Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships2 mins ago
Listener 4286 No Robbery! By Radix
71 Answers
Searching this site hasn't found any other threads for this puzzle, so here goes!
I thought this was the toughest puzzle for some time. It took me several hours last night before the penny finally dropped as to what was going on with all three types of clue.
As with all of Radix's puzzles, the clues were tough (but fair) and the construction was exceptional - how on earth would you ensure such a neat final grid with all the constraints imposed therein?
A puzzle which is a fitting tribute to a very able gentleman. Many thanks, Radix.
I thought this was the toughest puzzle for some time. It took me several hours last night before the penny finally dropped as to what was going on with all three types of clue.
As with all of Radix's puzzles, the clues were tough (but fair) and the construction was exceptional - how on earth would you ensure such a neat final grid with all the constraints imposed therein?
A puzzle which is a fitting tribute to a very able gentleman. Many thanks, Radix.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emcee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One of Roddy's nephews here - a few family members (non-Listener solvers) are trying to solve this one as a bit of a tribute, and it's not going well.
Are there some conventions we ought to know in Listener puzzles which don't apply elsewhere?
I'm thinking both of the actual clues (some of the ones we have solved don’t seem at all fair to me, but whether that’s because I don’t understand the rubric or because the Listener has different crossword rules to what I’m used to, I’m not sure. (or of course, because we haven’t got the point of the clue, which might well be the case)
Which brings me to my next question – is guessing what ambiguous rubric means all part of the fun, or not? We’ve come across a number of clues which can be solved sensibly if we take out a word – as per the second category of clues in the rubric – but the word can’t so far as we can see be put back into the clue so as to make it either make sense or to be properly soluble. Is that because ‘likewise added elsewhere’ doesn’t mean ‘likewise added elsewhere in the same clue’? And if not, where is it to be added? In one of the first category of clues?
And similarly, what does it mean that I have to add the answers to the normal clues into the grid but ‘their grid entries must be deduced’? Does it mean that I just put (say) the answer to 1dn in the slot for some other ‘normal’ clue, say 30 dn? And if so, why not just say that?!
Assuming that trying to guess what the instructions mean is not part of the puzzle, I’d really appreciate it if someone could post an explanation of how the thing works. Not if it’s going to spoil the amusement of others who are still trying to work it out, though, of course.
Are there some conventions we ought to know in Listener puzzles which don't apply elsewhere?
I'm thinking both of the actual clues (some of the ones we have solved don’t seem at all fair to me, but whether that’s because I don’t understand the rubric or because the Listener has different crossword rules to what I’m used to, I’m not sure. (or of course, because we haven’t got the point of the clue, which might well be the case)
Which brings me to my next question – is guessing what ambiguous rubric means all part of the fun, or not? We’ve come across a number of clues which can be solved sensibly if we take out a word – as per the second category of clues in the rubric – but the word can’t so far as we can see be put back into the clue so as to make it either make sense or to be properly soluble. Is that because ‘likewise added elsewhere’ doesn’t mean ‘likewise added elsewhere in the same clue’? And if not, where is it to be added? In one of the first category of clues?
And similarly, what does it mean that I have to add the answers to the normal clues into the grid but ‘their grid entries must be deduced’? Does it mean that I just put (say) the answer to 1dn in the slot for some other ‘normal’ clue, say 30 dn? And if so, why not just say that?!
Assuming that trying to guess what the instructions mean is not part of the puzzle, I’d really appreciate it if someone could post an explanation of how the thing works. Not if it’s going to spoil the amusement of others who are still trying to work it out, though, of course.
"Not if it’s going to spoil the amusement of others who are still trying to work it out, though, of course. "
Unfortunately, I think any explanation posted here would give the game away. The rubric is fair-ish, though interpreting it correctly is tricky!
I think some of the conventions are pretty general to thematic crosswords, and I wasn't aware of any clue that was unfair. A couple of unusual or clever definitions, but variety is the spice of Listeners.
If you want any more specific help then post back here and I'm sure that someone will be happy to share more specific hints in a more private setting. Unfortunately the answers to most of your questions are fundamental to how this puzzle works.
Welcome, as they say, to the madhouse.
Unfortunately, I think any explanation posted here would give the game away. The rubric is fair-ish, though interpreting it correctly is tricky!
I think some of the conventions are pretty general to thematic crosswords, and I wasn't aware of any clue that was unfair. A couple of unusual or clever definitions, but variety is the spice of Listeners.
If you want any more specific help then post back here and I'm sure that someone will be happy to share more specific hints in a more private setting. Unfortunately the answers to most of your questions are fundamental to how this puzzle works.
Welcome, as they say, to the madhouse.
Still struggling, though making some further progress arising from a study of the grid and the clues.
As for the spoiler that people are complaining about, there's a simple solution for those who want to avoid even the slightest hint that might spoil their solving enjoyment or the challenge, and that is to stay away from this site until you've solved the puzzle.
In the days when Listener puzzle secrets were revealed far more openly and frequently on Answerbank, Radix made very clear in discussions elsewhere that he had no problem with that, and even welcomed it as a way to draw in newcomers to the Listener. People are fully entitled to voice their disapproval of offending posts, but it should not be assumed that Radix would have shared their view.
As for the spoiler that people are complaining about, there's a simple solution for those who want to avoid even the slightest hint that might spoil their solving enjoyment or the challenge, and that is to stay away from this site until you've solved the puzzle.
In the days when Listener puzzle secrets were revealed far more openly and frequently on Answerbank, Radix made very clear in discussions elsewhere that he had no problem with that, and even welcomed it as a way to draw in newcomers to the Listener. People are fully entitled to voice their disapproval of offending posts, but it should not be assumed that Radix would have shared their view.
-- answer removed --
Well, thank you, Cruci (if I may). Having been told the method by someone else, I'm bound to say I think the inmates of the 'madhouse' ((c) Jim360)are underestimating the extent of the conventions of this particular world. To me it seems that the rubric simply doesn't describe what is done at all, and that the puzzle would have been far better with the rules explained or at the very least some attempt to describe the ambit within which you were supposed to look. Having said that, I'm sure Roddy knew better than me what Listener solvers expect and find entertaining, and if they like it, which obviously they do, that was the object of the exercise achieved.
I also, personally, don’t much care for crosswords where you have to speculate on whether particular combinations of letters make a word and look them up in dictionaries to check. I’m getting the sense that this is part of the Listener game. All a bit too much like playing Scrabble with professionals for my taste, but it would be a dull world if we all liked the same things, as may possibly have been pointed out before.
More positively, though, the construction is a mind-boggling intellectual achievement, as it seems to me.
Glad you liked the RA Jug. Not my idea, though unanimously and delightedly approved once suggested.
I also, personally, don’t much care for crosswords where you have to speculate on whether particular combinations of letters make a word and look them up in dictionaries to check. I’m getting the sense that this is part of the Listener game. All a bit too much like playing Scrabble with professionals for my taste, but it would be a dull world if we all liked the same things, as may possibly have been pointed out before.
More positively, though, the construction is a mind-boggling intellectual achievement, as it seems to me.
Glad you liked the RA Jug. Not my idea, though unanimously and delightedly approved once suggested.
"To me it seems that the rubric simply doesn't describe what is done at all..."
I think it does... but I only found this out afterwards! This was as about as tough as Listeners come, and certainly I found it very difficult.
Yes, the Listener game does include trying to introduce us to the obscure and (in my opinion) made-up words and variant spellings that I don't see that you can be expected to know without the relevant Chambers Dictionary. It seems to have a fondness for the way Edmund Spenser and William Shakespeare spelled things (badly), so that you get introduced to some bizarre spellings and definitions. In time you can get used to the quirks and almost enjoy being introduced to these, but to start with it's seriously annoying!
I think it does... but I only found this out afterwards! This was as about as tough as Listeners come, and certainly I found it very difficult.
Yes, the Listener game does include trying to introduce us to the obscure and (in my opinion) made-up words and variant spellings that I don't see that you can be expected to know without the relevant Chambers Dictionary. It seems to have a fondness for the way Edmund Spenser and William Shakespeare spelled things (badly), so that you get introduced to some bizarre spellings and definitions. In time you can get used to the quirks and almost enjoy being introduced to these, but to start with it's seriously annoying!
Stunning. To find two dozen examples and then fit them into a symmetrical grid is little short of miraculous and a great candidate for the AGC. Radix was suitably remembered at the setters' dinner; he will be greatly missed.
I don't think that we should be too hard on crosswhit99. I don't think that I would have been helped by his posting. And should we complain about IainGrace's first posting, for instance? The perennial debate about hints suggests that there are three groups of solvers, who can be roughly caricatured as follows: 1. Those who are violently antipathetic to any hints whatsoever, however small and allusive. 2. Those whose are so severely frustrated by being baulked by a puzzle that they desperately need any kind of hint. 3. Those who don't care either way, at least partly because what they get out of the puzzles is the fun of learning something new or being reminded of something old and appreciating the mode of execution. The solution for group 1 is not to log on until the puzzle has been solved (after all the site is called Answerbank); we have said this before, and Scorpius has reiterated it elegantly above. I belong to group 3, and that's what I do (or rather don't do). We shouldn't knock those in group 2--I imagine that their frustration can be intolerable.
jim360: Spenser and Shakespeare didn't spell badly. They spelt differently at a time when spelling was not standard. It was dictionaries that imposed standardization--or standardisation :>).
I don't think that we should be too hard on crosswhit99. I don't think that I would have been helped by his posting. And should we complain about IainGrace's first posting, for instance? The perennial debate about hints suggests that there are three groups of solvers, who can be roughly caricatured as follows: 1. Those who are violently antipathetic to any hints whatsoever, however small and allusive. 2. Those whose are so severely frustrated by being baulked by a puzzle that they desperately need any kind of hint. 3. Those who don't care either way, at least partly because what they get out of the puzzles is the fun of learning something new or being reminded of something old and appreciating the mode of execution. The solution for group 1 is not to log on until the puzzle has been solved (after all the site is called Answerbank); we have said this before, and Scorpius has reiterated it elegantly above. I belong to group 3, and that's what I do (or rather don't do). We shouldn't knock those in group 2--I imagine that their frustration can be intolerable.
jim360: Spenser and Shakespeare didn't spell badly. They spelt differently at a time when spelling was not standard. It was dictionaries that imposed standardization--or standardisation :>).
JohnCox,
"To me it seems that the rubric simply doesn't describe what is done at all, and that the puzzle would have been far better with the rules explained or at the very least some attempt to describe the ambit within which you were supposed to look."
Whereas 'ordinary' cryptic crosswords confine their misdirection to the clues, the Listener extends it to the instructions on how to solve the puzzle as a whole. Radix's instructions here are misleading, of course, but that doesn't mean that they are not fair.
"To me it seems that the rubric simply doesn't describe what is done at all, and that the puzzle would have been far better with the rules explained or at the very least some attempt to describe the ambit within which you were supposed to look."
Whereas 'ordinary' cryptic crosswords confine their misdirection to the clues, the Listener extends it to the instructions on how to solve the puzzle as a whole. Radix's instructions here are misleading, of course, but that doesn't mean that they are not fair.
Indeed - well, evidently the answer to my original question 'is guessing what ambiguous rubric means considered all part of the fun?" is 'yes'. It's not my idea of fun, but each to their own.
Whether it's fair or not can only be judged according to the conventions obtaining in this particular game. I don't think what's done here can possibly be described in ordinary English as 'taking a single letter and adding it to a word elsewhere in the clue'. Letters aren't numbers, and even if they were it's a repeated adding operation not a single one. But if it's within the conventions that operate in this particular world, fair enough. It's doesn't matter what I think, as I said.
Roddy was a mathematician by trade, of course, which I'm not; what does it for me in crosswords is wit and word play. I think you can see that fairly clearly in this puzzle (and his others, actually).
I wish I had the chance to tell him my opinion. He'd have flashed his famous grin and had a dozen persuasive arguments ready to deploy within five minutes, all of which I'd have had nothing to say to at the time but would have thought of a complete answer to over the next week or so.
Whether it's fair or not can only be judged according to the conventions obtaining in this particular game. I don't think what's done here can possibly be described in ordinary English as 'taking a single letter and adding it to a word elsewhere in the clue'. Letters aren't numbers, and even if they were it's a repeated adding operation not a single one. But if it's within the conventions that operate in this particular world, fair enough. It's doesn't matter what I think, as I said.
Roddy was a mathematician by trade, of course, which I'm not; what does it for me in crosswords is wit and word play. I think you can see that fairly clearly in this puzzle (and his others, actually).
I wish I had the chance to tell him my opinion. He'd have flashed his famous grin and had a dozen persuasive arguments ready to deploy within five minutes, all of which I'd have had nothing to say to at the time but would have thought of a complete answer to over the next week or so.
I haven't posted to any Listener threads before, but the references to the Solver Silver Salver make me want to ask if the stats for 2013 have now been published. Last year there was an announcement appended to a puzzle in, I think, February, but I haven't seen one so far this year. I don't want to send an SAE to JEG (and even Radix would have been thwarted by that one) if he hasn't given the green light yet.
Please allow me to offer some thoughts on the 'other site' debate.
I've returned to tackling the Listener after a 20+ year break (work, family, other interests, all the usual). Back then I was moderately successful with the Listener, Azed, New Statesman, Crossword Club etc, in what was of course a pre-digital age. When a stinker got the better of me, I had no option but simply to ignore/abandon it.
Even now I can't devote every waking hour to puzzles, so having access to a little help when needed pushes me on to try and complete. Indeed, I usually glance at this and the other site to see what the 'experts' say, as this may determine whether I bother. In the case of this puzzle, the positive comments made me give it a real try (I'm about halfway through).
The information given on the other site was useful, but only as a way in - the puzzle still needs solving, and simply understanding some of the methodology isn't a guarantee of a completed or correct grid. Is this 'cheating'? Of course not. No more so than bashing Google or, back in the day, heading off to the local library to plough through reference books. I'm on the side of Roddy, who clearly wanted more people to discover the pleasure (and pain) of advanced cryptics rather than keeping them the preserve of a small self-appointed elite.
What I would say is that the preambles now appear more convoluted than those of two decades and more ago. But, equally, the ingenuity of this puzzle and a couple of others recently is remarkable.
I've returned to tackling the Listener after a 20+ year break (work, family, other interests, all the usual). Back then I was moderately successful with the Listener, Azed, New Statesman, Crossword Club etc, in what was of course a pre-digital age. When a stinker got the better of me, I had no option but simply to ignore/abandon it.
Even now I can't devote every waking hour to puzzles, so having access to a little help when needed pushes me on to try and complete. Indeed, I usually glance at this and the other site to see what the 'experts' say, as this may determine whether I bother. In the case of this puzzle, the positive comments made me give it a real try (I'm about halfway through).
The information given on the other site was useful, but only as a way in - the puzzle still needs solving, and simply understanding some of the methodology isn't a guarantee of a completed or correct grid. Is this 'cheating'? Of course not. No more so than bashing Google or, back in the day, heading off to the local library to plough through reference books. I'm on the side of Roddy, who clearly wanted more people to discover the pleasure (and pain) of advanced cryptics rather than keeping them the preserve of a small self-appointed elite.
What I would say is that the preambles now appear more convoluted than those of two decades and more ago. But, equally, the ingenuity of this puzzle and a couple of others recently is remarkable.
I have completed a few Listener Crosswords having discovered them about a year ago but until now have only had success with those referenced on this site as being relatively easy by posters. I have found those posts helpful in giving encouragement to persevere when I may otherwise have abandoned all hope of finishing. This latest Listener was different but as I found myself with a few spare hours (and a few more not really spare) I gave this one a go and have finally got a completed grid and may enter for the first time once the headache departs. I do agree with those who complain about the clarity of instructions but accept they fit within acceptable boundaries for the regulars. Thankfully this site encouraged me to explore wider possibilities that allowed a lot of loose change to drop which was useful without spoiling. Many thanks to posters and compiler alike.
Latest Posts
Getting Irish Gaelic Tv Channels In...
TV3 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.