Kerry JK

@Dean speaking here as a learning constructor (not yet at the accepted stage, but far enough along to get a good look under the hood - check out the excellent blog series linked at the bottom of the Wordplay column for a trip down the rabbit hole), I've come to suspect this is a side effect of the various software packages we use to put grids together. In my case that would be the free online app Crosserville, but they all share datasets. Put simply, software is an invaluable tool that speeds up the process of finding interesting paths from an initial concept, but also a false friend that can dogwalk you into particular sets of fills that everyone else is using at the time. There was a phase last year when I saw the same filler words and clues being repeated on successive days, knew how annoying it was as a solver and resolved to do whatever I could to avoid it in my own work. My current relationship with Crosserville's suggestions has a strong element of Man Vs Machine and I've noticed a real difference between grids I made mostly on paper and those I developed electronically. When and if I get to the point where an actual editor works with me, I will discover whether they substitute my inventive but rubbish filler clues for stock fare, which I could see happening in a busy boiler room. Though at this level it would be like entering a Michelin star kitchen and being made to heat up ready meals.

@ad absurdum having dabbled in stage magic and consequently been around magicians' institutions, silly extravagant gestures will make you fit in just fine. After hours spent rehearsing illusion choreography it's hard to turn it off.

@Chili sorry, but I had to fact check this. Straight away Mirriam Webster gave me two quoted examples from Footwear News (a fine publication I'm sure) and the L.A. Times, from 2025 and 2026 respectively. What's old shall be new again, I guess.

@Jeff B MD I had MONKEYSUIT pencilled for a while.

@Weak as I recall (without going back to check), I think that one used the sequential placement of the theme words as part of the gimmick, giving the solve more than one dimension.

@Jac I don't hate cryptics having grown up with them (quicks and cryptics were the only options for us Brits until the internet brought American grids), but you have to really love smug annoying wordplay to keep on going. We also have the dark memory of the old gameshow 3-2-1, which revolved around legendarily nonsensical cryptic clues pointing to specific prizes, including a dustbin (trashcan) they were trying to eliminate. One example: <a href="https://youtu.be/ckf_6GiLO1E?si=_mEYqgu7UZCmtimU" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/ckf_6GiLO1E?si=_mEYqgu7UZCmtimU</a>

@Bruce >pejorative<. Not perogative. I can't even blame that on autocorrect. Actually, that's a pretty good example of a know-it-all face plant.

@Andrzej Yelling "Nema!" panto-style is also acceptable in some denominations.

@Andrzej "Amen" backwards?

@Andrzej ah, OK. I did wonder about that, after I'd posted. Panto is actually an anglocism, short for pantomime. Here in the UK pantos are traditional theatre comedies usually put on around Christmas time with lots of slapstick, songs, gender switched character roles and lots of audience participation. One of the standard set pieces is where an actor tells the audience an obvious lie, leading to a back and forth of "oh no it isn't", "oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't"... and so on. For ages and ages. Traditional British pop culture, then. For some reason people still think we're classy.