Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

This one proved a little too difficult for me - the jigsaw shapes made be give up though I solved almost all the clues. Off to Paris for the Rugby (I will force myself to cheer England as they were desperately unlucky whereas my beloved Wales played badly). Will miss next weeks so the best of luck to you all.

Just got back and checked my grid - I still make it 24. I can see that the 6th 'Pieces' clue answer could end in a letter that is used in the quote, but the way I understand the clue it should end with the same letter it starts with. Apart from that I can't see anything to lose to arrive at 23.

Drxx (at 88) - yes on re-counting I also have 24 letters not used in the quotation. Obviously, I did not make myself clear when I referred to four letters within the block of nine, What I meant was that four of them are not used in the quotation. At one time I thought that the line of symmetry was the centre-line of the grid, but upon reflection this cannot be right. I have now shifted to using the centre of the sixth column as the line of symmetry, which does give me a symmetrical block of nine cells in the lower half of the grid, which is the one I was referring to as having four letters not used in the quotation. However, this group of nine cells does not include doubled and tripled letters, so clearly it must be wrong. Having said that, I cannot see anywhere in the grid which does comply with your parameters. Am I looking for a 3 x 3 group, or some other arrangement of nine cells?

Thank you, Smellyharry, The penny dropped with 24d (I had convinced myself the word was rule cycled...grrr). Now for 25d, which I think I have a mental block about.

0pt0 - If you look at the lowest row in the grid that has 3 not-used letters in a row - centred on your new line of symmetry - the first two letters are the double, the next letter is part of the triple (you'll see the other two close by). Now add the other 4 unused letters to make a symmetrical pattern (joined at their edges or corners).

What a delightful puzzle, in the main part -- I thoroughly enjoyed the jigsaw pieces, and found that a very creative and novel touch.

As others have noted, the endgame seems a bit weak. I don't mind an extra chunk of puzzling in the endgame, but didn't get on well with this one. Like others, I initially struggled to see how a block of symmetric cells could be said to "start and end" at the starred cells -- thank you dodgepot@35 for elucidating that. With that condition to box it in, and the letters that are not in the quotation, the solution could indeed be described as unambiguous, but hardly, I think, as beautiful, obvious, or straightforward. In fact, at the moment it seems to me ugly, obscure, and difficult! Like others here, beyond the crude general shape I can't see the significance of it. An emoji? A reference to the films? Not sure. Looking back at all the posts in this thread, as drxx has pointed out, this one does not quite seem to have the value or power the quotation claims for its kind!

And I cry foul for the quotation. The author given did not write the quotation in the form we are expected to find (33 letters). He wrote another form, with a different fifth word, and then a few years later he wrote another form which omits the third word. And the well known form of the quotation actually appears in print several years before either of his versions. There's a Wikipedia article (titled, of course, as per the well known form of the quotation) whose 'History' section sets it all out in neat and verifiable detail.

So I've just had a nice cup of tea to wash away the taste of the endgame. Many thanks to everyone here who posted trying to help, delicately, to clarify it. Well done everyone who has got there. I'm going to remember the jigsaw pieces fondly and now put the rest out of my mind. Many thanks, Xanthippe, for a delightful and original grid fill.

Sorry, mooncow, I have to disagree with you on a number of points.
The quotation, as it appears in the puzzle, is exactly the same as the single entry for it in the ODQ. Even the wiki entry you mention states, ''the phrase is generally attributed to...'' (the thematic person) so I can't see any reason to claim a different 'author'. It then gives the source of the quote together with the quote as it appears here. There is a footnote to the wiki piece showing a facsimile copy, it gives the original source in Chinese characters with, again, the same phrase in translation. It also has an image that bears some resemblance to the highlighting (which, I agree, is not 'beautiful' by any means) and it bears the signature of the thematic person. I really can't see how Xanthippe could have been more precise.
I also fail to see how anyone can fail to see what the highlighting represents. Even allowing for the perennial problem of depicting any object in crossword format (using oversized squares) this one really is obvious - what else could it possibly be?
Clearly some solvers have struggled with the endgame, but I believe the problem is more to do with the offset symmetry than the image itself, because the image really is iconic. I've been seeing it from childhood in graffiti, seen it typed out horizontally in hundreds of texts, and never a day goes by without me seeing it scores of times in emoji form (it's in this thread!). I'm sticking with 'unambiguous and obvious'.

On second thoughts, there is one thing Xanthippe could have done - given us both initials and ruled out the other person altogether. Any comparison isn't going to favour this image.

I would like to thank Cypherhouse, Schorley, Buddy, Smellyharry and Drxx for helping me with this puzzle. I have finally limped over the line and I now realise what a silly clot I have been! I had, of course, read the preamble, but my feeble brain had failed to take in the clearly stated fact that all nine of the letters to be erased are not used in the quotation. Once I had got that into my thick scull, the symmetrical nine cells became obvious (as has been stated by more than one contributor to this thread). By failing fully to understand the preamble, I have wasted a lot of my own time. I do hope that those of you who have helped me do not regard it as a waste of their time. If so, I apologise. Looking forward to the next Listener and this time I will make sure I read the preamble properly! Thanks again folks.

Glad you got there, 0pt0 - I had an inkling that might be the problem when you posed the question a second time (I should have come straight out with it instead of going all around the houses again - sorry about that).