Times Cryptic 26252

55 comments on “Times Cryptic 26252”

1. I had one wrong and figured it must be ELEVENS since I too didn’t understand the wordplay (although the several hours you considered it a mystery seemed to include doing the crossword, doing the blog, and all in about forty minutes).
2. I was feeling quite pleased with myself after finally getting 26d, 25ac, and then 28ac in the final minute, only to find that, like many of my betters, I put in GET IT instead of GOT IT. I say I got 28ac, but in fact I merely biffed it; thanks to Jack for enlightening me.
   1. I put in GET IT too, quite confidently, and at the time I submitted everyone on the leaderboard except one had one wrong, which is pretty weird… <twilight zone theme>

      Edited at 2015-11-10 04:20 pm (UTC)

      1. I too, went for GET IT. I think I misread Became as Become, put it straight in, then never looked back. Annoying.
         1. I did exactly the same. I blame fading eyesight due to advancing age. Time with one error 25m 36s.
            Rats.
         2. Mm, it’s sort of annoying that literally one letter, one stroke of the pen, in the clue makes the difference between glory and abject failure.

3. This was a brain-twister – forty minutes.

   COD and LOI 28 ac ELEVENS

   My problem was the NE corner.

   I knew it was CORDOBA but din’t but it because I couldn’t get way from the possibility C(ity)ABROAD was an anagram! Silly me!

   I thought 8dn PARAKEET was poorly clued as ‘a thing’ wasn’t particularly TC.

   I also initialy put in NOTEWORTHY for 2dn as it does parse.

   But 12 ac soon dispelled that theory.

   Much enjoyed!

   horryd Shanghai

4. Done in three separate shifts over about four hours. Held up by the two bottom corners, but they gave way when HEARKENED and ASCOT (should have been a write-in) fell.

   Thrown a little by the less familiar spelling for HEARKENED and EXTRAVERT, but they were fairly clued.

   COD to 28ac, partly because I like a tricky device, but mainly because I love the novel. Kept it by my bedside for years in my younger days.

   Thanks setter, and well blogged Jack.

5. Well done Jack on unpacking ELEVENS. I didn’t have a clue. Thought it might be something to do with one on one. Actually considered EYELESS, thinking of the wrong book obviously, Aldous Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza, another erstwhile favourite of mine. Count me amongst those who hadn’t got it; but this was no oversight. I considered both alternatives carefully before plumping for the obviously incorrect one. Shows you where my head is these days; somewhere below my knees and heading south
   1. It’s good to hear from you again, koro. At one point re 28ac I was considering the idea that because there are two ‘I’s in ‘impossible’ and in ‘situation’ this was somehow supposed to be cluing II and II, at which point I might have considered giving up crosswords for good! I was very pleased eventually to spot the real explanation.
6. Around 20 minutes, with everything eventually understood, but coming here I discover I’m another GET IT victim. And I didn’t even have the excuse of solving online. Another scalp for the setter’s belt.
7. Yep, I hadn’t GOT IT, either. Sigh! And as for ELEVENS, I too was thinking about the two is in ‘impossible’ and ‘situation’ (as Jack above). Didn’t think too hard about it though… Clever clue. Too clever for me.
8. 35 mins.I biffed ELEVENS so thanks jackkt. My FOI was CONVERGES when I had dismissed gutters as the wayside flowers.
9. 18:54. Well done for parsing 28a Jack…. I confess to biffing it from ‘Teams’ and all the checkers. No particular difficulties, maybe because today’s quickie as a warm up so was so tricky. I enjoyed the smooth surfaces – 21d my favourite.
10. Janie’s summed it all for me as well:GET IT & parsing 26a.
    After the shock of finding the Quickie so tricky today, my confidence was somewhat shaken when starting this one, so in the end I was pleased to finish in about 40 minutes.
    I particularly liked 9a – clever.
11. 30 minutes, so a rare victory for the southern hemisphere.

    While for me GOT IT couldn’t be anything else (this one appears to have tripped up the speediest of speed solvers), I spent about a minute trying to work out ELEVENS, could think of absolutely no theory, and just bunged it in. Well done, John, and thanks to the setter for a very even challenge.

    I can’t quite see the equivalence of scattered and distracted.

    Edited at 2015-11-10 09:38 am (UTC)

    1. SOED has: SCATTER a: verb trans. Separate (a collection of people or things); disperse, dissipate; dispel (clouds, matter, etc.) b: verb intrans. Separate and disperse; move away in various directions c: verb trans. fig. Distract (the mind, thoughts, etc.)
       1. Thanks, both.
    2. As in scatterbrain(ed) Ulaca. P.S. Sorry, Jack nipped in while I was arranging my thoughts!

       Edited at 2015-11-10 10:05 am (UTC)

    3. What? Have you moved?
       1. I wondered how long it would take you to spot the Freudian slip.
12. Nice crossword this, though like others as regards 28ac, I hadn’t 18ac before coming here…
13. 17.36 and absolutely stunned to find myself on p1 of the Club board. I’ll add to the chorus saying good blogging Jack. I certainly didn’t get 28a either (pretty good movie too) and had to do an alphabet run to get CUES. After some dithering I managed to plump for the right tense in 18a.
    1. Honestly, Olivia, did nobody tell you? All the best people are using the one-error leaderboard today!
       1. Nope, didn’t get the memo as usual.
          1. Well done 😉
       2. When I submitted with no errors in the early morning, almost everyone at that time had one error. I actually assumed there was something wrong with the leaderboard today! Thanks to Jack for confirming that was not the case, and for explaining ELEVENS.
14. All but two completed on the rattler, and knocked those off in about a minute after sitting at my desk (CUES and then ASCOT), so about 36 minutes for me, which implies it was easier than average. I’m pleased that I parsed 28 OK and wasn’t fooled by the tensile challenge at 18, although I did consider both versions before opting for the correct one. For the second day running it was the SW that held me up. COD to Catch 22.
15. In the days before this blog I might have puzzled about why ELEVENS was right for the rest of the day. Now the penny has dropped, it’s clearly a very clever clue (though the cleverness is somewhat undercut by so few people spotting it – I wonder if the setter is cursing the dullness of the solving community when so few of us prove bright enough to get it…)

    I also held myself up with the momble AULET, taking the M out of amulet instead of mascot, so that SW corner proved impenetrable for some time.

    1. Another one of those here – a young daughter means Disney which means Sofia the first and her amulet so couldn’t shake that from my mind for a long time – until the penny dropped at 26d in fact.

       Still, at least I spotted the tense trap at 18a so not all bad/stupid (delete as you see fit)

16. My experience was a bit like jackkt’s as described in his blog. Most completed in around 25 minutes, then left with several in the NE and SW. The NE fell first, but 25,26 and 28 took me ages. 28 LOI on a wing and a prayer – completely stumped by the wordplay. Well done for parsing it, Jack.
    Fifty minutes or so in the end.
17. Excellent chewy puzzle. I thought CORDOBA and ELEVENS were particularly good. Many thanks to Jack for unpacking the parsing of the latter. I correctly guessed that the “impossible situation” was a reference to Heller’s Catch 22 but still failed to twig that 2 X 11 made 22. Doh! Still, the definition was pretty clear.
18. I really enjoyed this one – 9:04 with a tiny application of Tippex.
19. I was short of time today so had to call stumps after 18 minutes with Ascot, cues and elevens missing. Disappointed as C22 is one of my most very favouritest books too. Well done Jack for spotting how it worked.

    I liked the lift & separate of cookery books in 12. I don’t think I’ve come across ATE the goddess, GESTE the book or ICE the drug before.

    1. Young Elgar had the goddess in his Telegraph Toughie last Friday – she’s obviously ‘goddess of the month’.
    2. I was about to write that I think it’s literally impossible to have lived in the Western world in the last decade and not heard of the drug “ice”. But a quick google reveals that apparently it’s a much smaller problem in the UK than it is in the USA and Australia.

       For that you should be truly grateful.

       1. If it’s crystal meth I must have come across it in Breaking Bad but it just didn’t register.
       2. I’m rather pleased to say that I’d never heard of it until a few months ago and that was in a Times crossword.
20. Mea culpa on putting in GET IT and thanks for explaining ELEVENS which was the one with the question mark next to it.
21. Count me as another GET IT. It eased the pain to come here and find myself in good company.
22. I GOT IT, but I didn’t get ELEVENS, which like others I biffed after a suitable period of pondering. A special blogger’s medal to Jack for parsing that for most of the rest of us. About 30 minutes. A great clue once it’s properly explained. Regards.
23. Just like Kevin, I got 18a but bunged ELEVENS in from definition only. Many thanks to blogger for the explanation. 41 minutes. Ann
24. Bleh! Beaten by eyesight on GOT IT, and otherwise over 28′ in an early evening solve. ELEVENS worth the entry price, mind.
    Didn’t much like NOTICEABLE: I thought incapable/not able was poor cluing. NOTEWORTHY would have been a better answer. And nobody’s ever offered me ICE (not in tablet form, anyway). Perhaps I’ve never really understood “Ice, Ice, Baby” and similar.
25. all done and correct in 31 minutes, late in the day, with ELEVENS not parsed and a nagging worry about EXTRAVERT which had never seen spelt with an A before.
26. 17 mins but another “get it” because I didn’t read the clue properly. I also confess that I biffed ELEVENS which went in last after ASCOT and CUES. A tip of the hat to the setter.
27. 11m, but another GET IT, and another failure to parse ELEVENS. I also worried about the spelling of HEARKENED and EXTRAVERT, so all in all I seem to have had the standard experience.
28. The annoying thing is that I checked 18ac to see that I’d got the right tense and managed to read “became” as “become” – presumably because that was what I was expecting it to be. Otherwise a rather sluggish 11:34.
    1. It should’ve been “become”, dammit.
29. Well, if it’s any consolation, mine was an even more gastropodal 30 minutes, after which I gave it up as a bad job and left this as a DNF.

    Fortunately, I was one of those who got the wrong tense at 18ac, meaning that my complete failure to get ASCOT and CUES was irrelevant.

30. I’ve been living abroad and haven’t done the Times Crossword for a few years.
    I came here because I couldn’t get ASCOT but I was disappointed with this crossword as a re-introduction. Clues don’t seem as “crisp” and precise as I remember. Too much slang. Too many fudges.

    Is a SETTEE really a chair? Are PET and cat synonyms? “Pressie” – I don’t know how to express my revulsion at that! I didn’t fill it in for ages because I couldn’t believe the Times would use such rubbish. No wonder I couldn’t get ASCOT, the clue was idiotic.

    Seems like the standard has dropped considerably from the Times Crossword I used to know and love. Have I just been unlucky or are they all like this nowadays. It’s a shame but if they tend to be like this a lot now I’ll probably give up on them.

    1. On reflection I think you have a point with reference to SETTEE which is for two or more people whereas a chair is specifically only for one.

       PET clued by ‘cat’ is a definition by example which is frowned on in many quarters though most regulars around here will forgive use of that device if accompanied (as in this clue) by a question mark, or some other indicator of possible doubt such as ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’.

       I don’t understand what’s ‘idiotic’ about the clue for ASCOT. It may not be the best in the world but it seems perfectly serviceable to me.

       PRESSIE (and PREZZIE for that matter) are in all the usual sources (Chambers, COED, Collins) so are perfectly valid for inclusion. Whether one happens to like their existence and recognition by lexicographers is a matter of personal taste.

       It sounds as if you may be about to vote with your feet which would be sad but fair enough, but if you do stick with it and post here again it would be nice if you could give yourself a name or pseudonym rather than remaining completely anonymous. Most of our contributors sign up for a (free) Live Journal account whereas others put a name of sorts at the end of their message.

       Edited at 2015-11-11 06:12 pm (UTC)

       1. I doubt I’ll be a frequent enough contributor to make it worthwhile to register. I was getting bugged by that last clue so I decided to look it up online. I wouldn’t do that as a matter of course, not that I never get stuck but it generally wouldn’t bother me that much.

          On reflection it wasn’t a bad clue, I’d just missed the more archaic meaning of MASCOT; so fair enough I’ve got to tip my hat to the compiler for slipping that one past me.

          Now I know that neologisms like PREZZIE are considered acceptable as long as they’re in the dictionary (is COED the standard?) I can work with that, distasteful as it is.

          I suppose the same goes for this “definition by example” – if I know about it I can work with it. It still seems like laxness.

          Which leaves SETTEE as the only 100% error, I can let that go as a one off. I’ll try again and see what I think.

          I do have a couple of questions if you don’t mind.

          1) I noticed “alternative” spellings that seemed unusual for a Times Crossword, not a problem but is that more common now or was it just this particular example.

          2) I noticed there was one and only one hidden word, as was always the case in the good old days. Is this still the rule or was it a coincidence?

          1. I’ve only been doing the Times crossword regularly for about 8 years so I’m not the best person to ask about comparisons with “the good old days”, but with regard to alternative spellings it did seem odd to me to have two lesser-known alternatives in the same grid in this puzzle so I’d conclude it’s not a regular occurrence.

             Since the change of editorship (last year?) it’s very difficult to know what current policy at the daily Times is but I’d say it’d be unusual to have more than one pure hidden answer per puzzle. You may find this of interest: http://times-xwd-times.livejournal.com/174088.html. It dates from 2008 but seems to me to be holding up quite well judging by my everyday experience of solving. It was written by TftT’s founder who is now the Sunday Times crossword editor.

             1. That’s marvellous, even answers to the questions I hadn’t thought of yet.

                He says no more than one hidden word but not that there always is one. I suppose it’s good to keep us guessing.

                Thank you for your responses.

31. I think this spelling is correct. “Extrovert” is formed by analogy with introvert. No-one writes intravert though “intra” exists and “extro” doesn’t.

Comments are closed.