Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

20d was too subtle for me. I wrote in the answer quickly but lack an elegant parsing. There's a boatload of discussion upthread, but I haven't studied the posts.

There’s nothing subtle about 20d, geeker, in my view. There’s something of the emperor’s new clothes about this. The clue is “Ranges (6)”, and the answer is a double definition. One is range, and the other half is the final letter, in the NATO alphabet.

All well and good, up to a point. But where is the indication to split the clue word? And why there? A good crossword clue should have more than a string of letters in which you make a random break to create two definitions.

A clue for “millimetre” which read “Midsummer’s length (10)” might be acceptable because mid indicates the centre of summer, hence mm, in my view. But with no such indicator “Ranges” doesn’t work for me.

I agree with your parsing and comments, quisling. The letter gimmick could even be paired in some sense with the just-mentioned 13a.

OTOH, I go by the rule stated in the Harpers crossword preamble: "As always, mental repunctuation of a clue is key to its solution." Which could suggest that an indicator to split the clue word is unnecessary.

Interesting, geeker. I’m guessing you’re US-based. It wouldn’t be the rule here, I think. Printer’s Devilry or repunctuation would always be mentioned in that context.

You are quite right about the similarity with 13a, but that at least has the indication of where the B is to be located, even if it’s the answer rather than the clue. It has been creeping into the Guardian of late, certainly, but their editing has always been laissez-faire. I thought this was a step too far, but I’m well aware I’m a purist in these matters!

And Harper’s does say “mental repunctuation …”I presume that’s a nod to Ximenes’ dictum “You need not mean what you say, but you must say what you mean”, otherwise why add mental? So for me that doesn’t excuse it

While not excusing the clue, it’s worth adding that Philistine has something of a track record for these single letter separations. It’s been referred to as his trademark, though it’s probably too big an ask to expect solvers to know that. I’ve copied some of his earlier clues below. In each of these, however, there is definition and wordplay and in the first two a “?” at least.

Games of shaven swine? (5)
SPORT

Serious grant? (5)
GRAVE

Stop and chat (5)
SPEAK

Many thanks to geeker, jono and quisling for explaining these two clues, and for pointing out the issue they raise. I now see how they work, though a quick perusal of the further examples just provided left me ‘rebaffled’. I’m ok with both answers parsed in this way - they’re clever and unusual.

Thanks Jono, for the background. I had forgotten shaven swine was Philistine’s. I think this one is even worse, actually, so I shall stop doing his puzzles as a meaningless protest. I would like someone to explain why the clue is acceptable in the absence of a separation indicator. But no one has, so I guess we just have to take it that Philistine is allowed to do it. Well not by me, he isn’t!

I’m beginning to wonder what crossword editors do. In yesterday’s Times cryptic, a clue read “Crowd turmoil with fellow knocked out by clubs (7)”. The intended answer was CLUSTER, I think, but a sizeable minority went for CLUTTER. I think both are defensible. What’s your view?

I think CLUSTER is the better answer, but it qualifies as a “cook” (borrowing the term from chess).