On writing: kill your darlings

[AStrangeDesire]

This.

It really helps to understand what you're trying to achieve with a particular piece of writing.

If it's Gothic horror, you'll want to lay the mood on thick, and get very descriptive, and you can probably get away with prose that borders on purple. But successive paragraphs where you show off your detailed knowledge of steam locomotion and its impact on society would probably be better off buried in a shallow grave.

If you're writing a contemporary romance, you might want to make your descriptions breezier, and cut out any extended descriptions of misty moors and the cry of the curlew. But that leaves more room for explorations of your protagonist's person, and for some witty dialogue.

In a high-paced sci-fi adventure story, you can indulge in details of weapon and gear, and instead trim out summaries of each character's dating lives.

FWIW, I've always understood "kill your darlings" to mean "be willing to kill them". As in, recognise that they don't serve the story you're trying to tell, and be ruthless about eliminating them no matter how pleased you are with yourself.

Of course the other solution is to change your story so that they *do* serve it. In other threads we've mentioned Chekov's Gun. If you're reluctant about killing a particular darling, you can embed it more firmly in the story: either by returning to it later so that it becomes a CG, or else by inserting a CG earlier that foreshadows your darling.

Also remember that this doesn't necessarily have to be a plot point, or an action moment. It can be a clue about a character's mindset, or a detail that implants a clue in your reader's mind about a big reveal or plot twist, or any of a dozen tricks that give your story more depth and make your reader feel more engaged.

I believe you, Emily and I see that the same way. Though your description is significantly more detailed and thorough.

I try to write what I want to read, and have learned of the years that I care about 'what happens next' more than much of the nuances of characters. Thanks for adding the Sci-fi example, that resonated.

 

[TheLobster]

Or somebody could write a story about it all.

Humans would have no chance during a zombie apocalypse of reanimated killed darlings.

 

[MillieDynamite]

King is the king of ignoring his own rules. Leaving in, beloved words, phrases, sentences, scenes, or subplots that the writer is particularly fond of but that do not actually serve the story's purpose. Just read Cojo, The Stand, or almost anything else he's written, and characters with subplots disappear all over the place.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I don't think this really works in erotica, or at least not mine. Killing your main characters is done to add a big emotional haymaker to the story. I want my readers to get a big warm and fuzzy feeling, not sad.

 

[StillStunned]

I don't think this really works in erotica, or at least not mine. Killing your main characters is done to add a big emotional haymaker to the story. I want my readers to get a big warm and fuzzy feeling, not sad.

Different kind of darlings, I think.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Killing your darlings isn't about characters that die. The darlings are the parts of the story you love more than the story itself. If it doesn't advance the story, you're supposed to slash their throats.

I don't think this really works in erotica, or at least not mine. Killing your main characters is done to add a big emotional haymaker to the story. I want my readers to get a big warm and fuzzy feeling, not sad.

Opp forgot this, "Good writer, sweetheart, you’re shit outta luck."

 

[Rob_Royale]

Killing your darlings isn't about characters that die. The darlings are the parts of the story you love more than the story itself. If it doesn't advance the story, you're supposed to slash their throats.

Ah, I get it. Thanks. And now that I know what it means, I intend to summarily ignore it. Some of the wordiest MFers in popular fiction are the most successful.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Like I said, King doesn't follow that rule for shit!

Ah, I get it. Thanks. And now that I know what it means, I intend to summarily ignore it. Some of the wordiest MFers in popular fiction are the most successful.

 

[SmilingLez]

When I wrote Her Orgasm, I "killed" probably a dozen or more of my sweet "babies" in order to make the story 750 words so that I could enter it in the Valentine's Day Contest, the 750 word challenge, and the Pink Orchid challenge..

 

[caleb35]

I see this in two ways:
1. Don't fall too in love with your words.
2. Cut that non-contributing stuff out.

For 1, I've put down books, and clicked away from stories, when it seems like literary masturbation (the bad kind).
For 2, a concrete example: This afternoon I trimmed about 300 words from a 8,000 word part I'm about to post, because I put unnecessary detail in, that didn't drive the story forward. When I wrote it, I thought "Oh, yeah, I just learned about this, it'll provide some 'colour' ". Which was nonsense, it didn't provide any benefit, it just made that part slower moving.

Very well put; completely agree.

 

[caleb35]

A lot of people in this thread seem to advise not killing your darlings, or only doing so if it feels right for you, or that the advice is out-of-date as it was originally supposed to be for magazine writing. These are all valid points. Advice is advice, you're free to follow it or disregard it as you see best, the only "rule" being that your story be "good," and what constitutes that is up to you and your readers (and maybe not even them).

Now, for me -- yes. Kill your darlings. Every time.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Of course the other solution is to change your story so that they *do* serve it. In other threads we've mentioned Chekov's Gun. If you're reluctant about killing a particular darling, you can embed it more firmly in the story: either by returning to it later so that it becomes a CG, or else by inserting a CG earlier that foreshadows your darling.

This is really good advice that someone who strictly follows KYD might miss. Don't just kill them right out of the gate, see about incorporation.

Better advice: Try to Salvage Your Darlings, But If They Don't Cooperate, Punt That Fucker Into the Abyss.

Or TtSYDBITDCPTFItA, as it's known in the industry.

 

[NuclearFairy]

Now, for me -- yes. Kill your darlings. Every time.

I keep trying to walk away without saying the creepy thing, but then I come back and see this and want to say the creepy thing...

Ahem, put your precious in the ground where none but you can defile them. o.o

 

[anthrodisiac]

I keep trying to walk away without saying the creepy thing, but then I come back and see this and want to say the creepy thing...

Ahem, put your precious in the ground where none but you can defile them. o.o

I now have an image of Nuc crouched over a shallow grave Gollum-style, holding a machette and soaked in blood, with a merman fin poking out of the dirt...

 

[Statius]

This.

It really helps to understand what you're trying to achieve with a particular piece of writing.

If it's Gothic horror, you'll want to lay the mood on thick, and get very descriptive, and you can probably get away with prose that borders on purple. But successive paragraphs where you show off your detailed knowledge of steam locomotion and its impact on society would probably be better off buried in a shallow grave.

If you're writing a contemporary romance, you might want to make your descriptions breezier, and cut out any extended descriptions of misty moors and the cry of the curlew. But that leaves more room for explorations of your protagonist's person, and for some witty dialogue.

In a high-paced sci-fi adventure story, you can indulge in details of weapon and gear, and instead trim out summaries of each character's dating lives.

FWIW, I've always understood "kill your darlings" to mean "be willing to kill them". As in, recognise that they don't serve the story you're trying to tell, and be ruthless about eliminating them no matter how pleased you are with yourself.

Of course the other solution is to change your story so that they *do* serve it. In other threads we've mentioned Chekov's Gun. If you're reluctant about killing a particular darling, you can embed it more firmly in the story: either by returning to it later so that it becomes a CG, or else by inserting a CG earlier that foreshadows your darling.

Also remember that this doesn't necessarily have to be a plot point, or an action moment. It can be a clue about a character's mindset, or a detail that implants a clue in your reader's mind about a big reveal or plot twist, or any of a dozen tricks that give your story more depth and make your reader feel more engaged.

I incorporated one. I took a situation in one story, the characters were in an unnamed bar/ club. A year later in a different story I took that pivotal moment from the original story and used it in another story. I worked it out as the MC in the newer story knew the character in the older story and ran into her there. It was just a fun moment tying those two stories together loosely. The interaction was probably 50 words total and fit seamlessly. I was so proud of that.

 

[Statius]

I now have an image of Nuc crouched over a shallow grave Gollum-style, holding a machette and soaked in blood, with a merman fin poking out of the dirt...

Axe, maybe

 

[SimonDoom]

King is the king of ignoring his own rules. Leaving in, beloved words, phrases, sentences, scenes, or subplots that the writer is particularly fond of but that do not actually serve the story's purpose. Just read Cojo, The Stand, or almost anything else he's written, and characters with subplots disappear all over the place.

Not all of his books are like this. Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Dead Zone, Misery are more economical and to the point. And shorter. And he's an excellent horror short story writer. So, he can do it right when he tries.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Not all of his books are like this. Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Dead Zone, Misery are more economical and to the point. And shorter. And he's an excellent horror short story writer. So, he can do it right when he tries.

Could, for sure - also Carrie, Shawshank...

Has he written a short or tight story in the last 20 years?

How much to kill off is the eternal question. People read erotica to read. It's not a report; no-one wants 750 words of 'Alice A, single, 28, met Bob B, divorced, 35, in Charlie's Bar. At Bob's apartment they performed the following sex acts:' (insert list)

Some readers want little detail except for the sex acts. Others want background and characterisation, some also want descriptions. Some like long realistic conversations to get to the activities. You're not going to write one story that pleases all three.

Personally I like conversations about sex, to get me and my characters in the mood. Some readers like this. Others complain about 'all the talking' that 'isn't sex'.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Not all of his books are like this. Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Dead Zone, Misery are more economical and to the point. And shorter. And he's an excellent horror short story writer. So, he can do it right when he tries.

In my opinion, King is at his best when he's doing short stories. He has an indulgent side that bloats a lot of his works (a lot of that bloat came when he was mourning his mom and drinking heavily, so it's kind of understandable, but I don't think he ever fully shook that habit; plus, being famous and popular doesn't really incentivize one to change a good formula), but his short stories are among the finest I've ever read.

 

[StillStunned]

This is really good advice that someone who strictly follows KYD might miss. Don't just kill them right out of the gate, see about incorporation.

Here's an example from a recent story of mine: The Oath and the Fear. Avilia wakes up with a massive hangover, and Sligh reminds her she's sworn an oath to find and kill a mysterious monster in the city's sewers. Only nobody's survived encountering it, and what's more, Sligh only has a day to stick around and help before he has to leave.

That was the basic set-up. To add a bit of depth, I introduced two other characters: the maid who serves them breakfast, and a bravo who comes to taunt Avilia about her impossible oath.

The maid flirts with Sligh, and Avilia feels guilty about the situation and thinks about asking her to join them for a threesome as a special treat for him. That line was an unresolved orphan, and it bugged me. I thought about deleting it, but when I was almost done and was writing the final sex scene I added this bit:

"Oh, I'm sure that serving maid will see your face in her dreams for a few weeks." Avilia rubbed herself against him. "Perhaps we should spend a night there on our way back downstream and make her dreams come true."

"Is that supposed to appeal to me? The idea of twice as much work? Two women to satisfy?"

Sligh has barely slept for two nights by this time, so he's out on his feet. So this line sets them up for Avilia going on top and doing all the work.

The encounter with the bravo was another scene that was fun to write, but felt disconnected. I toyed with the idea of him being the driving force behind the unknown monster, but that seemed at odds with his shabbiness. So I decided that he'd show up at the end to try and steal Avilia's thunder.

Still, that didn't feel like enough. If he appeared out of nowhere, it would be like saying, "But wait, there's more!" So I introduced a twist where he tricks Sligh into leaving early so that Avilia has to face the monster - and the bravo - by herself. Even though he appears seemingly out of nowhere, the story's climax makes it clear that he's been manipulating things in the background.

In both cases, I think that the story turned out better and feels more complete because I decided to build on these elements rather than throw them out.

 

[SpermBankHoliday]

I now have an image of Nuc crouched over a shallow grave Gollum-style, holding a machete and soaked in blood, with a merman fin poking out of the dirt...

The thing about killing you darlings is, you have to make it look like an accident.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Ah, I get it. Thanks. And now that I know what it means, I intend to summarily ignore it. Some of the wordiest MFers in popular fiction are the most successful.

And yet as I say that, I've a luscious little darling that will be going the way of the dodo right soon.

 

[old_prof]

I'd been off much of the forum most of this week. And this thread appeared at an opportune time for my thoughts.

I'm doing a major revision of my first novel (as part of revising most of the second half of my catalog), for practice (revising is one of my struggles), because I think I'm a notably better writer than I was most of 2025. and because I'm posting many of my stories elsewhere now and I might as well clean them up before reposting them. When I'm finished revising, I will post the edits here as well, so they should appear sometime this year, Laurel permitting.

Anyway, with the novel Blunt Force Drama, I was trying an approach Sanderson suggested in his lecture, building an outline from the story and using that to take a set back to look at things like pacing and relevance. In doing that, I realized I have a major (1.5K word) side story that does nothing for the main plot line or character development. I'm building my courage up to delete it from the revised story. I'm trying to figure out alternative (less wordy) ways to introduce the handful of bits of information that I do reference later in the book,

It feels like the right thing to do, but it is hard to pull the trigger.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I'd been off much of the forum most of this week. And this thread appeared at an opportune time for my thoughts.

I'm doing a major revision of my first novel (as part of revising most of the second half of my catalog), for practice (revising is one of my struggles), because I think I'm a notably better writer than I was most of 2025. and because I'm posting many of my stories elsewhere now and I might as well clean them up before reposting them. When I'm finished revising, I will post the edits here as well, so they should appear sometime this year, Laurel permitting.

Anyway, with the novel Blunt Force Drama, I was trying an approach Sanderson suggested in his lecture, building an outline from the story and using that to take a set back to look at things like pacing and relevance. In doing that, I realized I have a major (1.5K word) side story that does nothing for the main plot line or character development. I'm building my courage up to delete it from the revised story. I'm trying to figure out alternative (less wordy) ways to introduce the handful of bits of information that I do reference later in the book,

It feels like the right thing to do, but it is hard to pull the trigger.

Us pantsers greatly benefit from doing a post-story outline. It's a technique I've used for several novels to help nip errant threads and make sure to seed foreshadowing earlier.

Make sure you keep that snipped bit. Never full-on delete stuff like that.

Give it a nice kiss goodbye, then put it on the bus to Snipsville. Maybe you'll see it again someday, but for now, let it go.

 

[StillStunned]

Give it a nice kiss goodbye, then put it on the bus to Snipsville. Maybe you'll see it again someday, but for now, let it go.

I said the exact same thing to my wife when I went for my vasectomy!