pumpkinstrokemarrow

The first post-Drabble jigsaw, the effect of which was to make the experience a little more self-conscious than it already was. But it was not damaged in the way that experiences sometimes are when you know too much about them.

The second puzzle from Waddingtons, with the style of the thing much like that of the first and the solution proceeding much like that of the first (see June 4). So on the basis of this sample of 2, I think I quite like their sort of puzzle.

My only complaint is that the picture on the box has not been trimmed right, losing around 1cm all round the picture on the puzzle itself. This was not a problem top and bottom but it did cause some confusion left and right. Surely it is no big deal to get the picture on the box right? I can see that getting the colour on the box and on the puzzle the same might be a challenge but surely not the shape? Should I write to someone about it? How do I find out to whom to write if Waddingtons no longer exist as a company? But maybe living on as a brand name owned by a Chinese gentleman?

So edge, then boats then water. Skyline then sky, this last including correction of an error in the top edge, an error which slowed things down for a while.

Housetreeline, then working out from that line, the houses. The pieces were strongly keyed by content so, despite the numbers, most of the time I was able to pick out an interesting piece from the heap, find its neighbours and place it on the puzzle. Little need for serious searching, that is to say searching for the piece to fill a particular hole and no need for sorting.

Finish off with woods and hill side. These made much easier by their being a high proportion of non-standard pieces. Having sorted the pieces - there not being that many of them by this time - by type I was able to place most of them by eye without much need for trial and error.

In the intervals pondered a little about the sad case of a woman whom a headline in the DT tells me is going to be force fed lest she starves herself to death. I did not read the story, but I would be surprised if I had found it satisfactory, starting from the position that if someone wants to starve themselves to death, that is a matter for them. One might make an exception in the case of a child, but it would be an exceptional child with the will power to do such a thing. And one might make an exception in the case of someone who was seriously disturbed - but in this case I do not think that wanting to starve oneself to death should, in itself, count as evidence of disturbance. And then there is the unpleasant business of the assault involved. I understand that feeding someone who seriously does not want to be fed, force feeding, is a seriously unpleasant business for all concerned.

I am not impressed by the argument that if one keeps the person alive against their will, that person might, one day, change their mind and come to be glad that you had. If one lets them have their way in the first place, the question of changing mind no longer arises - there is no mind - but at least what had been the mind had been allowed, in the words of the song, to do it their way. And what about all the people who do not change their minds and who have to drag out a miserable life to the bitter end? There are no prizes for heroism in that department.

PS: what is causing the faint highlighting by whiter than average background in the fourth and fifth paragraphs above? Nothing that I intended to do. By coincidence, Word started doing a lot of stuff I did not intend it to do yesterday: has some demon got into my fingers?