LISTENER CROSSWORD 4022 At arms length by Hotspur

[Clamzy]

Maybe all our prominent members are resting after last week's exertions, so I'll kick off this week's thread. Haven't had more than a glance at it yet and am not too familiar with this setter.

[Cruncher]

Only just finished. Amazed to come onto this thread and find 60 posts already. I, too, struggled with some of the wordplay and misprints - took a long time to justify 18ac - and was also surprised that the editorial team had let through 3dn with the misprint in the wrong place. Found four of hidden entries OK but to had to search a bit for the last two.

Time to dust off the trusty calculator again!

[Rapparee]

For what it's worth I think you can regard 3dn as a double definition clue, so the misprint is in one of the definitions. I agree however that the indirect reference at 18a is stretching it a bit.

For anyone still trying to find the rendezvous take particular notice of the puzzle's title - long a favourite device of setters!

[JackDeCrow]

Well, having spent a long time thinking that the rendezvous had something to do with 52a, I think I've pieced it together now. But does anyone else feel that one of the six pairs just seems a bit less "literary" than the rest?

[Cruncher]

JackdeCrow - I agree, but then the last word of the hidden title doesn't specify "literary"

[JackDeCrow]

No, very true. But I suppose in spite of my comments last week about cartoons and Japanes cinema, I still assume that it is possible to find the answers without resorting to the internet. Now, I only have a concise dictionary of English literature (which frankly was very little use on this occasion), but I can imagine five of the combinations appearing in a fuller version. But not the cat!

[Philoctetes]

Now I am confused. The pairings all seem indisputably "literary", and there is no cat.

[easterfool]

Well here goes. I have only just (literally) finished Salamanca's special - thanks for some of the hints in the previous threads. Now I have to start on Hotspur's effort. I glanced at the current thread and started to panic.
As an introduction (as this is my first effort at joining in) I have been at the Listener for a number of years, with varying degrees of success. I'm really good at making stupid mistakes when copying out, hughlighting and entering.
Probably will be silent for a time as I try to catch up with you high-speed experts.

[Flocko]

EF: I also used to make stupid transcription errors when making a "clean" copy for submission, and typically would have a good half-dozen incorrect entries a year as a result. So now I generally don't transcribe -- I just send in my working copy, as long as it's legible. I don't think neatness counts. Generally the only time I don't do that is when I had to shrink the grid (as I did this week) in order to print the whole thing on one page -- the perennial headache. I believe Mr Green prefers to get submissions on a standard size grid, though I know photocopies are accepted.

I also don't understand this talk of cats. I have a feeling some of us have turned up something a bit too obscure. All the pairings seemed pretty mainstream literary to me.

[JackDeCrow]

I wondered if that might be the case. However, there is indisputably a cat with an amphibious name in a series of books by a lady whose name has just the right sort of ring to it to fit exactly where it needs to fit. (And no, I hadn't heard of it before this week!).

[midazolam]

i agree philoctetes - all literary and no cat - but that is my group - and as i said earlier - with enough detailed searching of other possible members of the second group e.g. the vast number in wikipedia with b***, i am sure other possible members that could have been included in the first set will be found.

i am happy with my groups, but if one did find others and sent proof with their solution then surely they cannot be marked wrong

[JackDeCrow]

One would certainly like to think so. However, haven't posted mine yet (or indeed written over the pencil that I always start with yet) so on balance I think I will be having a look for an additional, more mainstream entry this evening !

[Walterloo]

easterfool - You're not alone. I remember an amazing mistake I made in highlighting last year. Can't remember the puzzle title, but it was the nine of diamonds/Scottish curse one, where highlighting of the diamonds was required in the 'appropriate colour' (red of course) in order to create a lopsided playing card. After spending ages finishing the puzzle I then sent it off with the diamonds highlighted in green. I can still remember the blood draining from my head when I realised my mistake an hour after posting it.

[Walterloo]

easterfool - P.S. Good luck with the puzzle.

[midazolam]

you have just confirmed my point JackDeCrow. If you submitted your grid even though there is a more well known member of the second group out there (according to wikipedia), it surely cannot be marked wrong. There are no guidelines as to how well known these members are to be. Your example is just as obscure to me as one of the others - but that is just my poorly read brain.

[JackDeCrow]

Ah hah - a louder but rather more satisfactory member of group 2 has come to my attention. Phew. Really must get back to work.

[JackDeCrow]

I'm sure you're not poorly read, Midazolam! It will be interesting to find out how many "unexpected" answers are received for this one.

[uncletony]

I'm not so sure about alternatives in this instance, Midazolam. I've been marked wrong before with a solution that was technically correct, but "obviously less satisfactory" than the required answer.

In this case, I'd be surprised if there is an alternative whose second member is in the same league as the ones intended.

On the positive side, there is always the chance of getting the reasoning wrong but the highlighting right.

[JackDeCrow]

Unfortunately, in this instance, it would have led to highlighting something different in group 1!

[cluelessJoe]

Wow - started this late and only just finished ... 78 posts already! Have not read all, so sorry if I'm repeating something already said, but here's my two-penn'orth. Everything comes together very cleverly in the end, however I suspect that the elegance of the endgame left the editorial team somewhat dazed. There are a few dubious clues, at least one wrong definition, and some serious transgressions of the Listener's own published 'rules' on unchecked letters (eg 4-letter answers with 2 unch's!).
The tidy finish only just salvaged this from being unsatisfactory - though I suspect there will be quite a number of less forgiving purists out there!

[midazolam]

i totally agree uncletony and i feel there is only one correct entry here. I just find it difficult sometimes to know where to draw the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory. If there was a specified reference book stated in the preamble that contained them all, then i would be all the more content