Damian Jay Clay's Blog: Bullets from Bohemia
November 19, 2017
Top Five Ways to Make Your Poems Fly
Of late I’ve been offering a great deal of criticism and advice to newly emerging poets and the fantastic writers and artists, Discord channel, Scribes and Scribblers. I love working with developing writers, especially poets, and it’s fantastic to see how many people are getting a taste for writing and reading great poetry.
Over the past few months I’ve found that I’ve often been handing out the same advice. So what I present here is a checklist and solutions for the five most common problems which are holding back people’s poems.
Number One: Conservation of Language
One of the key ways to make your poetry stronger is cut out as many unnecessary words as you can while still keeping the same meaning. To offer an analogy, writing a poem is a lot like making yourself a whiskey and soda – the more soda you add, the weaker the drink.
Take this couplet:
I think that you look very nice in red.
I see your new dress flare as you spin around.
Right away I can see there are a ton of words in there of which we can rid ourselves and keep the exact same meaning:
You look very nice in red.
Your new dress flares as you spin.
That’s a good start but we’re not done yet. That very nice in the first line can be turned into a better adjective. How about:
You look phenomenal in red.
We could go even further and take it down to:
You’re phenomenal in red.
But I don’t like the change to the rhythm that produces. However, I do like the change from look to are, so…
You are phenomenal in red.
With the second line we could edit it down with a rewrite and keep the meaning:
You spin – the new dress flares.
So lets compare the original to the edited version and see which you think is stronger:
I think that you look very nice in red.
I see your new dress flare as you spin around.
You are phenomenal in red.
You spin – the new dress flares.
Number Two: Rhyme-Led
When writing in rhyme you’re essentially restricting the words you’re able to use. Getting a rhyming poem to work can mean hours and hours of effort. It’s a little like doing a Rubik’s Cube: you make a change to one line and all of a sudden you find you have to adjust two more.
The upshot of this is that many new writers trying to work in rhyme sacrifice meaning for the sake of making the rhyming scheme work. Or, alternately, you end up using incorrect word orders and end up making your poem sound as if it were written by Yoda. It gets even harder to do if you’re writing in form. Take this terrible example:
Every night I land upon your stair
For you I want to say I really care.
What I left behind is always there.
I wonder if you like my new cut hair.
Eurgh – don’t do it.
The easiest solution to this is not to work in rhyme until you have mastered it. Keep practising it as you’re producing free verse.
Number Three: End Words
As a form, prose is based on the paragraph, poetry – on the line. Quentin Crisp once gave advice on how to be witty. He said something like, “Leave the most interesting part of the sentence to last.”
There’s a great deal of truth to this and you’ll spot it clearly when looking at a poem. In poetry the weight of each line is with the final word. This means you want to edit your poem to make the greatest use of this, either by rewriting or clever use of enjambments. Take this example:
I take the scrambling rodent in
as Jamey slams the door behind me.
I don’t know where to run or go
or what measures to avoid
the biting teeth and scratching claws.
We can rewrite this to make as much use of end words as possible.
I take the scrambling
rodent in as Jamey slams
the door behind.
Where to run,
or go, or what measures
to avoid the biting
teeth and scratching claws.
Number Four: Unpacking the Abstract
Thinking about it, I should probably have placed this at number one.
Let’s start off by talking about the most common problem and that’s the use of words which describe abstract emotions: fear, hate, jealousy, pain, anger – the list goes on and on. Using these words is a key way to turn off a reader and it’s also lazy writing. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be writing about these things in our poetry, we should, we just have to be clever about it.
Take this stanza:
I really hate you
You take what you need and
then you're through.
If I read that as a first line I’m probably not going to read the rest of the poem. It sounds like teen angst, all bitchy and complaining, and my critical faculties reject it as soon as it’s been read. When you’re trying to get stuff like this across you need to deploy it in a way that subverts the readers critical faculties and force them to create the emotion you want to deliver. You can do this with imagery and tropes. So if we rewrite that line:
Your love is a dead cigarette.
I am your ashtray:
filled and forgotten.
The reader now has to resolve the image and they’ll provide the emotion. So look for those emotion words in your poems and target them for rewriting.
That’s one small part of the equation though. We should be rewriting most anything that’s abstract. Take this line:
The state of the girl makes him sorry.
Here, the reader isn’t going to get much from this abstract statement. If you find something like this in your poem you should look at unpacking it so you really represent and convey the meaning.
Her vest is torn and stained with blood.
The bruises on her face reveal
the vicious hands of mum and dad.
He turns his eyes away.
Number Five: Cliches
Avoid them like the plague. Your poems need them like a hole in the head.
The sky is as black as night
and we fight the good fight.
Rewrite it and it will make your poem stronger.
The sky is now an inky bruise.
Together, we will fight for cause.
Honourable Mention: Antique Language
To be honest I’m glad I don’t see much of this. However, there does remain, for some new poets, an idea that you have to make poetry sound like John Donne.
Just don’t do it. We’re modern poets and we should use out modern vernacular. If thoust breaketh this rule I shall gaol thee and smite thee with the pox.
Over the past few months I’ve found that I’ve often been handing out the same advice. So what I present here is a checklist and solutions for the five most common problems which are holding back people’s poems.
Number One: Conservation of Language
One of the key ways to make your poetry stronger is cut out as many unnecessary words as you can while still keeping the same meaning. To offer an analogy, writing a poem is a lot like making yourself a whiskey and soda – the more soda you add, the weaker the drink.
Take this couplet:
I think that you look very nice in red.
I see your new dress flare as you spin around.
Right away I can see there are a ton of words in there of which we can rid ourselves and keep the exact same meaning:
You look very nice in red.
Your new dress flares as you spin.
That’s a good start but we’re not done yet. That very nice in the first line can be turned into a better adjective. How about:
You look phenomenal in red.
We could go even further and take it down to:
You’re phenomenal in red.
But I don’t like the change to the rhythm that produces. However, I do like the change from look to are, so…
You are phenomenal in red.
With the second line we could edit it down with a rewrite and keep the meaning:
You spin – the new dress flares.
So lets compare the original to the edited version and see which you think is stronger:
I think that you look very nice in red.
I see your new dress flare as you spin around.
You are phenomenal in red.
You spin – the new dress flares.
Number Two: Rhyme-Led
When writing in rhyme you’re essentially restricting the words you’re able to use. Getting a rhyming poem to work can mean hours and hours of effort. It’s a little like doing a Rubik’s Cube: you make a change to one line and all of a sudden you find you have to adjust two more.
The upshot of this is that many new writers trying to work in rhyme sacrifice meaning for the sake of making the rhyming scheme work. Or, alternately, you end up using incorrect word orders and end up making your poem sound as if it were written by Yoda. It gets even harder to do if you’re writing in form. Take this terrible example:
Every night I land upon your stair
For you I want to say I really care.
What I left behind is always there.
I wonder if you like my new cut hair.
Eurgh – don’t do it.
The easiest solution to this is not to work in rhyme until you have mastered it. Keep practising it as you’re producing free verse.
Number Three: End Words
As a form, prose is based on the paragraph, poetry – on the line. Quentin Crisp once gave advice on how to be witty. He said something like, “Leave the most interesting part of the sentence to last.”
There’s a great deal of truth to this and you’ll spot it clearly when looking at a poem. In poetry the weight of each line is with the final word. This means you want to edit your poem to make the greatest use of this, either by rewriting or clever use of enjambments. Take this example:
I take the scrambling rodent in
as Jamey slams the door behind me.
I don’t know where to run or go
or what measures to avoid
the biting teeth and scratching claws.
We can rewrite this to make as much use of end words as possible.
I take the scrambling
rodent in as Jamey slams
the door behind.
Where to run,
or go, or what measures
to avoid the biting
teeth and scratching claws.
Number Four: Unpacking the Abstract
Thinking about it, I should probably have placed this at number one.
Let’s start off by talking about the most common problem and that’s the use of words which describe abstract emotions: fear, hate, jealousy, pain, anger – the list goes on and on. Using these words is a key way to turn off a reader and it’s also lazy writing. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be writing about these things in our poetry, we should, we just have to be clever about it.
Take this stanza:
I really hate you
You take what you need and
then you're through.
If I read that as a first line I’m probably not going to read the rest of the poem. It sounds like teen angst, all bitchy and complaining, and my critical faculties reject it as soon as it’s been read. When you’re trying to get stuff like this across you need to deploy it in a way that subverts the readers critical faculties and force them to create the emotion you want to deliver. You can do this with imagery and tropes. So if we rewrite that line:
Your love is a dead cigarette.
I am your ashtray:
filled and forgotten.
The reader now has to resolve the image and they’ll provide the emotion. So look for those emotion words in your poems and target them for rewriting.
That’s one small part of the equation though. We should be rewriting most anything that’s abstract. Take this line:
The state of the girl makes him sorry.
Here, the reader isn’t going to get much from this abstract statement. If you find something like this in your poem you should look at unpacking it so you really represent and convey the meaning.
Her vest is torn and stained with blood.
The bruises on her face reveal
the vicious hands of mum and dad.
He turns his eyes away.
Number Five: Cliches
Avoid them like the plague. Your poems need them like a hole in the head.
The sky is as black as night
and we fight the good fight.
Rewrite it and it will make your poem stronger.
The sky is now an inky bruise.
Together, we will fight for cause.
Honourable Mention: Antique Language
To be honest I’m glad I don’t see much of this. However, there does remain, for some new poets, an idea that you have to make poetry sound like John Donne.
Just don’t do it. We’re modern poets and we should use out modern vernacular. If thoust breaketh this rule I shall gaol thee and smite thee with the pox.
July 28, 2015
Good Food For Pennies 1
Why is there always so much month left at the end of the money?
We've been having a tight week this week. But don't get sad about it, we're not; it conjures up thoughts of our university days and living on a pittance. That being said, we won't eat nasty food – we have standards, you know!
So as the economy is still pretty screwed (well it still seems so to me) I thought I'd post up a recipe to turn a value can of baked beans into something wonderful, with little more than some readily available spices.
Curried Beans
(serves two)
The first thing to say about this recipe is that you must use a cheap can of beans because they have a very thin sauce and with the spices you're going to be putting in this it's going to thicken up a great deal. The second thing to say is, what follows represents the ideal recipe but don't worry if you don't have everything in stock. So long as you have the curry powder and the beans you're good to go.
Ingredients:
1 can of value baked beans
1 tablespoon of oil
½ tsp of black mustard seeds
½ tsp of cumin seeds
¼ tsp of turmeric
A pinch of asafoetida powder (hing)
½ tsp of red chilli powder
2 tsp of Madras curry powder (or whatever else is to hand)
Optional
Chopped coriander leaves (cilantro)
Method
Heat the oil in a saucepan and test for readiness by dropping a mustard seed in. It should pop at once.
Fry the mustard seeds, cumin, hing and turmeric for a minute, making sure not to burn them and then take the pan off the heat immediately so it will cool down. If you don't do this and add the beans right away you will get a violent reaction as they hit the hot fat.
When the pan has cooled enough, pour in the tin of baked beans. Then stir in the chilli and curry powder then heat the beans as normal.
Add the optional coriander leaves just before serving.
Enjoy.
We've been having a tight week this week. But don't get sad about it, we're not; it conjures up thoughts of our university days and living on a pittance. That being said, we won't eat nasty food – we have standards, you know!
So as the economy is still pretty screwed (well it still seems so to me) I thought I'd post up a recipe to turn a value can of baked beans into something wonderful, with little more than some readily available spices.
Curried Beans
(serves two)
The first thing to say about this recipe is that you must use a cheap can of beans because they have a very thin sauce and with the spices you're going to be putting in this it's going to thicken up a great deal. The second thing to say is, what follows represents the ideal recipe but don't worry if you don't have everything in stock. So long as you have the curry powder and the beans you're good to go.
Ingredients:
1 can of value baked beans
1 tablespoon of oil
½ tsp of black mustard seeds
½ tsp of cumin seeds
¼ tsp of turmeric
A pinch of asafoetida powder (hing)
½ tsp of red chilli powder
2 tsp of Madras curry powder (or whatever else is to hand)
Optional
Chopped coriander leaves (cilantro)
Method
Heat the oil in a saucepan and test for readiness by dropping a mustard seed in. It should pop at once.
Fry the mustard seeds, cumin, hing and turmeric for a minute, making sure not to burn them and then take the pan off the heat immediately so it will cool down. If you don't do this and add the beans right away you will get a violent reaction as they hit the hot fat.
When the pan has cooled enough, pour in the tin of baked beans. Then stir in the chilli and curry powder then heat the beans as normal.
Add the optional coriander leaves just before serving.
Enjoy.
July 23, 2015
Film Review: Ray Comfort's – Audacity
For those not aware, Ray Comfort, often known as The Banana Man, is a creationist preacher from New Zealand who spends his time preaching all over the internet and making a living out of not actually understanding evolutionary theory but telling people it's wrong because he says so.
The Banana Man epithet comes from one of his earlier arguments where he claimed that because you could hold a banana in your hand and eat it, that proved god. For those not aware of him you can preview some of his tomfoolery here.
Recently he's turned his hand to making films. Films which simple people actually pay good money to watch. I did watch his most significant effort, Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith (2012), which consisted of him ramming his microphone down peoples throats and asking them, “How could evolution be true if we've never seen a kangaroo turn into a peanut?”
So I was both vaguely perturbed and bemused when I found out his latest effort was going to be about homosexuality. Would it be a well rounded and intelligently thought out documentary or merely an excuse for Ray to have a go at some cinematic gay bashing while shoving his four inch microphone in the faces of unsuspecting lesbians? Well, today I watched the film and found out.
The film follows the story of Peter, a quiet, implicitly homophobic, Christian who's terminally shy and has a hard time talking to women. He has a dream in which two lesbians are essentially killed by a hater in the most convoluted way it's possible to imagine. The next day he questions his non-homophobic female co-worker about her beliefs and shows her a selection of Ray Comfort's videos which she swallows like a hooker being offered fifty bucks and a huge dick.
Peter gets held up in an armed robbery where he eventually saves everyone by hitting the criminal over the head with a can of vegetables. Two of the guys he saves are hell-bound sinners, sorry, I mean homosexuals and they ask him to dinner to thank him for saving their lives.
At dinner he brings out his Ray Comfort pamphlets and begins to preach to the couple about Jesus. One of them gets upset at being seen as a sinner and walks out, while the other one stays to hear more about why he's going to be damned for eternity and/or possibly to see if he'll get the chance to try it on with Peter.
The film goes on and on, and I don't want to spoil the ending for you. The real thing that needs to be examined are the Ray Comfort segments where he spouts his usual “Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Then you're going to hell.” bullshit, alongside a new, specifically, homophobic argument.
In fact, it's not really new at all. He simply compares homosexuality to stealing, adultery, lust and a myriad of other sins. Why do away with the classics?
He asks a bunch of gay people if they believe they were born that way. When they say, yes, he asks them if they believe people are born wanting to have sex. Then makes the argument that just because you're born wanting sex it doesn't make adultery, sex outside marriage, or homosexuality right. And guess what, all the gay people he shows being interviewed absolutely buy it.
What he fails to point out is that Christianity is set up so that straight people can get married and have sex, and gay people can't do either.
The film's philosophical mise-en-scène is that telling gay people that gay sex is a sin doesn't make you a hateful wanker because that's what Jesus says and if we didn't tell them that we'd be lying. More than this, it suggests that, if you're a Christian, telling gay people they're sinners is your responsibility because tomorrow they might die in an horrific elevator accident.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I failed to point out that on the whole, we don't care what Christians believe about the religion they most likely only follow because it was the one they happened to be born into. Those things are their problem. And, that if you insist on telling gay people that gay sex is a sin then you are a homophobe – your dogmatic justifications are no defence at all.
And I'm prepared to go you one further: if you use your faith to justify this kind of homophobia then you're a low, worthless human being – just like the Banana Man himself. Some people may just see you as an annoyance but those of us who've been watching are well aware of the damage you do.
So, my recommendation is don't watch this piece of shit. I did, but I did this for you, brothers and sisters – wasted 55 minutes of my life watching this shit so you don't have to.
If that sacrifice doesn't get me into heaven, nothing will.
The Banana Man epithet comes from one of his earlier arguments where he claimed that because you could hold a banana in your hand and eat it, that proved god. For those not aware of him you can preview some of his tomfoolery here.
Recently he's turned his hand to making films. Films which simple people actually pay good money to watch. I did watch his most significant effort, Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith (2012), which consisted of him ramming his microphone down peoples throats and asking them, “How could evolution be true if we've never seen a kangaroo turn into a peanut?”
So I was both vaguely perturbed and bemused when I found out his latest effort was going to be about homosexuality. Would it be a well rounded and intelligently thought out documentary or merely an excuse for Ray to have a go at some cinematic gay bashing while shoving his four inch microphone in the faces of unsuspecting lesbians? Well, today I watched the film and found out.
The film follows the story of Peter, a quiet, implicitly homophobic, Christian who's terminally shy and has a hard time talking to women. He has a dream in which two lesbians are essentially killed by a hater in the most convoluted way it's possible to imagine. The next day he questions his non-homophobic female co-worker about her beliefs and shows her a selection of Ray Comfort's videos which she swallows like a hooker being offered fifty bucks and a huge dick.
Peter gets held up in an armed robbery where he eventually saves everyone by hitting the criminal over the head with a can of vegetables. Two of the guys he saves are hell-bound sinners, sorry, I mean homosexuals and they ask him to dinner to thank him for saving their lives.
At dinner he brings out his Ray Comfort pamphlets and begins to preach to the couple about Jesus. One of them gets upset at being seen as a sinner and walks out, while the other one stays to hear more about why he's going to be damned for eternity and/or possibly to see if he'll get the chance to try it on with Peter.
The film goes on and on, and I don't want to spoil the ending for you. The real thing that needs to be examined are the Ray Comfort segments where he spouts his usual “Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Then you're going to hell.” bullshit, alongside a new, specifically, homophobic argument.
In fact, it's not really new at all. He simply compares homosexuality to stealing, adultery, lust and a myriad of other sins. Why do away with the classics?
He asks a bunch of gay people if they believe they were born that way. When they say, yes, he asks them if they believe people are born wanting to have sex. Then makes the argument that just because you're born wanting sex it doesn't make adultery, sex outside marriage, or homosexuality right. And guess what, all the gay people he shows being interviewed absolutely buy it.
What he fails to point out is that Christianity is set up so that straight people can get married and have sex, and gay people can't do either.
The film's philosophical mise-en-scène is that telling gay people that gay sex is a sin doesn't make you a hateful wanker because that's what Jesus says and if we didn't tell them that we'd be lying. More than this, it suggests that, if you're a Christian, telling gay people they're sinners is your responsibility because tomorrow they might die in an horrific elevator accident.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I failed to point out that on the whole, we don't care what Christians believe about the religion they most likely only follow because it was the one they happened to be born into. Those things are their problem. And, that if you insist on telling gay people that gay sex is a sin then you are a homophobe – your dogmatic justifications are no defence at all.
And I'm prepared to go you one further: if you use your faith to justify this kind of homophobia then you're a low, worthless human being – just like the Banana Man himself. Some people may just see you as an annoyance but those of us who've been watching are well aware of the damage you do.
So, my recommendation is don't watch this piece of shit. I did, but I did this for you, brothers and sisters – wasted 55 minutes of my life watching this shit so you don't have to.
If that sacrifice doesn't get me into heaven, nothing will.
July 20, 2015
The Top Five Board and Card Games of Which You've Probably Never Heard
Board gaming is once again cool. Well, cool for geeks. Which means everyone else is just waiting to follow. If you haven't played a board game in a while (like since childhood) you'd be surprised at how far things have moved forward and how much fun these games can be.
So, in reverse order.
Number 5
Twilight Struggle
Publisher: GNT Games
Players: 2
Ages: 13 up
The highest-ranked game of all-time on BoardGameGeek since December 2010 and probably the greatest two player board game since chess, Twilight Struggle recreates the Cold War face off between the USA and the USSR. Each player takes a side and tries to dominate the other with military and political prestige.
Players take turns playing event cards which can be used for points (to enable coups and placement of military units) or they can just let the event play out. The events themselves will usually favour a particular side and even if you use a card that would help the other side for points, the event will still take place.
Just don't bring the threat level up to Defcon 1 or you'll lose the game for igniting a nuclear war.
When you open the box this game may seem a little daunting, so just watch a YouTube play guide and you'll be at one another's throats in no time.
Number 4
Agricola
Publisher: Z-Man Games
Players: 1 – 5 (Yes, you can solo play with this one)
Ages: 12 up
This might be the greatest Eurogame of all time. And I know some of you will be saying you much prefer its successor, Caverna, it must be remembered that this was first and it's still a fantastic game.
You have an empty farm and two farmers. Each round you get to send your farmer to do something like plough a field or chop wood. By doing so, over time, your farm will flourish and you'll even be able to have children, giving you more goes each turn.
But those children, along with the adults, will need to be fed, and the balance in this game is always trying to make your farm grow faster than your opponents while making sure you're doing enough to ensure your family's survival.
At its basis, this game really is that simple, and though most people are flummoxed by it on the first try, by go two, they generally don't want to play any game other than this for a few months.
With different variations and a couple of expansions included, this game could give you a hernia when you pull it down from the shelf, and the sheer number of components might make you a little intimidated but don't worry. Watch a YouTube run through, play your first game and you're in for life.
Number 3
Arkham Horror
Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 1 - 8
Ages: 12 up
This game earns its place by being the best cooperative game of all time – no question. That's right, for once you're not playing against each other but against the board, and my, doesn't it put up a good fight.
Set in the world of Lovecraftian mythos, players take on the role of investigators in H. P. Lovecraft's Massachusetts town of Arkham. Inter-dimensional gates have started appearing all over town, spewing out horrific monsters onto the streets. If the players are to win they will have to defeat those monsters and close the gates before a major enemy like Cthulhu or Nyarlathotep shows up and places the investigators in a do or die fight for their lives.
Of all the games here this one has the most complex set of rules but you'll always have YouTube to help. With a ton of expansions available (we own all of them) this game never gets boring, even after the third time you've been eaten by a Gug.
Number 2
Cosmic Encounter
Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 3 – 5 (the more players the more mayhem)
Ages: 12 up
For those in the USA I suspect Cosmic Encounter will be nothing new, it's been around since the 1970s and seems to be very well established state side. In the UK however, no one seems to know about it, and it's a pity because I can honestly say it is hands down the fastest and most involving interaction game I've ever played. There is very little waiting around in this game, and all that time is filled by delicious, threatening table-talk.
Each player starts with five planets and twenty ships, the idea of the game is to colonise the planets of other players – first to five wins. On your turn you'll pick a card which tells you who you have to attack. The defender and attacker commit ships to the battle, and beg the other players not involved in the fight to come help them out. Then the attacker and defender draw a card from their hand and keep it secret. Each card has a number on it. When the cards are revealed, the number of ships you chose to attack or defend with is added to the number on your card and the player with the highest total wins.
But that's not all. There are special cards like Negotiate, which, if attacker and defender play, gives them 60 seconds to make a deal (or you can tell your opponent you're playing negotiate but then really play a number card and wipe them out), alongside cards like Morph, which matches the total of your opponents card.
It gets even more fun than this, because each player draws a race card at the start of the game which gives them special powers that can quickly turn around the game.
Those are the basics of it. One fun feature it's worth pointing out is that it is possible that more than one player can win the game at the same time, though negotiation or helping out in a battle. Oh, and be prepared for a lot of backstabbing and inflammation of trust issues.
Number 1
Love Letter
Publisher: Alderac Entertainment Group
Players: 2 – 4 (best with 4)
Ages: 10 up
Yes, the number one game on the list has the most awful title known to man. When we've asked our friends if they want to play Love Letter at our game nights there have been a wild variety of faces pulled, from utter disbelief to total exasperation. When we told them the idea of the game is to get your love letter into the hands of the princess it really didn't lessen their sense of embarrassment at the idea. It only gets more uncomfortable when we tell them we play the gay version where we swap out the princess for the prince (included for free in the game).
But one game in and they forget all about their reservations.
The game consists of 16 cards which make up the court, ranging from Soldier which has a rank of 1, up to princess, which has a ranking of 8. Each of the cards has a different effect: the Clown enables you to see one of the other player's hands; the Knight allows you to compare hands with another player – the person who has the lower card goes out of the round.
The round continues until all but one player is knocked out and there is a winner, or, if the cards run out, the person left in with the highest card wins, and their letter gets to the princess. First person to get four letters in the hands of the princess wins.
Okay, so I'll admit, there's nowhere near as much depth to this game as any of the others on the list, but the reason it's made my number one is that it's so easy to get into and so accessible, it's all about player interaction, and, being such a small game it's great to take down the pub or on a train journey. And for a 16 card game, it's an awful lot of fun.
So that's it, my top five. If you've not board gamed for a while you'll be amazed at how far things have moved on. You know how you always hated Monopoly because it was dull and took forever to get to your turn? Well, it turns out you were right.
So I'm going to end with some honourable mentions but keep checking back, as I'm going to do my top 5 party games soon so you'll know what to pick up for the silly season to keep you and yours well entertained.
Okay, from 6 down:
6 – 7 Wonders
7 – Power Grid
8 – Puerto Rico
9 – Zombicide
10 – Pandemic
11 – Ticket to Ride
12 – Castles of Burgundy
13 – Sentinels of the Multiverse
14 – Lord of the Rings LCG
15 – Munchkin
16 – Catan, Settlers of America
17 – Railways of the World
18 – Catan
19 – Eldrich Horror
20 – Robinson Crusoe
So, in reverse order.
Number 5
Twilight Struggle
Publisher: GNT Games
Players: 2
Ages: 13 up
The highest-ranked game of all-time on BoardGameGeek since December 2010 and probably the greatest two player board game since chess, Twilight Struggle recreates the Cold War face off between the USA and the USSR. Each player takes a side and tries to dominate the other with military and political prestige.
Players take turns playing event cards which can be used for points (to enable coups and placement of military units) or they can just let the event play out. The events themselves will usually favour a particular side and even if you use a card that would help the other side for points, the event will still take place.
Just don't bring the threat level up to Defcon 1 or you'll lose the game for igniting a nuclear war.
When you open the box this game may seem a little daunting, so just watch a YouTube play guide and you'll be at one another's throats in no time.
Number 4
Agricola
Publisher: Z-Man Games
Players: 1 – 5 (Yes, you can solo play with this one)
Ages: 12 up
This might be the greatest Eurogame of all time. And I know some of you will be saying you much prefer its successor, Caverna, it must be remembered that this was first and it's still a fantastic game.
You have an empty farm and two farmers. Each round you get to send your farmer to do something like plough a field or chop wood. By doing so, over time, your farm will flourish and you'll even be able to have children, giving you more goes each turn.
But those children, along with the adults, will need to be fed, and the balance in this game is always trying to make your farm grow faster than your opponents while making sure you're doing enough to ensure your family's survival.
At its basis, this game really is that simple, and though most people are flummoxed by it on the first try, by go two, they generally don't want to play any game other than this for a few months.
With different variations and a couple of expansions included, this game could give you a hernia when you pull it down from the shelf, and the sheer number of components might make you a little intimidated but don't worry. Watch a YouTube run through, play your first game and you're in for life.
Number 3
Arkham Horror
Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 1 - 8
Ages: 12 up
This game earns its place by being the best cooperative game of all time – no question. That's right, for once you're not playing against each other but against the board, and my, doesn't it put up a good fight.
Set in the world of Lovecraftian mythos, players take on the role of investigators in H. P. Lovecraft's Massachusetts town of Arkham. Inter-dimensional gates have started appearing all over town, spewing out horrific monsters onto the streets. If the players are to win they will have to defeat those monsters and close the gates before a major enemy like Cthulhu or Nyarlathotep shows up and places the investigators in a do or die fight for their lives.
Of all the games here this one has the most complex set of rules but you'll always have YouTube to help. With a ton of expansions available (we own all of them) this game never gets boring, even after the third time you've been eaten by a Gug.
Number 2
Cosmic Encounter
Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 3 – 5 (the more players the more mayhem)
Ages: 12 up
For those in the USA I suspect Cosmic Encounter will be nothing new, it's been around since the 1970s and seems to be very well established state side. In the UK however, no one seems to know about it, and it's a pity because I can honestly say it is hands down the fastest and most involving interaction game I've ever played. There is very little waiting around in this game, and all that time is filled by delicious, threatening table-talk.
Each player starts with five planets and twenty ships, the idea of the game is to colonise the planets of other players – first to five wins. On your turn you'll pick a card which tells you who you have to attack. The defender and attacker commit ships to the battle, and beg the other players not involved in the fight to come help them out. Then the attacker and defender draw a card from their hand and keep it secret. Each card has a number on it. When the cards are revealed, the number of ships you chose to attack or defend with is added to the number on your card and the player with the highest total wins.
But that's not all. There are special cards like Negotiate, which, if attacker and defender play, gives them 60 seconds to make a deal (or you can tell your opponent you're playing negotiate but then really play a number card and wipe them out), alongside cards like Morph, which matches the total of your opponents card.
It gets even more fun than this, because each player draws a race card at the start of the game which gives them special powers that can quickly turn around the game.
Those are the basics of it. One fun feature it's worth pointing out is that it is possible that more than one player can win the game at the same time, though negotiation or helping out in a battle. Oh, and be prepared for a lot of backstabbing and inflammation of trust issues.
Number 1
Love Letter
Publisher: Alderac Entertainment Group
Players: 2 – 4 (best with 4)
Ages: 10 up
Yes, the number one game on the list has the most awful title known to man. When we've asked our friends if they want to play Love Letter at our game nights there have been a wild variety of faces pulled, from utter disbelief to total exasperation. When we told them the idea of the game is to get your love letter into the hands of the princess it really didn't lessen their sense of embarrassment at the idea. It only gets more uncomfortable when we tell them we play the gay version where we swap out the princess for the prince (included for free in the game).
But one game in and they forget all about their reservations.
The game consists of 16 cards which make up the court, ranging from Soldier which has a rank of 1, up to princess, which has a ranking of 8. Each of the cards has a different effect: the Clown enables you to see one of the other player's hands; the Knight allows you to compare hands with another player – the person who has the lower card goes out of the round.
The round continues until all but one player is knocked out and there is a winner, or, if the cards run out, the person left in with the highest card wins, and their letter gets to the princess. First person to get four letters in the hands of the princess wins.
Okay, so I'll admit, there's nowhere near as much depth to this game as any of the others on the list, but the reason it's made my number one is that it's so easy to get into and so accessible, it's all about player interaction, and, being such a small game it's great to take down the pub or on a train journey. And for a 16 card game, it's an awful lot of fun.
So that's it, my top five. If you've not board gamed for a while you'll be amazed at how far things have moved on. You know how you always hated Monopoly because it was dull and took forever to get to your turn? Well, it turns out you were right.
So I'm going to end with some honourable mentions but keep checking back, as I'm going to do my top 5 party games soon so you'll know what to pick up for the silly season to keep you and yours well entertained.
Okay, from 6 down:
6 – 7 Wonders
7 – Power Grid
8 – Puerto Rico
9 – Zombicide
10 – Pandemic
11 – Ticket to Ride
12 – Castles of Burgundy
13 – Sentinels of the Multiverse
14 – Lord of the Rings LCG
15 – Munchkin
16 – Catan, Settlers of America
17 – Railways of the World
18 – Catan
19 – Eldrich Horror
20 – Robinson Crusoe
June 5, 2015
Agent Interview: Suzy Jenvey (Part One)
So a few days ago I made my first blog post and it may have seemed a little disparaging towards agents, but that certainly wasn't the intention. It was more about the frustrations of trying to find an agent.
Some time ago, while working as a slush pile reader, I had the opportunity to interview Suzy Jenvey while she was head of Children's at PFD. Though she's since left to run her own writing consultancy firm I think she gave some very useful insights into the life of a literary agent.
So I present here the first part.
Enjoy...
Damian
It’s great to finally get the chance to interview my first agent. There’s so many questions I want to ask you, but to start off, it would be interesting to know how you got into this line of work in the first place.
Suzy
I was working in publishing for 29 years. I started out as a publicity officer and moved my way up to publicity director, then marketing director – working on adult lists, both fiction and non-fiction. Then a boss of mine thought I could be more creative and moved me over to editorial, so I did an editorial director job there. Then I moved into children’s fiction, full time, and was editorial director of children’s at Faber & Faber for 14 years. At that time I felt I needed to see a wider sweep of the industry. It’s always a job that I’ve loved – I’ve always loved books, loved publishing. If you work for one list you become very channelled into what that list wants. And I’ve always liked the idea of working with a whole sweep of publishers. Fortunately, and ex boss of mine asked me to come and work as an agent for the new PFD, and it’s great; as an agent I get to deal with 30 lists at once, and a whole range of writing..
Damian
And why children’s writing?
Suzy
Well, I’d like to say I’ve always wanted to work with children’s books, but as it happens it was a bit of an accident – a bigger job offer came along at the time working with children’s – so it was ambition that took me there in the first place. But I found since then that it’s a much more interesting and challenging job. You’re dealing with images as well as words. You’re dealing different age groups; what people want for young adult is completely different from what they want from picture books. It’s less snobbish and much more down to earth. And usually, much more commercial, because a big children’s book can really break through in a way that a literary novel probably won’t.
Damian
To me, there does seem to be a large difference between adult and children’s fiction. Maybe I’m stating the obvious, but it seems like with adult literature, there’s a certain amount to which the writer can ignore their reader – that seems to be an impossibility with writing for children.
Suzy
Yeah, there’s a different between being overtly commercial – which most people seem to think means it has to be easy reading – but it doesn’t have to be really. Very commercial things are just very original with a fantastic story. I think that part of the problem with the unsolicited manuscripts that I read is that people write down to children. They seem to think that because they’re not a child, they’ll need to make it simpler. I think people underestimate how sophisticated children are. If you write down, the story will suffer – it’s not good. Whereas, people who make a great success, particularly with picture books, (and picture books have only got 800 words; not along time to set up plot, character action and all the rest) people who really got for it and use their 800 words in the way that you’d write an action novel – they just doing it in a much more spare way and come up with some fantastic stories. One of my clients has just done a detective story in preschool form, which works brilliantly.
Damian
I’ve just been trying my hand at writing a 6-9 novel, and obviously, I did a fair bit of reading as research, building up to the writing itself. What amazed me was exactly that – the conservation of language in use in that genre.
Suzy
The best way to start off writing in that way is to imagine you’re telling an adult friend that story, just as you would any other story, but you’ve only got 800 words to play with. The minute you start thinking – it’s for children, I can’t do this, I can’t do that, it starts to become so watered down it makes it not even worth reading. Of course, you do have to be careful about putting certain things in – but, on the whole, they’re pretty obvious; you wouldn’t want to include something which encouraged children to play on a railway line. Other than that, there’s very little that you can’t do in the right way. I think the majority of those ones that fail are written by people who don’t have daily contact with children. They probably think that children’s is shorter, thus quicker and easier to have a go at. A little story about my niece will do – we get a lot of those, and of course, it won’t do, it won’t do at all.
Damian
In doing some reading for you I’ve seen a few of those.
Suzy
Yeah, we send you all the good ones.
One of the problems with this job is that you often find yourself drawn into people’s lives in a way that you don’t really want to be. The most upsetting are grandparents who are writing stories for grandchildren who clearly never visit them. They’ll say in the covering letter – This is for my four-year-old grandson who I haven’t seen. And on top of that I’m going to have to reject it. That’s the other point, you have to be careful with those covering letters and, above all, why you’re doing it. You must want to write it because you want to be published and are interested in your work. If you’re doing it because of the fact you’ve lost your children or your grandchildren, or want to talk about death because you’re still not over somebody’s death, that’s fine – but writing at this level isn’t therapy. Write a diary and put that in.
Damian
This makes me think about Michael Rosen’s Sad Book, which does deal with some of those things. You’d have to be that kind of genius to make it work.
Suzy
Michael is probably one of the few people who could pull that off.
Damian
But I can only imagine how tiring it gets reading people who can’t manage it.
Suzy
It can do. Bear in mind, everything that you’ve thought of has probably been thought of by someone else before you – many many times. The amount of time I’ve read Wouldn’t it be good to write a book about how people who are a little bit different are often bullied, but under the skin we’re all worth the same. You’re not the first one to think of that. You’re not that first person to write that story. I think I’d much prefer someone who says they want to write a thriller, spy novel or detective novel for four-year-olds. Well, actually, that really is original.
Some time ago, while working as a slush pile reader, I had the opportunity to interview Suzy Jenvey while she was head of Children's at PFD. Though she's since left to run her own writing consultancy firm I think she gave some very useful insights into the life of a literary agent.
So I present here the first part.
Enjoy...
Damian
It’s great to finally get the chance to interview my first agent. There’s so many questions I want to ask you, but to start off, it would be interesting to know how you got into this line of work in the first place.
Suzy
I was working in publishing for 29 years. I started out as a publicity officer and moved my way up to publicity director, then marketing director – working on adult lists, both fiction and non-fiction. Then a boss of mine thought I could be more creative and moved me over to editorial, so I did an editorial director job there. Then I moved into children’s fiction, full time, and was editorial director of children’s at Faber & Faber for 14 years. At that time I felt I needed to see a wider sweep of the industry. It’s always a job that I’ve loved – I’ve always loved books, loved publishing. If you work for one list you become very channelled into what that list wants. And I’ve always liked the idea of working with a whole sweep of publishers. Fortunately, and ex boss of mine asked me to come and work as an agent for the new PFD, and it’s great; as an agent I get to deal with 30 lists at once, and a whole range of writing..
Damian
And why children’s writing?
Suzy
Well, I’d like to say I’ve always wanted to work with children’s books, but as it happens it was a bit of an accident – a bigger job offer came along at the time working with children’s – so it was ambition that took me there in the first place. But I found since then that it’s a much more interesting and challenging job. You’re dealing with images as well as words. You’re dealing different age groups; what people want for young adult is completely different from what they want from picture books. It’s less snobbish and much more down to earth. And usually, much more commercial, because a big children’s book can really break through in a way that a literary novel probably won’t.
Damian
To me, there does seem to be a large difference between adult and children’s fiction. Maybe I’m stating the obvious, but it seems like with adult literature, there’s a certain amount to which the writer can ignore their reader – that seems to be an impossibility with writing for children.
Suzy
Yeah, there’s a different between being overtly commercial – which most people seem to think means it has to be easy reading – but it doesn’t have to be really. Very commercial things are just very original with a fantastic story. I think that part of the problem with the unsolicited manuscripts that I read is that people write down to children. They seem to think that because they’re not a child, they’ll need to make it simpler. I think people underestimate how sophisticated children are. If you write down, the story will suffer – it’s not good. Whereas, people who make a great success, particularly with picture books, (and picture books have only got 800 words; not along time to set up plot, character action and all the rest) people who really got for it and use their 800 words in the way that you’d write an action novel – they just doing it in a much more spare way and come up with some fantastic stories. One of my clients has just done a detective story in preschool form, which works brilliantly.
Damian
I’ve just been trying my hand at writing a 6-9 novel, and obviously, I did a fair bit of reading as research, building up to the writing itself. What amazed me was exactly that – the conservation of language in use in that genre.
Suzy
The best way to start off writing in that way is to imagine you’re telling an adult friend that story, just as you would any other story, but you’ve only got 800 words to play with. The minute you start thinking – it’s for children, I can’t do this, I can’t do that, it starts to become so watered down it makes it not even worth reading. Of course, you do have to be careful about putting certain things in – but, on the whole, they’re pretty obvious; you wouldn’t want to include something which encouraged children to play on a railway line. Other than that, there’s very little that you can’t do in the right way. I think the majority of those ones that fail are written by people who don’t have daily contact with children. They probably think that children’s is shorter, thus quicker and easier to have a go at. A little story about my niece will do – we get a lot of those, and of course, it won’t do, it won’t do at all.
Damian
In doing some reading for you I’ve seen a few of those.
Suzy
Yeah, we send you all the good ones.
One of the problems with this job is that you often find yourself drawn into people’s lives in a way that you don’t really want to be. The most upsetting are grandparents who are writing stories for grandchildren who clearly never visit them. They’ll say in the covering letter – This is for my four-year-old grandson who I haven’t seen. And on top of that I’m going to have to reject it. That’s the other point, you have to be careful with those covering letters and, above all, why you’re doing it. You must want to write it because you want to be published and are interested in your work. If you’re doing it because of the fact you’ve lost your children or your grandchildren, or want to talk about death because you’re still not over somebody’s death, that’s fine – but writing at this level isn’t therapy. Write a diary and put that in.
Damian
This makes me think about Michael Rosen’s Sad Book, which does deal with some of those things. You’d have to be that kind of genius to make it work.
Suzy
Michael is probably one of the few people who could pull that off.
Damian
But I can only imagine how tiring it gets reading people who can’t manage it.
Suzy
It can do. Bear in mind, everything that you’ve thought of has probably been thought of by someone else before you – many many times. The amount of time I’ve read Wouldn’t it be good to write a book about how people who are a little bit different are often bullied, but under the skin we’re all worth the same. You’re not the first one to think of that. You’re not that first person to write that story. I think I’d much prefer someone who says they want to write a thriller, spy novel or detective novel for four-year-olds. Well, actually, that really is original.
Why this blog?
I guess it's partially for the same reasons others write their blogs: a bit of an active outlet for instant turnaround of ideas; some shameless self-promotion and whatnot but mainly because I'm going to try to do two very difficult things – to get a novel out there by traditional publishing and to get one of my songs placed on hold to be recorded by a musical artist.
As as well as this you can expect stuff on boardgaming, atheism, rationalism, socialism and pretty much anything else which interests me. So stick around.
As as well as this you can expect stuff on boardgaming, atheism, rationalism, socialism and pretty much anything else which interests me. So stick around.
June 1, 2015
The Agenting Thing
There's nothing particularly special about them. They're just sales people of a kind, trying to predict what will sell so the time they spend doing so will result in a more substantial 20%. It's a job, that's all it is. Yet, to us authors, they are avatars – gods in human form. They are the threshold guardians awaiting us at the end of act one and preventing our progress forward.
Over the past few years their industry has been changed by the digital revolution. There are stories of authors moving from self published Kindle titles to the hot racks of the book shops but, on the whole, if you want to make it in traditional publishing, you're still going to need to get an agent.
Last year I wrote a book called, The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Malachi the Queer. As far as I'm concerned it was the best thing I'd ever written – the culmination of the five years I've had studying creative writing and the ten years I've been a practicing writer. Even still, this book didn't get me the representation I hoped it would, so I've published it on Amazon, amidst the hoards of other self-published novels out there all vying for the attention of readers.
But this post isn't about that book, but about the problems of trying to find an agent and the demands it places on you when there's really very little chance of success. And, why? Because I'm going to do it again. Of course I'm going to do it again, and again, until I get an agent or am dead! Because I'm a writer.
It's about a quarter of the reason I'm doing this blog, because I'm going to make this hideous, nail-biting, arse-aching quest for representation public as I seek agent representation for my current work in progress.
I'm not going to get into details of the pitch today, that will come later, I just want to talk about one of the perceived rules I've gleaned from the agents and writers I've spoken to in the past. Why I almost entirely ignored it with the pitching for the last novel and how I think these things can be compromised.
RULE ONE: Don't send out your manuscript to every agency under the sun all at once. Pitch one or two at a time and see what happens.
Fully aware of this rule, I knew, even before I'd completed the manuscript, that I was going to break it. When I was ready, I took a week to send personalised pitches to around 80 agencies, all those in the UK and US who deal with Young Adult novels. On average it took two months to hear back from them (in the long run this figure will be much greater when you consider the 20 or so agencies I've still yet to receive a reply from).
So if I followed this rule and it led to no positive outcomes, sending off two pitches at a time and waiting for feedback (which, actually, there most often isn't) I would spend nearly seven years pitching the one manuscript.
I gave myself a deadline to hear back from them, ties to a competition into which I had entered Malachi. I got nowhere, so that day I published my novella, Jack's Diary, to essentially operate as a loss leader for Malachi, which has been published this very day.
What I did notice while researching each agent I considered was that almost all of them were happy to look at self-published books. So there we have the compromise on that rule. From here on out I'm going to self-publish once the manuscript is complete and then begin the search for the agent, which I will do much more slowly and at my leisure. There's just no reason not to do so anymore.
And what are the benefits?
Money: okay, well there's not very much of that at the moment. Not enough for Amazon to send me a payment, but it is building up as I promote and time moves forward.
Readers: this is the key thing. What does a writer want more than readers? Nothing. Since Jack's Diary has been available on Amazon it's picked up over 200 readers. If self publishing is going to get me anywhere it's going to be with this gradual build up of readership. The hope is that those who've read and enjoyed Jack's Diary will go on to buy a copy of Malachi. Maybe that will work, maybe it will not, but to know I have a growing readership is a real positive.
So that's where I am at the moment. I'm very positive about everything. It's almost like I can have my cake and eat it.
I think the thing to remember is that agents are almost exactly like any other reader. Some things are going to appeal to them, some are not. With the rejections I got for Malachi I know that the reality and immediacy of the violence was an issue for some, the atheism and anti-religious sentiments a problem for others and I'm sure a ton of them just didn't like it.
“We don't feel it's something we can sell.” was the ultimate outcome from those who did give positive feedback.
Well, today I've sold four copies, which is four more than I would have sold if I didn't take this chance. It doesn't seem like much, does it? But to me it's another small step towards success.
P.S.
I know this is a strange first blog post where I'm probably meant to be telling you all a little more about what to expect from it. That will come next. It was just this post wanted to be written and published today.
Over the past few years their industry has been changed by the digital revolution. There are stories of authors moving from self published Kindle titles to the hot racks of the book shops but, on the whole, if you want to make it in traditional publishing, you're still going to need to get an agent.
Last year I wrote a book called, The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Malachi the Queer. As far as I'm concerned it was the best thing I'd ever written – the culmination of the five years I've had studying creative writing and the ten years I've been a practicing writer. Even still, this book didn't get me the representation I hoped it would, so I've published it on Amazon, amidst the hoards of other self-published novels out there all vying for the attention of readers.
But this post isn't about that book, but about the problems of trying to find an agent and the demands it places on you when there's really very little chance of success. And, why? Because I'm going to do it again. Of course I'm going to do it again, and again, until I get an agent or am dead! Because I'm a writer.
It's about a quarter of the reason I'm doing this blog, because I'm going to make this hideous, nail-biting, arse-aching quest for representation public as I seek agent representation for my current work in progress.
I'm not going to get into details of the pitch today, that will come later, I just want to talk about one of the perceived rules I've gleaned from the agents and writers I've spoken to in the past. Why I almost entirely ignored it with the pitching for the last novel and how I think these things can be compromised.
RULE ONE: Don't send out your manuscript to every agency under the sun all at once. Pitch one or two at a time and see what happens.
Fully aware of this rule, I knew, even before I'd completed the manuscript, that I was going to break it. When I was ready, I took a week to send personalised pitches to around 80 agencies, all those in the UK and US who deal with Young Adult novels. On average it took two months to hear back from them (in the long run this figure will be much greater when you consider the 20 or so agencies I've still yet to receive a reply from).
So if I followed this rule and it led to no positive outcomes, sending off two pitches at a time and waiting for feedback (which, actually, there most often isn't) I would spend nearly seven years pitching the one manuscript.
I gave myself a deadline to hear back from them, ties to a competition into which I had entered Malachi. I got nowhere, so that day I published my novella, Jack's Diary, to essentially operate as a loss leader for Malachi, which has been published this very day.
What I did notice while researching each agent I considered was that almost all of them were happy to look at self-published books. So there we have the compromise on that rule. From here on out I'm going to self-publish once the manuscript is complete and then begin the search for the agent, which I will do much more slowly and at my leisure. There's just no reason not to do so anymore.
And what are the benefits?
Money: okay, well there's not very much of that at the moment. Not enough for Amazon to send me a payment, but it is building up as I promote and time moves forward.
Readers: this is the key thing. What does a writer want more than readers? Nothing. Since Jack's Diary has been available on Amazon it's picked up over 200 readers. If self publishing is going to get me anywhere it's going to be with this gradual build up of readership. The hope is that those who've read and enjoyed Jack's Diary will go on to buy a copy of Malachi. Maybe that will work, maybe it will not, but to know I have a growing readership is a real positive.
So that's where I am at the moment. I'm very positive about everything. It's almost like I can have my cake and eat it.
I think the thing to remember is that agents are almost exactly like any other reader. Some things are going to appeal to them, some are not. With the rejections I got for Malachi I know that the reality and immediacy of the violence was an issue for some, the atheism and anti-religious sentiments a problem for others and I'm sure a ton of them just didn't like it.
“We don't feel it's something we can sell.” was the ultimate outcome from those who did give positive feedback.
Well, today I've sold four copies, which is four more than I would have sold if I didn't take this chance. It doesn't seem like much, does it? But to me it's another small step towards success.
P.S.
I know this is a strange first blog post where I'm probably meant to be telling you all a little more about what to expect from it. That will come next. It was just this post wanted to be written and published today.
Bullets from Bohemia
Novelist, poet, song writer and musician, Damian Jay Clay, talks all things creative with digressions into LGBT issues, atheism, Eurogames, Magic the Gathering, Cuisine, film and music.
- Damian Jay Clay's profile
- 17 followers
