Phillip Meyer's Blog

Of all genres, Children's Books are often overlooked by serious literature gurus. After all, most adults would much rather read about adult themes than simple plots created for youngsters, right? Well, actually, Children's Books can and are often just as, or more intriguing than adult novels. There are two main types of Children's Stories, with several hybrid-type books that fall in between the category. The first is the short, often forgettable, storybook. Usually, a storybook relies on pictures or action to draw young audiences in. Books with titles like What Time Is It, Mr. Crocodile, Barnyard Dance, or The Little Old Lady Who Was Not Afraid of Anything come to mind. And it's not that these books are poorly written or not fun for kids. Books like these are often endearing and were some of my favorite books when I was a small child. All the same, they are not necessarily meant to last for generations.

Oftentimes, the illustrations draw more attention from the readers than the story itself, leave little or no cultural impact, and are obsolete within a few decades. There are some exceptions. Kids' books, like Curious George, are still beloved by adults and children alike even though they were written well over 70 years ago. A major reason for this is the story building and likable characters that make it possible for an entire series of short stories that are relatable to more than just one generation. However, the more enduring kind of children's books than those just mentioned are almost always longer than a storybook. Usually, they are more complex stories with chapters and deeper symbolism or meaning. Most of the time, the allegory or symbolism is difficult to pick up for children, but adults can see it as blaring as lighting. Books like Charlotte's Web, The Railway Series (Thomas the Train), or Winnie the Pooh are entertaining for children, but also make many of the adults who read them to their children, or simply reread them years after they are grown up, appreciate their value, and higher worth rather than simply bedtime stories. Although they seem rather simple, these books clearly have hidden meanings. For example, many parents who read Winnie the Pooh find the subtle humor and quaintness so popular in 19th and 20th century Britain that kids will not understand. The Railway Series, especially in the later years, was written put a heavy emphasis on the evolution of railways and the takeover of diesel engines and the effort to preserve historical steam powered locomotives. Many old steam railway enthusiasts go absolutely nuts over anything Thomas the Train, because of the contribution it had, in the mid-20th century, to the preservation and love of traditional locomotives before it was really a big thing.

There is a third way that a children's book can become enduring, and that is if it is made into a film, or TV series. The Polar Express is a good example of a simple, yet well written, book that was converted into a film. Other books that come to mind are the previously mentioned Curious George, or the more modern, Franklin. Obviously, these books had something that gave them an edge over the millions of other children's stories. I think it is that the core of these books transcend time and culture more than others. The plots usually revolve around family and friends, in a neutral setting avoiding the pitfalls of common stereotypes, or trends of the time they are written.

If you don't have someone who is willing to read the drafts of your new book, poetry, or essay, my best advice is you find someone who is willing to take the time to help you with this painstaking task, even if that means paying them to help you edit. Chances are you know at least one person who would be more than happy to oblige you with honest advice on how your manuscript measures up. Chances are also high that you will get some helpful feedback, that might not always be to your liking. When I was writing my first book, I had people giving me a lot of advice, mostly constructive, and always appreciated, but usually not taken into account. Looking back, I wish I had listened to the people who told me to add this or get rid of that part of my book. Whether you are writing a paper, article, or book, remember that you are not going to be the only one reading it when it is finished. Make sure that other people find your work to be great. Many times, when someone puts a lot of time and energy into something that they love, it seems almost infallible. No changes should be made, because in their minds, it is already perfect. Some people will even get highly offended it they are corrected. Authors are no exception to this kind of blind arrogance, especially if they are already published and or successful. This might be one of the reasons that so many sequels or spinoffs created by the same artists are often lesser in quality then the original stories. Directors and authors who once might have taken critical advice now think that because they already have been successful no need of help. Likewise, those who might have good ideas quite possibly hold back their opinions because they assure themselves that the artists know better than them. After all, they are a successful published author, or filmmaker. Again, this applies to everyone not just authors. No one person is ever going to create great art, get consistent high grades, or rise in the ranks of the entertainment industry unless they take constructive criticism.

Most characters in ancient literature are tragic heroes. Whether we look at Hector, in The Iliad, Beowulf, or even the slightly more modern Hamlet, we see tragic heroes are perhaps the most important characters in classic literature. They all have much in common, a man or woman of human virtue, usually in a position of authority, marked with an almost unbearable life of misfortune, destitution, or loss. Most of the time it seems like the harder they try to dig themselves out of the hole of misery they are in they drag themselves and often others into the pit to be buried alive with them. Yet some of the most memorable moments in literature are the climax of the tragic hero. Why is this? There are a few reasons, and the first is probably because the tragic hero in his last moments reveals his true self and the image of all mankind. The character will make his final defining act as to whether he will be remembered as a hero or villain. And whether he or she will let their decisions and circumstances define them.
Another reason that tragic heroes are so popular is the great diversity of types of characters and the reason their life is considered tragic. For example, some tragic heroes, like Roland in The Song of Roland, die physically but their souls are redeemed. Other times, like in the case of Creon from Antigone, they might be alive at the end of the story but more than often lose loved ones, their honor, or any virtue they had. Lastly, and perhaps the most authentic form of the tragic hero is the person who loses his life and honor. In Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the main character suffers the truly disastrous fate of both a fall from grace and death at his own hands. Some would argue that the last type of hero mentioned is not even a hero at all, but rather a villain. However, this might be the truest type of tragic hero, not because they are necessarily heroic by the end of the story, but because they were once great. The tragedy of their fall leads the reader to learn a better lesson than any other character could teach them: that even the greatest heroes fall if they rely on purely their own strengths and abilities.

Looking at some films and books it is easy to see that they struggle for identity. For me, the most glaring and obvious example of this is the 2008 film The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. The 150-minute film had a massive budget, a talented cast, and great special effects for its era. When I first saw this film as a kid, I really liked it, although I always felt something was a bit off. I could not place my finger on it back then, but I can now. Watching the film as an adult it becomes easy to detect a story that is on the fence between a children's movie and an adult fantasy. Although almost everything else is spot on, the story development and plot wavered greatly. Sometimes the film felt like a dark Middle Ages political war for the throne taking inspiration from works like Shakespeare's Hamlet, with a far more violent and complex storyline than the book it was based on. However, many times it was blatantly a kids' movie. No matter how epic it seemed at times, other moments fell short of other contemporary films of its time. It was certainly not a terrible picture, but if the makers of this movie had just had their minds made up on the type of film they wanted to make it might have been really great. The first film in the Narnia franchise The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a children's movie, and perhaps one of the best ever made. Although primarily for a younger audience, it was something almost every adult I know who has seen it loved it. Although the second Narnia film, Prince Caspian, had nearly twice the budget, it made far less money than, The Lion the Witch, and the Wardrobe at the box office.


Many authors change a lot as they write books, and their works seem almost unrecognizable from the first ones they started with. That is not bad, in fact, this can sometimes be very good. In my own books, the storylines and target age range are always changing. The pitfall is when there are several different key changes in a particular work. A lot of times, the longer time it takes to write a work the more that this problem will occur as months or even years can pass from the start to the finish of the book or film. What started as one thing turns into another.

Literature is full of allegories about all kinds of things. Although for most people, today, an allegory means a story based on or inspired by some religious theme, idea, or teaching, an allegory can be any kind of fable that tries to teach or inspire particular motives. Allegories are highly controversial, with some people strongly supportive, while others avoid them at all costs. Even like-minded people are sometimes at odds. For example, JRR Tolkien detested allegories, while CS Lewis clearly loved them.

A key inner controversy among more conservative, religious-minded people is whether or not content is appropriate. Many, particularly parents, believe that a Christian allegory is the only wholesome option. Sadly, most authors think so as well. they feel that either it has to be an allegory or a completely secular work for the non-religious people. This all-or-nothing mentality alienates the culture of book buying, selling, and writing into two groups: Christian and Mainstream. The same can be seen in the film and music industries. However, the great division does not have to be as black and white as most people would think. Most books and films have some underlying theme or purpose, so it could be argued that any work of fiction is in fact an allegory. However, when practically speaking a true allegory is a story in which characters, places, and the overall plot revolves around and is based on real-life events and lessons. This means that each main character either represents someone or something, on the objective level. For example, in the Biblical, Parable of the Sower Mathew 13:1-9 each type of soil symbolizes a type of person. Similarly, Aesop's Fables are a series of lessons, told in short stories, often involving talking animals. in many editions, each story will have a wise proverb at the end like "Slow and steady wins the race," to further bring the message home to the readers.

That does not mean that there should be only one message and that is it. On the contrary, a good allegory should have many different levels of interpretation. This is especially true for longer books and stories. It is rather an easy thing to make an allegory that is simple to interpret, while far more difficult to create a subtle symbolism. I am not a fan of a book or film that is easy to decipher. Often Christian allegories are painfully obvious copies of Bible stories with few original ideas. If the story you plan to write is an allegory don't make it obvious. On the contrary, hide the symbolism so that most people at first will not even notice. Although you might think that defeats the entire purpose of making it an allegory, it doesn't at all. A good allegory will make readers think about what the story means both objectively and subjectively. Even Jesus' disciples often did not understand the meaning of his parables. Many people for years have interpreted the possible meanings of classic literature, like the Greek myths or the works of William Shakespeare.

I prefer a subtle symbolism, rather than allegory, and agree with this quote from JRR Tolkien, “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

Rather than trying to mirror some specific lessons of them, I try to intertwine history and myth, virtue, and vice, triumph, and tragedy of human existence. If your story is an allegory, make sure that it is hidden well enough that people will have to think about it for a while. The more people are focused on something, the more they will want. Not only will this build up suspense, and mystery, but if you plan on making sequels it will make the readers interested in the style.

Many great books and films have memorable sidekicks. From Chewbacca in Star Wars, Barney Fife in The Andy Griffith Show, or Dr. Watson in Sherlock Holmes, one thing is consistent; they are all, for the most part, as well received and loved as the main character themselves. Most of the time, however, they flop when they take the lead role. Many times, authors or film directors make the big mistake of taking a really amazing character and forcing him or her into the center stage. As a result, the now protagonist will undoubtedly look and feel different from the original sidekick character that everyone already knows.

After the wildly successful Lord of the Rings trilogy, director Peter Jackson attempted to once again make history with The Hobbit films. Although they performed well at the box office, many fans felt that the movies fell far from what they could have been. There are several reasons for this including, but not limited to, drifting too far away from the books, overuse of CGI, constantly trying unnecessary bridge plots in order to stretch things out so they could make three films, and unbelievable action scenes. While all of these things undoubtedly contributed to the less than stellar performance of the trilogy, one thing in particular that I hated the most about the films is the character of Legolas portrayed by Orlando Bloom. The ironic part of this is that in The Lord of the Rings, Legolas was one of my favorite characters. For those that have not seen the films, I will briefly explain. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are both medieval fantasy fiction stories set in JRR Tolkien's Middle Earth. The Hobbit, a roughly three-hundred-page book is far shorter, simpler, and less complex than its sequel The Lord of the Rings trilogy which is well over one thousand pages with far more side plots and characters. In both The Lord of the Rings films and books, the character of Legolas is an elf warrior that fights alongside whom many consider the hero of the story Aragorn. I cannot think of a much better sidekick than Legolas. He just fit the part, particularly in the movies. He was always pulling off some of the most memorable moments in critical scenes in all three films, yet never was in the limelight. He was always taking backstage to other characters, especially Aragorn. It never seemed like he had a ton of dialogue or any standout moments by himself, but that is what I liked about him. His even-keeled drama-free sort of attitude set him apart as memorable.

Fast forward ten years later to The Hobbit, a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, and we see a far different character. Instead of the familiar Legolas, a far different character emerges. In The Hobbit films, Legolas takes on a lead role, with his own highly controversial female sidekick- love interest Tauriel. One problem many fans had with this is that, aside from the obvious fact that the actor looked much older, is that neither character was mentioned in the book. In fact, Tauriel was a completely non-canonical character created for the film and not by JRR Tolkien himself. Although this was a legitimate complaint, it is not the main reason I disliked Legolas in the film. Legolas was far better when he was in the background. In contrast to his performance in The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit version of Legolas comes across as overdramatic, annoying, and even a little cocky. He certainly has a deeper backstory, and emotion that show, but that is not necessarily a good thing for the character. To add to the over drama he, and another more minor character, compete for the affections of Tauriel in an awkward annoying sort of love triangle. As a result, Legolas acts somewhat childish, and complex, compared to his solid. The moviemakers were trying so hard to add to his story that they ruined it, leaving a lasting stigma on the character. If Legolas had acted like his original character from The Lord of the Rings, I think most people would have been far more accepting and even excited that he was in the film, even though he was not in the book. In many works of fiction, it is not rare to see this pattern time and time again.

More than ever films and books come out with unplanned prequels and sequels often expanding on past characters. Sometimes this happens years after a series is officially ended. I think the main reason we see so much of this is because of people's love of nostalgia. Readers and moviegoers grow to love certain characters and want them back. With this mentality the return of beloved characters is unavertable. But it is a big challenge is to bring the character back in an original way without ruining him or her. This is perhaps the most difficult part of an offshoot project. I am not saying that it is a bad idea to bring back characters, but if you are going to, here are a few things writers should keep in mind. First, and most importantly, never bring a minor character, or any character in fact, back for money. It might be a strong temptation, but this is a terrible and lazy mistake. If you are a good writer, then you can create another good original book and do not have to resort to this shallow gimmick. Make sure that you always stay true to the original personality and traits of the character. If you can't, then perhaps it is time to make a whole new story, with a fresh cast. A backstory or follow-up can sometimes be great, but if it is not going to add to what is already there in the original, then it risks ruining its predecessor and should not happen at all costs.

Every writer must have some level of realism and believability to make their stories hold water. Historical, accuracy in such themes as cultural norms, religious beliefs, and customs all must be taken into careful account. With countless depictions of the Middle Ages in both films and books, as well as a general misunderstanding of the vast differences in European evolution of both weapons and armor as well as clothing, accuracy can seem difficult.

Luckily, the modern world has so much stored information, on the internet, authors and readers alike are only literally a few clicks away from answers. Now, just because it is on the internet, that does not mean it is true. There is a lot of wrong information out there, particularly on trendy pop-culture type sites. But for the most part, serious researchers are going to find reputable, accurate, history at least when it comes to the armor, clothing, and weapons used by cultures. However, what if you don't what to follow what is historically accurate? A lot of times the truth about historical norms can ruin what the author might think looks more astatically pleasing. Should obvious inaccuracies be overlooked for visual aesthetics?


For historical dramas or fiction, I would say that creator of the work should trend on almost pure accuracy. Common social norms should not be broken lightly. In the 2016 remake of the classic book Ben Hur, we see an example of just how much accuracy in the details can make a huge difference. Although considered a flop by many critics I personally thought most of the film was excellent. It had great acting and a deep storyline. That said it was not perfect. One problem that I had with it is that the clothing was very historically inaccurate. This film that was supposed to take place two thousand years ago fails epically on this aspect, with one scene even showing a Jewish woman wearing pants. This made the movie worse as a whole and very frustrating at times. Armor and weapons usually are not as important to get 100 % right and certainly are not going to draw nearly as much criticism as the ridiculous example just given. However, with historical tv shows and YouTube videos on the rise, more people are quick to point out flaws in things that might have gone unnoticed in years past. Materials, skillset, and resources of a culture are great things to take into account.

Modern fantasy certainly has more room for inaccuracy than historical fiction, being that oftentimes the cultures and realms are purely fictional. However, high fantasy needs rules on how inaccurate you can go. People and places should at least derive some inspiration from real-life cultures and geography. Throwing several different periods of history together is a common theme with fiction writers, and in most cases can work very well, as long as there are some basic limits. Weapons and armor need to remain practical and effective. This is where it is the easiest to get in trouble. Swords and axes are not ornaments or artwork, they are primarily weapons designed to be wieldable and effective. Despite what computer games might portray, armor is not a fashion statement, it is to protect the soldier using it. I absolutely detest gaudy unpractical armor concepts that clearly would never be functional or protect the user. Chainmail is often a great option for fantasy medieval armor because so many different cultures throughout the centuries used it and it was fairly effective. Leather is another underutilized fabric that was lighter than most other forms of protective body armor. Whatever is decided on, make sure that the main objective of armor is always to protect the user particularly his or her vitals like the chest, abdomen, and head. If you can't get that right, then don't have them use any armor at all.

Of all the memorable female characters in stories, it seems the ones that are the most dramatic would be most likely candidates. I feel that that is only partly true. While it used to be that most women in books and films were rarely characters of action, much less warriors, times have changed. No longer is the damsel in distress very popular. In her place is often a daredevil, active, female lead, who is more than capable of protecting herself. A great example of this kind of character is Commander Lin Mae portrayed by actress Jing Tian in the action film The Great Wall. She is a powerful warrior and leader and has no shortage of death deifying moments in this highly action-packed flick.

Contrast this to the other side of the spectrum. In the historical western fiction Escape to Exile, by author B. N. Rundell we are introduced to a young woman named Persis. When she is kidnapped, late in the climax of the story the lead male character rushed to her rescue. After he catches up with her captor, he drops his gun and the two engage in a knife fight. Even though his gun is just lying there, Persis simply watches the entire fight without even trying to help by shooting the bad guy. The hero is nearly killed and is about to be stabbed until suddenly his sidekick friend arrives and shoots the enemy saving his life. While I thought both of these characters were not terrible by any means, they could have been far better. Persis did have some good qualities but was completely helpless. Lin Mae was certainly a better character than Persis in my opinion but still had some issues. For one she was almost always far too clean looking with well-groomed hair, despite the fact that she was fighting intense battles throughout the film. She also deified the rule of cool way too many times.

It is easy to sway too far one way with women in fiction. Either they are a damsel in distress or invincible amazon. To make a really good character, sometimes we need to meet somewhere in the middle. Looking into a more all-around realistic approach is key to success in any character development. This can be incredibly difficult, but something that can help is by looking into real historical heroines rather than going to the flashy, annoying, 21st century Mary Sue. Every character male or female needs to be someone with balance. It usually is not a wise idea to have a woman in fiction behave differently than a real living person would.

It is a fact that in the Twenty-first Century men do not read that much. While it is true that men are more action-oriented, and less emotional than women, making them less interested in books, particularly fictional stories, it seems strange that in the last fifty years or so, the demographic has widened. I don't think it is necessarily because more women are reading either. It is because fewer men are finding books that they can relate to.

Traditional books and films in American culture represent strong men as active leaders, brave adventures, and conquering heroes. Villains are portrayed as cowards, and oppressors, who seek to serve themselves above all else. Sure, good guys can act like jerks sometimes and the villain might have some good qualities, but in the end, it is black and white. When you compare most contemporary men in film to classic male characters portrayed by the likes of John Wayne, Mel Gibson, or Charlton Heston, you can see an intangible difference. It's not about the acting, as some might think. Acting in films today is probably better now because the technology of camera equipment has evolved allowing producers to only shoot little bits of film at a time making it easier to remember lines. Here is the difference, in these traditional movies, men were meant to be solid, and noble, unlike the modern stereotype that portrays men as weak, stupid, or playing sidekicks to a smarter stronger woman. It is true that some of the greatest films ever produced are modern films made in the last twenty years. I can think of absolutely awesome masculine stories, that were released while I was growing up. However, in the last few years, this has become a relative rarity. In this culture, men are encouraged to show weakness and hide their power. Girls are brought up in a country that more and more demonizes men telling them that powerful white men are the cause of all the problems in the world. Boys are told by many progressives that they should show emotions, by crying frequently, not being rough, and acting like girls. Trying not to conquer is the new normal and if you object to this, you are dangerous to yourself and others. Even the past historical heroes of history are now being canceled as "bigots, "white supremacists," or "misogynistic." The objectivity of most modern historical novels, therefore, is subject to the author's own subjective opinions.

Looking at what has happened it is no wonder that men do not what read. They have been brainwashed by the culture into believing that masculinity is evil. Movies, TV shows, and books promote this ideology heavily. A few years ago, after coming home late from work, I watched Rambo 3 on TV, absolutely loving it, even cheering a bit in some exciting parts of the film. The next night I again turned on the TV to see The Hunger Games was on. I just remember after watching for a minute or so turning it off and saying to myself," It's no Rambo." Not trying to dog The Hunger Games at all, or say it is a bad story, but I think you get the point. Most stories in the twenty-first century are not made for virtuous men. They are made for a politically correct society. If you need proof just look at the new Star Wars films compared to the Originals or even the highly controversial Prequel Trilogy. I think men would read more books if they were objective and made for them instead of asking them to change who they are.

Fiction is not fake. I know that sounds cheesy, but it is very true if you think about it. All fiction, no matter how far-fetched, is someone's reality. Authors and readers alike can form bonds with the characters in stories, and that is a good thing. Even purely fictional people, places, and things can remind us of real-life experiences or highly inspire us. However, it can be easy to get too attached to your books and or characters. And I think it happens to us way more than we would like to admit. The deeper we delve in and put more of ourselves into the books we write or read, the easier it is to start living vicariously through characters. After a while, we can treat the fictional people in our books as actual human beings without even noticing it. The biggest problem with that is now instead of having complete control over the story we are writing, our feelings about particular characters can get in the way of a better all-around book. Thoughts like, "I know this would make more sense, but that character is doing this because I like it," or "He was supposed to die in the original outline, but he is just too cool to die." are common thoughts all writers get, and not always without merit. Sometimes we can make changes to a plot or decide not to kill off a character we like. But this should only be because it makes the whole story better, and not just for emotional attachment. Now that it is clear to see the typical pitfalls of the average author which are in and of themselves easy to fix, we will look a little deeper into a far more problematic issue. While it is expected that most authors and readers, particularly ones with stronger emotions will become attached to characters, there is a far deeper, and more dysfunctional path that some literary lovers fall into. That is to develop a heavy relationship with the characters.

A perfect example of this is found in the 2008 comedy film Nim's Island, based on a children's book of the same name. In the story, a young girl who is separated from her father, calls out for help from a character who she mistakenly believes to be the author and real-life hero of her favorite books, none other than the fearless explorer, adventurer, Alex Rover. However, unbeknownst to her, Alex Rover is really Alexandra Rover, an agoraphobic, germophobe woman who is too terrified to even leave her house. It turns out that Alex Rover is Alexandra Rover's ultra-ego, crush, who she imagines constantly interacting and talking with her. Although the film itself was not a particular favorite of mine, and I have not read the book to date, I thought that this was excellent satire. Although she does not even realize it, Alexandra Rover has lost touch with the world, she is completely separated from reality, too absorbed in her books, and more specifically Alex Rover.

Although I certainly hope that everyone reading this article is not that far gone, (if you are, you should seek phycological help!) if you find yourself developing a crush, any kind of deep relationship, or extreme fascination with any fictional characters it's time to step back into reality and take a break, even just for a little while. I have had to do that many times, once for several months, after I realized that I was thinking about my books and characters way too much. When I finally got back at it, I found myself in complete control of what I was writing. Overall, I was less stressed out and writing was far more fun and relaxing. Now, I consider myself a far better author, as I am careful not to ever let my job as writing not become an obsession.