Moving on, here's an entry for the "errata file." In Wednesday's mail bag, I misinterpreted John Ellis's question regarding whether or not diagramless puzzles could be solved with clues as, well, the clues in the puzzle. I thought he was being cheeky and so I gave him a cheeky answer. Wrong. John sets the record straight:
Brendan, of course I know that the puzzle clues constitute the "puzzle," but those weren't the clues I was asking about (Duh!). I wanted to know if the clues/hints regarding starting square and symmetry on the back page of YOUR book were necessary to solve a diagramless. Where I screwed up was skimming the intro pages and not processing the section where Francis Heaney said it could be done but it was hard and probably not a good idea for beginners. (I went back and reread the intro after seeing your blog comment.) Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding, but I kinda wish you would've emailed me before responding in the blog.
BTW, my granddaughter was the only person in her family to actually look at your book and wonder how it was possible to solve such a thing. After I did the first three I explained the process to her. She's a bright curious kid and that's not just a granddad bragging, her test scores are through the roof.
No hard feelings and still your fan,
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, John. And that's the spirit! It's never too soon to indoctrinate the next generation with crosswords.
Share the puzzle. New one on Monday.