Subject:      PCWC 62; the winner and the voting
From:         Jake Bergmann <jbergmann@bbn.com>
Date:         1996/09/25
Message-Id:   <52bkib$q94@info-server.bbn.com>
Newsgroups:   rec.puzzles.crosswords

Congratulations to Ed Coulson, first place in the 62d running
of the People's Clue Writing Contest, for his clue

   Will subject matter change?  Neither can I!  (11)


Ed is invited to moderate PCWC 63.




The scoring summary and all the comments follow.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was pleasantly surprised to see so many good anagrams, and dismayed
at the lack of good charades. 

A tough word.  Lots of anagrams, but I kind-of expected that.
I'm not too pleased with the "double-definitions" which are
really just rephrasings of the same definition.

Too many anagrams and most of them ho-hum.

"Inheritance" proved to be a word where anagrams and tortured 
charades reigned, but thank heavens for the bonus clue section, 
which showed how truly awful a hidden word or homophone clue of  
this word can be!  I found a lot of the definitions to be strained. 

Wow, did this word scream "anagram", or what?  Surprising
to me, though, was how varied the fodder was, and how
well-used.  Unlike past PCWCs where I have felt there were
a number of mediocre to decent clues with one or two stand-
outs, here I felt half the clues were quite good, with 
almost as many being pretty weak, and only one or two 
falling in the midrange.  Makes scoring easier.  :-)



-------------------------------------------------------------------

1st place (score 81.09%) - clue 5
From "N. Edward Coulson" <fyj@psu.edu>

    Will subject matter change?  Neither can I !  (11)

Votes (normalized): 50 67 70 81 88 93 100 100

First of the willing clues! I like it. Might be even better without
"matter" as then the anagram fodder is ambiguous - "will subject"
or "neither can i".

Very good anagram.  Superior job.

Good construction; I like the definition, and working it in with
a grammatical shift is always a feature.  But in the surface reading,
while each sentence is fine standing alone, they don't go together.

Abstain on my own clue. I see now that the surface leaves a bit to
the imagination.  I hope not too much.

Excellent anagram clue with good definition and surface. Drop the "!". 

Nice masking of definition -- '?' is probably appropriate
as it's not really a straight definition (there are other
subject matters in wills besides inheritances).  Would be
more comfortable if you left the '!' off.  I think it
detracts more from the cryptic than it adds to the surface.

Very good clue in all respects:  very crafty concealing of the
definition, and a very acceptable indicator well-integrated with
the surface.

nice use of will subject matter.  Surface is not
great however

-------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd place (score 76.11%) - clue 8
From Clay Colwell <eris@bga.com>

    Scattered rain, then ice, will result (11)

Votes (normalized): 38 53 63 67 83 90 92 100 100

Not sure that "will result" is really a good definition. A will is 
a document rather than a process.

Yet another solid anagram

But it's only *September*!  <whimper>
Fine clue - second place after the Anne Rice one.  Once again,
excellent surface and a nice definitional play on "will".

Looks like the winner to me.  Compact, good straight definition, good
anagram, only weakness is obvious indicator.

OK clue, but dull, and with a choppy surface. 

I think a '?' would have "iced" it, since wills don't 
*necessarily* result in inheritances.  But very nice!

Another nice anagram indicator which is compatible with the surface.
Somehow, the definition doesn't quite appeal to me.

A great clue from solver's perspective.  Will result
looks like the anagram inidcator and scattered the definition

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3rd place (score 73.24%) - clue 7
From Pete Mitchell <pwm@mv.mv.com>

    Anne Rice hit novel is a source of blood money? (11)

Votes (normalized): 38 50 63 63 80 83 83 100 100

Obvious anagram fodder especially as an obscure name is involved.
(And any clue that requires two inches of explanation...)

Another nice anagram

The winner.  Excellent surface and nicely tricky definition.

Lovely anagram, but the definition is weak, weak, weak.

Amusing clue with good disguise of anagram indicator and a great 
surface.  Thought "source of blood money" was a little shaky as  
a definition. 

It's mine.  I like it.  I voted for it.  So sue me...  :-)

Nice thematic tie between references to "blood" and Ms. Rice,
and an indicator which fits in well with the surfaced.  The only
false note is "hit novel" in the surface, as I rarely see "hit"
as a synonym for "bestseller" with regard to books (it's more
commonly applied to recordings, movies, etc. as far as I can tell).

if surface were better, I would excuse the
weak definition

-------------------------------------------------------------------

4th place (score 66.15%) - clue 14
From bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)

    One kind of tax can tie her in knots (11)

Votes (normalized): 50 50 52 60 63 63 75 83 100

Lovely clue. Came top equal with two others, but won on the tie-
break.

Knots is a fine anagram indicator.  Good solid clue

Not bad, but the anagram indicator is poor.  I agree that knotting can
refer to anagramming, but the inflection is wrong -- to be used in this
position it would need to be "knotted".

A good clue,  I find "one kind of tax" to be a very fair straight 
definition.  Whether "knots" is a decent indicator I am not sure, but
this is a placewinner nevertheless.

I like "knots", but the way the clue is constructed, it should be 
"knotted" or "in knots", and the latter version uses your "in" that 
is needed for the fodder.  Liked definition. 

Not bad.  Not as inspired as some, but functional and smooth.

A good clue in all its parts.

Solid clue but not a great surface

-------------------------------------------------------------------

5th place (score 65.10%) - clue 2
From Matthew Merzbacher <matthew@mills.edu>

    Turn in a rich teen -- possible motive for patricide (11)

Votes (normalized): 33 38 50 63 63 83 92 100

There's something about the surface that didn't click. Did the father
die because he grassed on the lad?

My feebleness.  Abstain.

Third place after Anne Rice and the weather forecast.
Nice and smooth.

The straight definition is too obscure, though a bit clever.  

Liked the definition, and anagram is OK, but the surface doesn't 
make sense to me. 'Turning him in' is a motive?? 

Very nice.

Nice, police-blottery surface (with shades of Menendez!); decent
definition.  Not a mind-blowing indicator, but it blends in well
with the surface.

Is turning in a teen a reason for patricide?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

6th place (score 55.51%) - clue 10
From jose@math.duke.edu (Greg Lawler)

    Their canine chewed up what was left  (11)

Votes (normalized): 25 33 38 46 47 75 75 80 81

Left over from PCWC61 no doubt. Fairly obvious anagram.

Darned canines -- didn't they know that was the previous puzzle?

Acceptable, but the awkward "canine" points to the anagram.

Weak definition

"Canine" is stilted and signals probable fodder, but a good surface; 
I thought the definition was a little too generic. 

Perhaps if Dracula had fed them...  :-)
Nice clue; nice link to previous contest.  Definition is a
touch vague.

Hmm.  A nearly dead ringer for my bonus clue.  As such, I'm 
compelled to give it some credit, not it's not top dog (sorry!).

solid with good definition but canine sticks out in
the surface reading

-------------------------------------------------------------------

7th place (score 50.21%) - clue 6
From bcs@harriseda.com (Brian Spollen)

    Herein I can't be broke! (11)

Votes (normalized): 17 38 38 38 47 63 80 83

Not sure I understand the straight definition.

Clever job.

Wrong definition; "herein" means "in this" or "in this circumstance".
An inheritance is a thing, not a circumstance.  Further downgraded for
cliche "! for &lit" punctuation.

Extra marks for the &lit try but the straight definition is too 
vague.

The &lit. definition just doesn't make it.  Nice try, though. 

"Be broke" be pretty bad grammar as an anagram indicator,
and the definition assumes wealth on the part of the deceased.
Other than that (and even despite it), I really like the clue.

nice try, but there is no definition

-------------------------------------------------------------------

8th place (score 45.44%) - clue 12
From Evan Whitney <evan@scd.hp.com>

    One cent an heir recovers! (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 11 13 40 50 50 63 83 100

I'm not sure that "recovers" works as either an anagram indicator
or provides the right meaning in the straight definition.

I'm soft for &lits.  Nice job

The &lit is well constructed and the clue is agreeably smooth and
terse.  Downgraded for cliche punctuation "! for &lit"; a "?" would
suit this one better, as an inheritance is *usually* more than 1 cent.
"Recovers" as an anagram indicator is also strained.

First, any cryptic that requires a paragraph-long explanation can't
be that good.  And second, using "heir" in anagramming "inheritance"
is a definite no-no. And 'recovers' as an anagram indicator is weak.

Ugh! 

Similar complaint as #11.  "Heir" and "inheritance"
are too close for comfort.  I don't penalize for
partial anagrams, as I find them fair, but I'm sure
someone will.

Fails on several accounts:  "heir" is the etymological root of
"inheritance", and so shouldn't be used in the cryptic; the
anagram is indirect (the solver must substitute "I" for "one"
before anagramming).  The definition and anagram indicator
are adequate, but not great.

nice try but no cigar

-------------------------------------------------------------------

9th place (score 44.91%) - clue 13

    DNA discovered in twisted entire chain (11) 

Votes (normalized): 0 25 38 38 42 46 50 67 100

Surface is a bit twisted making the anagram obvious. Also DNA is
more an example of an inheritance than the definition of it.
"DNA, for example, has entire chain twisted" reads better.

Nice surface, though DNA is more the transport mechanism for an abstract
concept of "inheritance" than a proper defn.  At any rate, perhaps
"Genes" would have been better.

Awkward surface reading due to word unnatural order.

Another straight definition I don't really care for.

"Entire" is a little stilted and signals probable fodder. 

I don't think DNA is a viable definition for "inheritance".
Sure, it's a *vehicle* for inheritance, but that's not 
enough.  Also, I find the surface quite awkward.  I mean,
"in twisted entire chain"?  Too contrived.

"DNA" is only a glancingly proper definition; perhaps I'd like
it better with a pun indicator ("?"); "twisted entire chain",
while making a nice reference to a double helix, scans too
awkwardly in the surface.

DNA is not a definition of inheritance
"DNA, for example" might have been acceptable

-------------------------------------------------------------------

10th place (score 34.17%) - clue 9

    Having been left at home, Erica then goes out (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 20 25 33 38 46 58 88

Obvious anagram fodder but much less obvious indicator. The superb
surface makes up for it all.

Who is Erica?  I'm not a big fan of using arbitrary names as anagram 
fodder, since they don't add to the surface (compare with "Anne Rice",
in #7, which is more sound).

Bad definition; "having been left" should clue an adjective or 
equivalent,
but never a noun.

Lousy definition

"Erica" shouts FODDER! Didn't like indirect definition and I don't 
like partial indirect anagrams. 

"Inheritance" is a noun; "Having been left" is a verb.
Surface is weak, and use of proper names without some
apparent justification screams of anagram fodder --
it's just too easy.

Proper names are generally a dead giveaway as to where the cryptic part 
of the clue resides, and this one's no exception; the definition is a 
verb phrase, rather than the noun it should be.

definition is faulty and Erica sticks out

-------------------------------------------------------------------

11th place (score 28.24%) - clue 1

    For the spoils of succession, at home the man is getting some
    sun in the grain. (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 17 25 46 50 50 67

Spoilt by the charade for TAN = "getting some sun". But a good idea.

The surface is pretty cryptic.  I don't like "the grain" for "rice".

Acceptable, but too long and complicated.

Surface is shaky, and rather complicated.

The surface is completely unintelligible. "Getting some sun" would 
equal "tanning", not "tan", or if "getting" was a container indicator, 
then it should be "inhritancee". 

Too complex a construction for such a weak surface, and 
"getting some sun" would be TANNING, not TAN.

A bit lengthy, a bit complicated, a bit too awkward sounding
("getting some sun in the grain" --- what, by injection?); a
clue which tries hard, but itsn't quite elegant enough.  Good
disguising of the definition.

Long and uninspired reading

-------------------------------------------------------------------

12th place (score 26.85%) - clue 11

    Sometimes, trust heredity (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 8 17 27 40 50 50 50

There is absolutely no difference between the two definitions.

Only a 1.5 defn, since these are really the same use of the word.

INHERITANCE has only one basic sense, so no double definition is 
possible.

Like (3) too similar definitions.

This was the only non-anagram clue I liked.  Unfortunately,
I find "inheritance" and "heredity" too closely linked
etymologically, and feel I have to penalize as such.

Another double definition in which there's only a heir's (!) 
difference between the two; at least this one's more compact
than the first.

definitions too similar

-------------------------------------------------------------------

13th place (score 26.39%) - clue 15

    A lot is the result of will power !  (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 13 20 25 25 67 88

I couldn't equate "lot" with an inheritance.

I get the second defn, but isn't the first really the same?

INHERITANCE has only one basic sense, so no double definition is 
possible.
On top of that, "a lot" is not a definition of it anyway.  Last place.

I don't get it

"Will power" is not, IMHO, a correct definition, as it refers to the 
ability to GRANT/DEFINE/DENY an inheritance, not the bequest itself. 
.."a lot" is somewhat obscure as the other definition. 

A couple of points for effort, but the result doesn't make
it.  Double definitions should define two *different* senses
of a word.

Very "iffy" definitions, in my book --- imaginative, but perhaps
a little too indirect.  As for being an &lit, only if one grants
an even more punny interpretation of a definition.

Faulty, but enjoyable.  This is the kind of pun that doesn't
follow the rules yet it feels like a good clue.  Second best.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

14th place (score 23.96%) - clue 4

    With it the traffic warden interferes from here and gets what's 
    coming to her (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 17 17 25 33 38 63

I prefered my bonus entry, but I didn't think it was PCWC-compatible,
so I was desparate with this charade.

"traffic warden" -> RITA is a bit indirect.  I think you could have 
gotten
away just fine with "meter maid".  Overall, the order of the charade is
a bit contorted.

A meter maid deals with parked cars, not traffic, which is moving cars;
this error makes the already mildly obscure reference impossible.
Also, this is too long, and "gets" takes no part in the cryptic.

If you had used "Meter Maid" there would have no points off for this
usage but using traffic warden does make it obscure.  And the straight
definition is no definition at all.

Too obscure for me! Didn't like "interferes" as inclusion indicator; 
the definition is too indistinct for a quality clue. 

Too obscure, with nothing in the surface to make it
worthwhile.  I remember "Lovely Rita", and would have
*never* have gotten there from "traffic warden".  Why
not just "meter maid"?  Even that would be tough for
many, but at least it's *arguably* fair.

It *is* too obscure, IMHO; there's absolutely no reason not to
have used "meter maid"; doing so would certainly not have given
away the clue, and been that much fairer (and even then could be
considered by some to be too obscure).  Other than that, a decent 
clue all-around.

Better than 1, but still pretty long

-------------------------------------------------------------------

15th place (score 18.06%) - clue 16

    Will I enter China? Maybe.  (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 8 13 15 25 33 69

A will is not an inheritance - see the other clues that have "will
favour" or "will subject" to see the distinction.

A will is not an inheritance -- it specifies one (or more)

Wrong definition.  A will is not an inheritance.

I won't not be the only one who points out that an inheritance
is not a will.

"Will" does not equal "inheritance".  I found "Maybe" to be a  
somewhat inadequate indicator, but in the clue, it's obvious. 

"Will" isn't a valid definition, IMO.  A will is a document
or intent, while the inheritance is the subject of the will.
You don't inherit a will.

Weak anagram indicator and an even weaker definition outweigh
the pretty good surface.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

16th place (score 9.17%) - clue 3

    Good breeding? Descendants may benefit from it! (11)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 0 10 13 25 25

There is absolutely no difference between the two definitions.

Looks like only a 1.5-definition, since "breeding" is pretty close to
the "legacy" defn.  Also, breeding leads to inheritance - it is not
inheritance in and of itself.

INHERITANCE has only one basic sense, so no double definition is 
possible.

These two definitions are too close to make this an interesting clue.  I
think of myself as less bothered than most by similar-root usage, but
this clue goes too far.

Double definitions are too closely linked. 

Don't buy the definition; don't like the '!'.

Nice try, but I really think that the two definitions are too
close in meaning for my taste.

Two definitions are essentially the same

-------------------------------------------------------------------

BONUS CLUE COMMENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 17

    Will favor founder of the nice Iran (11) 

Extraneous "of" between the anagram fodder and indicator would
have lost this marks. Also "nice iran" shouts anagram.

Cute, but of course, the anagram indicator is defective.
"Founder" is a verb here and doesn't take "of".

Which Iran is that?  :-)

The "nice Iran" doesn't look real good on paper (or tube);
indicator not really appropriate ("foundering", yes; "founder
of", no).

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 18

    Will benefit their acne in treatment (11) 

Reasonably masked anagram, and I liked the "will/will" clues.

As good as about half of the non-bonus clues.

Awkward surface.

Pretty good clue; indicator well-integrated with the surface.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 19

    Their canine chewed something intended for the kids (11)

Put off by the definition.

I'd score this equally with the non-bonus "their canine" clue.

Same structure as #10, but with a better definition. 

Decent.  Would have fallen in the middle of the "pack".  :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 20

    Hit & ran niece brutally to get this! (11)

Did you have to commit nepticide to get your hands on the money?
Some would find the intrusive ampersand - well - intrusive. I didn't.

An inheritance from a niece, eh?  Well, it's possible.
Of course, "ran" is not a transitive verb in this sense.

Terrible surface, but a funny attempt at &lit.  

:-)  :-)  Am I sick or what?  I *really* like this clue!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 21

    Therein, can I upset what's left ?   (11)

"therein" is a bit stilted these days. Makes the anagram obvious.

Okay.

..but what does it MEAN? 

Huh?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 22

    Proceeds from death to right by birth   (11)

There is absolutely no difference between the two definitions. (Cut
and Paste is wonderful!)

INHERITANCE has only one basic sense, so no double definition is 
possible.

Double definitions are too closely linked. 

Two definitions of the same sense of the word.

Yet another two definitions that, for me, differ very little.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 23

    .... you've passed on; it's passed on;... (11)

I prefered this to my proper clue, but thought it a tad unusual to
get anywhere in PCWC.

Cute single-definition clue; I like it.  These ones never do well in
PCWCs due to the "cryptics must have one of these forms" bigots, so
it's as well that this wasn't an entry.

I don't understand how this is a cryptic double def of INHERITANCE. 
It seems to be a def'n of DIE instead. 

So...where's the cryptic?

Huh?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 24

    Secreted within her, It ancestored the Legacy (11)

It's the synopsis for Alien IV, perhaps. Ranks with the better clues.
Might even have got my top marks.

Augh!

The only hidden word and deserves kudos, regardless of the quirky, 
unlikely surface.  Even Stephen King might reject this wording! 

:-)  :-)  Another that I really like.  Sounds like the first
sentence of one of those "blouseripping" romance novels, or
maybe alt.sex.stories.epic?  :-)  Unfortunately, "ancestor"
isn't a verb in any dictionary I've seen.

"Ancestored"?  Has someone authorized the verbing of this noun??

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 clue 25

    Screaming during a trifle: a legal document, drawn up tight, will 
benefit 
    (11)

I couldn't get "trifle" to charade "hair".

I agree with the clue author's comments!

Your courage to construct a homophone for INHERITANCE is admirable. 
Your clue is not. (I thought a "trifle" was something I could EAT?) 

Uhhhh....

Would have been a little more solvable without "a"s before 
"trifle" and "legal document".
