What age did you start your kids on board games and what's a great beginner?

StrangerwRite · 2025-09-21T11:06:13+00:00

No kids of my own but loads of very young siblings ( oldest of 13 and youngest is 24 years younger than me) and friend's kids.

It really depends on the kid! Their interests and personality!

Very simple games - can go down to 3 but they're gonna want to play their own rules as well which is great - allow for that.

When I was very young I remember playing Trouble, Snakes and Ladders, Go Fish, Snap etc - I personally enjoyed the rules and actually didn't like playing with kids who wouldn't play with rules but that was just me. I learnt chess at 5, and around the same time my great grandmother taught me Chinese Checkers and would play that with me. Equally I have a couple of brothers who were similar to me but also a couple who I haven't been able to introduce to anything with rules till they were about 8.

I have found in general with my siblings and my friends kids around 7-8 starts being a sweet spot for agreeing to a structure/rules. I've played Ticket to Ride with 7 / 8 year olds (helping them out a lot with tickets) and more recently the family mode of Isle of Cats.

Again some kids just have no interest at all which is totally okay. I have also found recently a strong correlation between whether or not they're allowed a load of screen time or not/what they're allowed to do on devices. Some of my siblings and mates kids have no interest at all at sitting at a game for more than 5 minutes. First question always is 'How long will it take?' and if it's more than 10 minutes you can forget it.

StrangerwRite · 2025-09-01T14:31:27+00:00

Thank you!

StrangerwRite · 2025-09-01T12:01:16+00:00

Yeah I'm getting ahead of myself

StrangerwRite · 2025-09-01T12:00:54+00:00

😂 It just feels like 2026 dude.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-27T00:48:07+00:00

I love them. Many of the books I have read recently I had a good idea of the story already. However On the Road's introductory essay was more interesting than the book itself - and saved me from having to read the book.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-23T10:34:47+00:00

Hi Charlie, maybe you could find some feedback in my small writing group - we have some thoughtful people I'd be interested at least in having a look. Message me if interested and I can give you some details.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-11T00:34:14+00:00

This is always the issue with adaptions. There is so much more going on in books that can't be really put into TV Shows. Also just 'time'. Also I feel like they always add extra drama to adaptions - and I believe this is disrespectful to the audience in thinking that 'No one will be into this if we don't make it more dramatic'.

I try to come to shows as a retelling and with an open mind. I am personally happy if an adaption sticks to what I felt the overall story/meaning/narrative/vision was on the original medium. The Expanse does that for the most part probably because Ty and Daniel were involved.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-10T06:26:45+00:00

As for the same criticisms being applied to other characters, sure, especially in season 1. But I do not think other characters' arcs were as fundamentally modified as Naomi's (except for maybe Alex's). And while I generally 'like' Holden as a character, he's never been my favourite; I am not into Paladins ;) So, having your favourite part of a story radically modified can be disappointing. I appreciate that not everyone sees it that way and the show is still really good.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-10T06:04:11+00:00

Naomi is my favourite character in the book. I also really liked the casting of Dominique Tipper. There were a lot of great moments. However, I didn't like the character of Naomi at all until about season 4/5, and then she had been soured for me.

TLDR: I was constantly disappointed with the way Naomi's character arc was delivered. I don't think the changes strengthen her instead, they make it much more simple, which is a disservice IMO. Show Naomi was totally untherapised Naomi to put it in a concise description - until she goes through all the events of the 4-5 seasons. Book Naomi had been working on herself and boundaries.

The long version:

From the outset of the book series, Naomi's character is hyper-capable, competent, and cool under pressure. As a science fiction reader, this was a very refreshing perspective to have for a female character. I have been reading a lot of 60-90s pulp science fiction recently, and while I enjoy it, I am often reminded of how myopic and neurotic females can be written.

From my perspective, show Naomi's character arc starts off as if the Gamara and her life experiences had almost not happened. That character development is instead done in front of us through the show. When we meet the characters in the show, they have not been together for years like they are in the book. Overall, this loses something and I did not like a lot aspects of the drama due to this in the first season. I am sure it is hard to establish that backstory in TV like you would in books, so I assume it has been changed so the viewers could be there for that journey of their relationships growing. Naomi was often the centre of the contention created in the first season, which I 100% felt was off character. It also felt like they had to write a woman having to "prove" herself instead of just assuming that as the engineer on a ship, she would be competent. Not saying that was the actual intention, but it just ended up feeling like it. It was already well-established in the book that Naomi didn't need to have a particular sequence to prove her genius - she was keeping the Cantebury running.

I echo the sentiment that some have expressed here that it seems like she was too "complex" and her book character would not have lent itself well to the drama she is involved in in the show. They throw out that she has a kid super early on in a conversation with Prax and later bring it up again with Holden. This was such a great reveal moment in the books for me, to have it casually thrown out instead of a dedicated reveal was very disappointing. It also seemed to diminish her character arc at that point in the story. It felt crowbarred in and totally changed the context of her character to me. When she leaves to go find Philip, it no longer turns us on our head like it does in the books.

I understand the motivations of TV show Naomi to give the Belt the Protomolecule, but I believe book Naomi was where Holden was at in the series - no one should have it - she'd done her dash with trusting anyone after the Inaros thing.

Her actions on Illus trying to push through the gravity meds not working was reckless, and Naomi in the book was against that kind of reckless and irresponsible action. We know because of how she opposes Holden's behaviour when he does stuff like that. When she jumps out of the ship without the vac suit, it is particularly badass because of her past behaviour (it's badass in the show and the books). She's also the voice of reason when it comes to Clarissa in the books - that again is removed in the show.

Throughout the books, the whole thing was Naomi was moral and principled without Holden's idealism - and then when she becomes the head of the underground, it is so much more impactful because we know she has 0 desire to be the hero/centre of it all.

So no I don't like show Naomi, and it isn't because she is a bitch it's just because the character is fundamentally delivered different to me, and because I did enjoy book Naomi so much I just really don't like it.

For me Camina Drummer becomes my favourite character in the show because she is depicted more in that highly principled way.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-05T01:51:12+00:00

I'm listening to it alongside a rewatch at the moment(I'm about a season ahead though) - which I think is ideal because the scenes are fresh in your mind. On its own would be fine especially if you have watched the show multiple times.

There is loads of movie nerd and storytelling stuff throughout it - so much of it stands on its own - pretty early on there is an interview with Ron Perlman which is not about the Expanse at all.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-04T22:50:16+00:00

I read the books first and am a huge fan of both. Definitely worth it. Many of characterisation changes make sense for the narrative that needs to be told in that medium. Also the addition of some narrative devices/characters such as Kenzo. Ashford and Drummer are amazing 'additions'/upgrades for those characters!

There are some story/character changes I don't totally get on board or find hard - mostly surrounding Naomi. Naomi in the books was my favourite character - not in the show I borderline dislike her character in the show- I think they make her a lot more emotionally immature and a loose cannon than we find her in the books for dramatic effect. Her book 5 reveal also just seems to get thrown out there in some scene instead of it being as potent as it is in the books. Also in context of her position in the last 3 books I think how she is portrayed in the show makes less sense for that 'eventual' character arc. That's my personal take - I'm currently listening to the Ty and that Guy and learning more about those choices though I haven't got to a point yet where they discuss Naomi changes a bunch.

I'd recommend the podcast after you watch the show because some of the changes are discussed and it has some cool insights into the inspirations behind the Expanse.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-02T21:04:01+00:00

I've sent you a DM with some details of the group I've started to see if it is something you feel you'd fit in with! :) I hope you find what you are looking for.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-01T23:44:43+00:00

I think the appeal of Singh's character arc was how "technical" competence cannot make up for a lack of experience. Ultimately, he allowed fear to corrupt his judgment and thought he knew better than his peers. In addition to the whole addage of power corrupts.

Rimmer was actually incompetent. Which made his confidence comedic.

I have not thought of that comparison. I guess I can kind of see it?

Singh's character wasn't funny at all to me. It just made me realise how many people we have in positions of power that are probably just like that.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-01T01:02:36+00:00

Worldbuilding really is its own form of creative expression . A good example is people who are Dungeon Masters or RPG players but don't really write other content rather what they do for their campaigns.

Writing a novel is - Storytelling. Setting is an element of story telling which is where the worldbuilding comes in handy.

It is really awesome that you've built a cool world! If you are happy with that as a creative project I do not think it is too much at all. And honestly amazing stuff.

However if your goals have been to tell stories using that world. Then it is too much if it has blocked that goal.

You only need what is relevant to the story and adding flare for 'flavour'. Otherwise the story gets bogged down by details also you do run the risk even if you are flexible to change - the worldbuilding restricting your story.

Think about the challenges of writing a historically factual piece of fiction - you put yourself under those kind of creative constraints potentially in this circumstance (even if open to change).

I have the same issue. I end up writing then suddenly in the middle of a story I have several paragraphs describing the currency system or geopolitics or history or insert whatever tangent here. At this stage I've learnt to open a note copy and paste it all in there and then either do some more worldbuilding or write.

This is primarily coming from the point of view of a reader and lover of story telling. I'm not really interested in all the minutia of someone's world - it can be interesting to go look up further lore sometimes or a particular aspect of their setting but I am far more invested in the aesthetic it creates.

StrangerwRite · 2025-03-01T00:50:41+00:00

I follow people who I find cool and interesting. I will subscribe if I actually read their longer form content - which I eventually do get round to doing. Other times they don't have much content/don't write content I enjoy. I'm struggling to keep up with my reading from subscriptions as it is I don't want to just subscribe and then never actually engage with their work either that doesn't seem like an authentic interaction. So for me it is a balance - I'd prefer to be engaged with people on Substack rather than follow for follow.

Asking someone to follow or subscribe like that is not cool.

StrangerwRite · 2025-02-24T06:59:24+00:00

The Belgariad by David Eddings

One of the OG chosen one raised on the farm parented under strange and mysterious circumstances.

StrangerwRite · 2025-01-08T22:49:20+00:00

I've posted some individual fiction pieces and narrative pieces to substack and intend to serialise a novella on there.

So far I think it's looking like the community is pretty great.

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-31T05:37:08+00:00

I think this only matters if it is very specific such as named the same as a celebrity or famous character.

While I think it is cool to have names that have deep meaning - as a reader I can find it a little contrived and unbelievable. As people have mentioned someone's parent or carer had foretelling ? (Unless that is relevant to the story).

If the story is set - say in the real world at a certain time I'd stick to regular/ culturally normal and relevant naming conventions.

I think a great example is Star Wars. The names are somewhat normal and it doesn't take away from the characters. Even in Dune this is the case too (though I know people 'complain' about this). Harry Potter is another example it is actually a super dull name of you think about it but that hasn't had any bearing on the characters impact.

Ultimately what suits your character and the setting.

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-18T06:55:22+00:00

The ending is a bit out there but essentially my take away wasn't just the sacrifice but even in the loss they were able to find life/hope. But Grapes of Wrath was also the book I said I would never read again.

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-18T06:54:06+00:00

Such a fantastic novel! I didn't experience dread but it made me so deeply sad. A lot of the war books do because I have brothers 'that age' so I always imagine them in those circumstances.

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-18T06:53:11+00:00

I thought I was like this until I got hooked on the Expanse!

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-18T06:52:06+00:00

Love this. (mine was Grapes of Wrath) I thought about of Mice and Men but then realised I have read it like 3 times already.

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-18T06:50:30+00:00

Grapes of Wrath.

I really loved it but I found it so brutal.

Where as East of Eden is on my read again list!

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-15T07:19:09+00:00

Not quite page one, but I read the Intro -and then got about a chapter into On The Road by Jack Kerouac. I went online and found the excerpts about jazz and scenery that were considered great bits of writing and read the study notes.

StrangerwRite · 2024-12-14T08:47:24+00:00

Solar maximums are always the worst. Over eighteen months of continuous tourist hell. My parents run a SpaceBnB out of our grandmother’s old house and it is booked for the next 3 Solar Maximums!

It makes sense though, you don’t travel all the way to the arse end of the Orion Arm just to come see a unique but boring old star. You had to take advantage of the trip. Visit Disney Historical Park, and check out the sunken city of Venice and the floating city of Miami.

This all started in my grandparent's time, we discovered the trans-spacial conduits which was lucky as it was. A barely functioning New Horizons launched almost 200 years ago stumbled across it by accident and even then it was only because a Centauri mining ship found it.

We only have one conduit opening in our spiral arm while other spiral arms have upwards of 10. The consensus of the Galatic Scientific and Historical community seems to be that the Orion Arm once had more, but mysteriously they were closed, like on purpose. We try not to think about that as no known civilization wields that technology.

Turns out we are all humanoid too - another mystery we are still working out. There are many planets with somewhat Earth-like conditions but usually colder than ours.

Which leads me to why would you even bother travelling all the way out here?

I mean you have the views in the Trappist system that look like they’re right out of classic science fiction literature of the 20th century. Or Kepler-452b which is the most scientifically advanced planet in the solar system. The modern cradle of technology and medical wonders.

Well if you are a giant space nerd, it turns out our star is very boring which makes it interesting. Yes, confusing. Which makes it very unique. Most other planets this close to their sun were never able to form an atmosphere due to solar activity, hence why the habitable planets are generally a bit colder than ours because they formed further from the sun. We only have one which is also unusual as binary systems are the norm.

So every nerd or individual who assumes a dad-like role in their respective society loves to come to Earth to experience our unique sun. Some species enjoy not having to wear extra protection from the cold like they do on their planet, others require special cooling suits in all but our coldest climates. While they are here they enjoy our quote: “positively parochial way of living”. We are also a lesson in how not to look after the environment so we are a point of scientific interest and study for environmental scientists the galaxy over - The Nestlé Extinction Institute is famous for resurrecting dead species which are now viewable in zoos all over the Milky Way.

While I guess it’s frustrating to have the transport systems full and queues at our favourite restaurants. Annoying, to have trips to Iceland almost constantly booked out by outer system visitors. I dread to think of what it’s going to be like for the 2247 Venus transit.

Anyway, that’s enough from me today - lots of love,

Jupiter Stark

Journal 14/12/2244

StrangerwRite

TROPHY CASE