Variety Cryptic: Digital Dexterity

Comentarios

• Hector 🤓52:25 · 2024-01-21T22:21:17.849Z

  That was fun! Thank you.

  Report
  • JWords constructor · 2024-01-21T23:03:01.544Z

    Thanks for solving!

    Report
• Aaron Riccio 38:10 · 2024-01-22T15:12:26.413Z

  Plonked the theme quick from what 6A had to be, but was ultimately stuck by some words I just didn't know (16D, I think is C+mARRy+E+/for/, not sure where the first letter comes from) and some tough parses/definitions (like the deceptive 24D, which I think is NE for "upright on a map" and maybe also somehow a double def for "not"?). That's more to do with me than anything with your cluing though, which I thought was ultimately tough but fair, and more importantly, fun. (Like, the definition E'ER for "incessantly" without any poetic qualification is hard!) I'll keep noodling on 12A (I thought it was removing artist RA, but I'd then be looking for proportions for RATIOS), 20A (somehow w->FR in weight?), 39A, 30D, etc.

  I really loved 15A, 33A, and 35A!

  Report
  • JWords constructor · 2024-01-22T18:05:52.270Z

    Thanks so much for the really useful feedback! This was the first time I constructed a barred grid of this size and although I'm mostly happy with the fill there are certainly some words that leave a bit to be desired, plus too many 3-letter words. Also, some of the thematic answers were obscure by necessity, which isn't ideal. THREEPS, for example, is the only word in Chambers (along with its variants) containing 'three' which isn't a reference to the number (like, say, threefold). Although I'm aware I couldn't totally avoid number references.

    I'm glad to clear up the clues you've mentioned:

    16D: That's the correct parse, C=caught, which all the other wordplay elements 'neighbour.'

    24D: Correct parse again, 'not' is the definition (per Chambers) but could probably use an obsolescence qualifier, and 'upright on a map' is the cryptic second definition.

    Re EER: I agree, that's a really tough definition. My thinking was that the wordplay was simple enough to even it out, but perhaps it needs an adjustment. Also, this answer (along with NE) is totally checked in the grid, which I used to justify tougher clues — perhaps wrongly.

    12A: That's the correct parse, just the S comes from 'South'. (RA)TIO+S.

    20A: 'for' with its essential part withheld, and 'weight' losing W=with. F(O)R+(W)EIGHT. Looking back, that first part is definitely not fair to the solver, so I'll probably edit this one.

    39A: Take time=T off GET STEVEN (ref: Steven King). GET+S(T)EVEN. I really like the surface here, but the wordplay is super tough, especially considering the last 5 letters are effectively unchecked other than by the gimmick. Hmm.

    30D: THRE(AD)+EPS

    Thanks again, next time I attempt a puzzle of this scale I'll try to find some test solvers to iron out the wrinkles!

    Report
    • Aaron Riccio 38:10 · 2024-01-22T19:44:56.698Z

      30D is totally fair in wordplay, just a word I didn't know (as you acknowledge from the dense constraints). Are 39A, I agree that the surface is nice, but the author is STEPHEN, not STEVEN; I don't think I've ever seen his name spelled the way you need it.

      You might get a kick out of this recent variety cryptic if you haven't seen it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/need-a-lift-saturday-variety-puzzle-january-13-b0c0c86f.

      BTW, just in case it's not clear, I admire everything you were doing here. Cryptics are very hard to write, and variety puzzles are even tougher. I streamed six different ones last week (including the WSJ one linked above) and it helped me get clarity on personal pain points.

      Report
      • JWords constructor · 2024-01-22T22:58:33.263Z

        39A: Whoops, that is embarrassing!! Thanks for pointing it out, will change that clue. Will be a good opportunity to make it a bit fairer too.

        Thanks for the puzzle recommendation, will definitely check it out! The only American cryptics I’ve really touched so far have been on this site, having stuck to British papers for published cryptics, so will be interesting to see the differences!

        And don’t worry, I didn’t think you were being negative at all. I am still pretty new to setting and your feedback is totally fair and useful. Thanks!

        Report