On writing: kill your darlings

[StillStunned]

Just to give people a place to carry on the discussion about King.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Infanticide is bad, m’kay!

 

[crookedletter]

I think King may have parroted the whole "kill your darlings" thing, but I don't believe he's its source. But I've been wrong before*.

Anyway my take on "kill your darlings" is pretty simple: if you read over your draft and you feel certain a given element -- a line, a chapter, a story arc, whatever -- is adding unnecessary fat to the narrative, doing more harm than good, if the story would ultimately be better without it, then cut it.

We're all proud of things we've written (or we should be). Sometimes our hesitance to cut a thing is not because we're unsure if it should be cut, but because we're proud of the way it came out. It's a good line, or a well-written chapter. But if the story's better without it maybe we should cut it, even if we're proud of it.

Or don't. It's not a rule. No one's making you kill anything. Cling to your darlings, hoard them and let them pile up until your story becomes something else, and maybe that will be better.

There aren't any rules. Just write, and do what works for you. But I find it to be a piece of advice I benefit from telling myself from time to time.

* once, I think, back in the 1900s

 

[BellaBestia]

The original quote echoes what you’ve said :

Arthur Quiller-Couch (1916), “On Style”, in On the Art of Writing‎[1]:“[…] ‘Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.’”

I’m pretty sure even King has a file somewhere on his Mac filled with excised “darlings” he can’t bear to permanently delete, waiting to be transplanted and resuscitated back to life in his next novel.

 

[NotWise]

I think King may have parroted the whole "kill your darlings" thing, but I don't believe he's its source. But I've been wrong before*.

It was originally "murder your darlings" from a lecture by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch at Cambridge in 1914. Published in 1916.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Ok, so here's the deal: the kill your darlings advice is something only those who are pulp writers or professional writers are meant follow, but with an asterisk. And I say meant. This doesn't mean it'll work for you.

The practice of killing your darlings is misunderstood. It's about not falling in love with your work, as in, toxically obsessed, all lovey-dovey, like that client who is always showering you with obsessive gifts. It's about putting boundaries between you and your work; treating it like a red flag bigger than a blanket that it is!

Hobbyist, feel free to not take this. You might want to try it, but it is not required. Actually, this isn't required for every single story, or every single writer. As I always say, your writing is valid, write whatever you want.

The practice of killing your darlings is stupid. Do you know what material I used for the world that I'm writing as of now? Discarded pieces of junk that I've used since I was 14 years old. Yup.

I don't kill my darlings in the sense of removing them permanently. Hell, Silhouette was meant to be a scene in a longer work that never showed up, so it became it's own thing! What I'm saying is this: next time you're going to cut something off of your manuscript, put it on another document, for crying out loud! Why? Because this could be the seed of your next magnum opus. Like I said, my whole universe isn't something fresh from a factory, but rather an old shovelhead motorcycle built from junkyard pieces that have been restored. I do keep my first drafts all the time because what didn't work for that story works for the next one.

There, that's my take. Next: how my stories are armed to the teeth with guns patented by Chekhov, aka YES THE COLOR IN MY STORIES ACTUALLY MATTERS.

 

[crookedletter]

I don't kill my darlings in the sense of removing them permanently. Hell, Silhouette was meant to be a scene in a longer work that never showed up, so it became it's own thing! What I'm saying is this: next time you're going to cut something off of your manuscript, put it on another document, for crying out loud! Why? Because this could be the seed of your next magnum opus. Like I said, my whole universe isn't something fresh from a factory, but rather an old shovelhead motorcycle built from junkyard pieces that have been restored. I do keep my first drafts all the time because what didn't work for that story works for the next one.

I absolutely do this. I make copies of my stories before I really get the hatchet out, and each one has its own "graveyard" file where I dump my dead darlings. Many of them just decompose there, but I've had a few I've found occasion to resurrect.

 

[sijopunk]

I consider "kill your darlings" to be important advice for two reasons.

The first is purely stylistic. I heard a guitar player sum it up this way ... your first idea is most people's first idea. To really be creative, you want to keep digging past the first couple of ideas to get to something innovative. You want to keep digging for the 6th or 7th idea.

That's one idea of how I use that advice ... to just iterate over a detail 6 or 8 times until it's exactly what I want. I throw out some really good stuff along the way. Sometimes I throw out the whole passage if I can't get the detail right, or even the story beat if I can't find the way to land it the way I want.

The second way is pragmatic. Sometimes you have a great idea, but it's not perfect for the writing project you're working on. Sometimes you built your story around an idea, and after a while you realize it wasn't quite as shiny of an idea as it seemed to you earlier. This is really painful. I HATE doing this, and I do it all the time (thank you to old_prof and ChloeTzang for putting up with a week of whiny DMs whenever this happens, lol).

Really the test I have to run on any piece of writing that I'm proud of is "does this make the readers' experience better, or is this something I am trying to show off?" If I can't make the case for the first, it has to go.

Hobbyist, feel free to not take this. You might want to try it, but it is not required. Actually, this isn't required for every single story, or every single writer. As I always say, your writing is valid, write whatever you want.

I think this is the most important point in this thread (and the POV thread). Some of this is what I would consider late-stage craft advice. "Kill your darlings" is Stephen King talking to writers who are trying to go pro, not necessarily to the hobbyist writer. If you're still early in your writing journey, or you're happy where you are, you don't need anyone's advice.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Really the test I have to run on any piece of writing that I'm proud of is "does this make the readers' experience better, or is this something I am trying to show off?" If I can't make the case for the first, it has to go.

I've copied these words into the 'Learning from others' subheading of my notes file.

 

[NuclearFairy]

Great, now I have One Piece at a Time running through my head. Don't mind me, I'll just be in the corner absorbing knowledge like a sponge and doodling disjointed pictures of cadillacs.

 

[Bamagan]

Why murder your darlings from erotic literature? It's much more enjoyable to fuck them into submission and lock' em in the dungeon until you can find a suitable forever home for the little darlings.

 

[AG31]

Arthur Quiller-Couch (1916), “On Style”, in On the Art of Writing‎[1]:“[…] ‘Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.’”

I think this is ridiculous. It assumes that authors aren't able to render judgement on their own work.

If you add "Be willing to..." to the beginning, then it's OK.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

I think this is the most important point in this thread (and the POV thread). Some of this is what I would consider late-stage craft advice. "Kill your darlings" is Stephen King talking to writers who are trying to go pro, not necessarily to the hobbyist writer. If you're still early in your writing journey, or you're happy where you are, you don't need anyone's advice.

I still don't know who said it, but I mentioned it before: there's one guy who said that all advice must be treated like hats in a store. Try it out, and if it doesn't fit, take it off and try another.

Then again I highly doubt all pros kill their darlings. Hence I mentioned pulp writers: it's part of the pulp philosophy.

Nevertheless, you have a point there. In the near 20 years I've been writing, I only started to actually kill my darlings... two years ago. Way too far from my beginnings. For a hobbyist to do this it's like trying to learn logarithmic functions when you don't even know how to count. It shouldn't be treated as gospel, but more as a test.

Again, if anyone wants to try it out, they are more than welcome to give it a shot, but don't feel bad if it doesn't work. It doesn't make you any less of a writer. Maybe you're not ready for that step, or maybe you're not meant to take it. Again, I doubt all pros kill their darlings.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's not a rule

 

[EmilyMiller]

Why murder your darlings from erotic literature? It's much more enjoyable to fuck them into submission and lock' em in the dungeon until you can find a suitable forever home for the little darlings.

This is advice I can get behind

 

[EmilyMiller]

your first idea is most people's first idea

I’m not so sure about that. Have you read my stories ?

 

[EmilyMiller]

it's like trying to learn logarithmic functions when you don't even know how to count

Logarithms aren’t that… OK, I’ll be quiet .

 

[NotWise]

The original advice came at a time when the magazine format was commercially important. Both fiction and non-fiction needed to work efficiently to fit that format. "Darling" passages that appealed to the author but didn't move a story along needed discipline.

We have more freedom with the advent of the internet. Longer stories are interesting to readers and more commercially possible. There's less motivation to murder.

I still take the advice. I give myself two choices when I labor over a scene: make it work for the reader, or remove it. That's a style choice. I rarely find that removing a darling scene hurts the story.

YMMV.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I still don't know who said it, but I mentioned it before: there's one guy who said that all advice must be treated like hats in a store. Try it out, and if it doesn't fit, take it off and try another.

I have no idea who said it, but I beat this drum so much people think I'm leading the charge to capture a hill from the Redcoats.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I've intepreted "Kill your darlings" a lot of different ways over the years, frequently not the way it was meant, which is probably why I have such a high body count

After I realized it didn't mean wholesale slaughter of characters, I've come to the interpretation (also incorrect from the original intent, but by a lot less), that it means to evaluate the things you think are SO GOOD with an incredibly critical eye, because it often blinds you to their necessity in the story.

It's funny, I want to keep it in!
But does it make sense for the story?
...but... it's funny...

The above exchange happens fairly frequently when I'm writing non-erotic works. I've gotten to the point where the second I think I've been incredibly clever, I have a little mental alarm that goes off, some hot firefighters slide down poles, and hose me down so I can look at the line cold.

For clarification, the firefighters are not in my head.

 

[EmilyMiller]

it often blinds you to their necessity in the story

There are different types of necessity, surley?

A story can be a celebration of language, with little or no plot. It can be only plot, with zero literary aspirations beyond the bare minimum. But there is nothing to say that you can’t at least aspire to celebrate language AND have a compelling plot.

 

[anthrodisiac]

There are different types of necessity, surley?

A story can be a celebration of language, with little or no plot. It can be only plot, with zero literary aspirations beyond the bare minimum. But there is nothing to say that you can’t at least aspire to celebrate language AND have a compelling plot.

I don't believe I specified types of necessity? Might have come off that way, reading it back. Let me clarify: there are many types of "necessity" for a story. Different elements have their own needs and requirements, it's not purely about the narrative.

I have a thing about authorial indulgences, as someone who used to be (and still occasssional is) indulgent in my writings. That indulgence can potential impact or weaken the story, so I try to be really careful about it now, which is why I have a "necessity" kink. But if your story is about celebrating language, then it's "necessary" to have that line, because it's doing work. When the line is there for no other reason than because the author likes it and has no value to the story or any element, then it probably should be excised — emphasis on should, not must.

Doesn't mean you have to, and I by no means an advocating for a blanket approach that this should always be the case, always followed, anything like that. It's a personal approach to writing, and one that I have absolutely abandoned in favor of a line or sequence that did nothing but tickle my fancy and couldn't help but keep it in because I was so proud of it that I wanted other people to see it, story be damned.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

There are different types of necessity, surley?

A story can be a celebration of language, with little or no plot. It can be only plot, with zero literary aspirations beyond the bare minimum. But there is nothing to say that you can’t at least aspire to celebrate language AND have a compelling plot.

Just last night I was thinking about channeling my inner Quevedo in order to compile my whole latrinalia, plus more, including the explicit doodles and pornographic drawings, to see if I can release them as a book to just troll the Royal Spanish Academy by turning the beauty of Spanish into a travesty of people going to the restroom to jerk off, have sex, take a shit, or all of them combined, all in one hilariously disgusting package. Now you just gave me an excuse to purchase a bigger notebook, a bigger sketchbook, and a lot of markers.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I don't believe I specified types of necessity? Might have come off that way, reading it back. Let me clarify: there are many types of "necessity" for a story. Different elements have their own needs and requirements, it's not purely about the narrative.

I have a thing about authorial indulgences, as someone who used to be (and still occasssional is) indulgent in my writings. That indulgence can potential impact or weaken the story, so I try to be really careful about it now, which is why I have a "necessity" kink. But if your story is about celebrating language, then it's "necessary" to have that line, because it's doing work. When the line is there for no other reason than because the author likes it and has no value to the story or any element, then it probably should be excised — emphasis on should, not must.

Doesn't mean you have to, and I by no means an advocating for a blanket approach that this should always be the case, always followed, anything like that. It's a personal approach to writing, and one that I have absolutely abandoned in favor of a line or sequence that did nothing but tickle my fancy and couldn't help but keep it in because I was so proud of it that I wanted other people to see it, story be damned.

It feels like suppressing the joy of writing, making it needlessly masochistic. I love authors who play with words as well as our emotions and minds.

 

[anthrodisiac]

It feels like suppressing the joy of writing, making it needlessly masochistic. I love authors who play with words as well as our emotions and minds.

Not at all! Joy can be as necessary as anything. Playing with emotions, minds, that's the point of fiction, to *insert lengthy monologue about fiction changing minds, freedom, beauty, the universe, and, weirdly, ice cream?*

You can play with words and still have it serve the story. I'm not advocating for pure utilitarian writing, where every single word has to justify its existence. Let me see if I can explain this better.

Words and sentences are doing work. That work can be pure utility, description, the facts. It can be evocative, pulling the reader toward something, bringing forth a feeling. It can set a mood and get under your skin. There's a point to the writing, a narrative, sure, but we all know it's more than the narrative. A story isn't purely narrative, a story is the package, it's the product, it's the thing that grabs you by the brain and wriggles its grimy little fingers into your synapses.

That's the important thing — the story. Writing serves the story, the writer serves the story. A writer's job is conjuration, to pluck forth the words that bring that story to life. But the temptation is to put in something that is selfish, that serves the writer, not the story. These are often the things we view as darlings, because we treasure them, we think they're brilliant, but sometimes they have no business in that story. Because these sirens as so alluring, when one encounters them, it's best to review it critically. Is this for the story, or is this for me?

It's okay to occasionally engage in authorial indulgence and slip something in that really doesn't fit or serve the story, but too much, and you weaken its integrity, you do it a disservice, and, frequently, you lessen its impact. It goes against the grain of what a writer should be, a vehicle to allow the story to tell itself.

It's a very organic, kinda hippie-dippy way of looking at writing, and I'm fully aware of that. I stand by it nonetheless.

It's my opinion of course, and hardly the last word on the matter, but it's the philosophy I take with my writing because I believe the story is far more important than silly little me. I'm just the lucky writer who happened to be granted the opportunity to tell it.