAMMIT why didn’t I think of that one” is the day you’re in the setters club forever 😎

                1. Don’t start me on EV! I don’t even understand the rules. The lovely Chalicea put one up recently and promised it was easy. Er, no. Even more mystifying to me than Elgar and that’s saying summat. The setters are all brilliant aren’t they? But yes, Robyn, Django and, of course, Silvanus are right up there for me.

                   1. They’re my top 3. I’ve made a start on your puzzle but retired early as my head was spinning but promise I’ll return to it & have another stab.
                      As for EV & Elgar – fuggedaboutit…….

                      1. Bless you, sorry to have made your head spin, though I think that’s pretty much been the general response. But everyone’s been outrageously lovely – except my wife, of course, whose comments have been brutally Anglo-Saxon!

11. Hi ALP – thank you so much for putting your head above the parapet and sharing your creation with us. I think some of the exchanges you’ve had on this thread, esecially with AgentB, should be read any new Rookie, and your replies throughout are a model of good-humoured “taking it on the chin” acceptance. Bravo.

    Yes, I found this very challenging and needed a few letter reveals to allow forward movement when my brakes had seized; yes, I’m looking forward to Prolixic’s review in order to understand a good few of my answers; and yes, there are a fair few clues that when you have more experience under your belt you would not dream of trying in the future.

    On the other hand many great surface readings, wit & humour, inventiveness, and some great clues, leading to a feeling of (exhausted) satisfaction on completion. Highlights for me were 5a, the superb 9a, 10a, 25a, 8d, 15d, 18d & 24d.

    Thank you, ALP, and thanks also in advance to Prolixic

12. Thank you so much MG, very insightful and kind words, as ever. It was certainly great fun to have a bash but, as my efforts showed, I did find it incredibly difficult. But what a marvellous site this is. Some fabulous advice and constructive criticism – not a bad word spoken. I had hoped that having been solving crosswords for the best part of 30 years, some talent and tricks might have rubbed off. Sadly not! I’m sorry it was so tough. And, obviously by tough, I don’t mean Elgar tough, I mean “just not very good”. So thank you for giving it a spin, incredibly decent of you. But I can recommend anyone having a go at an RC as this really is a cracking place to learn – learn I will and I need to! – and as crash landings go, mine couldn’t have been gentler. I’m almost ready to take off my hair shirt now – just Prolixic to go. Eek.

13. Thank you very much ALP for what is clearly a very good debut.
    I’m afraid I have fallen seriously short. I simply could not get onto the right wavelength. Also, I found this too tough for me.
    You clearly set out to entertain, and for me, the clues read with a certain brio (if that’s the right word…). I do wish I could have solved them all! From the ones I did manage, my fave is 5a (very clever), followed by 5d, 14d and 19d (which did make me chuckle), as did 22a.
    I’m much looking forward to Prolixic’s review. As others have already said, he will give you invaluable advise. Follow that and the feedback you have had here and you should be coming back with a very good puzzle. Please, much less tough next time…

14. Hi Catnap, I’m not sure about “very good” but huge thanks, that’s very handsome of you. And I love “brio”, you’ve made my day with that. Honestly though, the failings were all mine. No one solved it unaided, I don’t think, and that is entirely my fault. It was clearly tough with a capital R! You really didn’t fall short – I did. So I too look forward – I think! – to Prolixic’s review, which I will very much take to heart. Much to reflect on already and if and when I do return, I promise to be better – and easier. Sincerely, many thanks for your extraordinarily kind words.

15. My humblest thanks to Prolixic – incredibly detailed, hugely helpful and more than fair. I have no idea how the commentometer works but 29.3% is, frankly, much more than I deserved. I will, of course, take all of these brilliant insights on board. Thank you.
    Re “Bloody Mary”, I loved the ingenious suggestion (actress/author) but I was just trying to describe a cocktail (cross) that is red and often drunk to ease a hangover. I clearly failed miserably. Apologies. Re “rooks”, I was relying on Collins (so often a mistake) which has it as a slangy noun. I shouldn’t have done that. So too “tic” (a series of spasms) for “jerks”. And World Rugby international was meant to give WRI, with “Telea debuted” providing just a single T. Another error – one of many – on my part. But, sincerely, thank you to Prolixic and sorry for subjecting you to this torture. And many, many thanks, also, to all who commented. I will learn from you and boy, do I need to! Lastly, can I just thank the long-suffering Mr K who put up with my last-minute squeals and alterations, without which this would have been even worse! As AgentB said last week, the work that goes on behind the scenes here is truly astonishing and intrinsic to a site which I know we all cherish. Thank you and good night!

    1. A great in-depth review by The Pro™ here, with lots to be digested. I was a mile away from some of those parsings 🤣😉 I’m glad 9a got plaudits, it was very clever and will take some topping – the anagram gauntlet is definitely laid for next time.

       Looking forward to seeing you here again soon ALP. When the wife graduates to passing comment in Middle English, you’ll know you’re on the right track!

       1. Soon? You’ve got to be kidding me! I need to lick my wounds and pull my socks right up. As you say, very thorough and immensely helpful from the masterful Prolixic. I think pretty much everyone was miles away from those parsings, simply because they were terrible! And to think I was rather pleased with my Bloody Mary until I was made to realise I’d clearly got it horribly, horribly wrong. But as you say, inspiring a truckload of Middle English from the wife is always a boon. Also, I belatedly realised that you tackled it about 4 in the morning. What on earth were you doing up at that time?!

          1. I’m a night owl because I’m a twit at two and alive at five 😁

             1. Ha! You really should do stand-up. Perhaps you do!

       2. Also, can I ask another quick question please, as you clearly – unlike me – know what you’re doing. Ignoring that fact, for one second, that Yoko Ono (arrgh!) was an indirect anagram and, as such, beyond the pale, is it ever acceptable to double-duty an anagram grind in that sort of clue when it’s not an &lit? If the sense works? Because – and I really don’t want to dwell on this clue because it was utterly dreadful – she did enrage McCartney. So, if the anagram fodder had worked (which it didn’t) would it have been remotely acceptable, or not, do you think?

          1. Hehehe. You’re far too hard on yourself, this is supposed to be good fun 😁 If there were no cock-ups, there’d be no rookies.

             And I definitely don’t know everything – far from it! After rediscovering BD and the fact I could print off backpagers, my first comment here since 2010 was offering an indirect anagram which got very short shrift from Gazza 🤣 I didn’t even know they weren’t allowed! Likewise double-duty – an error in my first RC. Don’t worry about it – once the rules show up, incorporate and adapt.

             All-in-ones (&lit for jargoneers) must be almost impossible to just sit and think of. Happy accidents probably. My favourite clues are born of some random thing I spotted in Aldi or something, and will usually start a grid.

             Re Yoko, if for example your clue had been “Oo, nooky enraged McCartney’s nemesis” that would work better grammatically, as “Fodder<indicator|definition". It still can't be an all-in-one as 'Oo nooky' doesn't describe Yoko well enough to work as a complete sentence. To be an all-in-one, "Lennon's wife" for example would be the anagram fodder. Such instances must be extremely rare. If it sounds mind-bending, that's 'cos it is 🤣

             1. You swine, you’ve made it better already! No, it was never going to be all-in-one but I do see – a nemesis would sort the problem. Thank you, that answers my question. So double-duty = no no. Got it. I’m really hoping that Yoko pops up in a grown-up puzzle soon so I can see how it could be done properly. Cos that just bloomin’ broke me.

                1. Yoko Ono definitely not the easiest thing to clue! But clueing is all about putting your favourite things into your puzzles.

                   I wonder if it might be a candidate for a homophone, as you can parse it down to “Yoke, oh no” with an extra “O” needed in the middle. This could lead to something like this, although the surface is crap:

                   “McCartney’s foe spoke of burden, alas, having acquired ring (4,3)”

                   So here you’ve got “definition|indicator>fodder|indicator>insertion” which I think works okayish. As I said I’m very much learning all this too, Silvanus is probably wetting himself into his morning cornflakes at this conversation 🤣

                   1. No, it’s an absolute pig! And absolutely re putting favourite things in but while that’s OK to start with, I just find that one’s got to shoehorn in increasingly unappealing words as the grid goes on. I don’t see any way of avoiding that. And heh, I sincerely hope Silvanus isn’t as it would be a very peculiar time to a) wet oneself and b) have morning cornflakes! I did actually speak to Yoko Ono once and that’s just one of the reasons she haunts me. I was in a Tokyo museum many years ago and one of the exhibits was a red telephone that only she could ring. And as I walked past, it rang. So it seemed rude not to pick up. Very odd. She was as mad as a box of frogs!

                      1. Yes, that would work. Horrible surface, mind, as you say. But as I’ve made palpably clear, I know NOTHING!

                      2. What an awesome anecdote! How did you answer the phone? I hope along the lines of “THIS IS JOHN SPEAKING, JUST CHECKING UP ON YOU” 🤣🤣

                         1. I’m afraid I came out with that timeless classic: “Hello, Big Boys Sauna Club”. Which I thought was terribly funny at the time.

                            She didn’t.

16. Many thanks, Prolixic, I certainly needed your solving skills to explain a lot of this one! I think our setter needs to take careful note of your comments before he submits another puzzle to the Corner.

    1. Hear hear!

Comments are closed.