There is a much-loved quote by
William Faulkner – “In writing, you must kill all your darlings.” Now, I
suppose you could take this literally and kill off everyone that a reader could
possibly love.
(I’m looking at you, George R.R.
Martin. You too, Suzanne Collins. You sit in a corner and think about what
you’ve done. This is why we can’t have nice things.)
However, I think a less literal
interpretation is a little closer to what Faulkner meant.
As we write, we can grow emotionally
attached to the elements of our story. Maybe it’s a character that we adore or
a scene that seems so perfect that it should be in writing manuals as an
example of impeccable writing. You know you’ve done it. You’ve written that one
flawless sentence that should be engraved in gold and preserved for all
eternity as manifested genius.
And don’t get me wrong - it’s not
a bad thing to appreciate your own writing. It’s a nice change from the usual
negative commentary that we face. However, when we become overly attached to
these things – our “darlings” – then we have a hard time editing them out, even
if they aren’t serving their purpose. A beautiful sentence is worthless if it
doesn’t fit the story, like handing a flawless diamond to someone dying of
thirst. It’s just a heavy rock that they don’t need.
Or we can get really Zen about it
with the koan:
If you meet the Buddha on the way, kill him.
This isn’t supposed to inspire
violence against Buddha, but rather an admonition to cut attachments that would
hinder your path to enlightenment. I think it transfers well to writing.
Instead of heading toward enlightenment, we’re striving for the best version of
our story that we can write. This means we have to cut any elements that weigh
it down.
I’m actually facing this right
now in my WIP. My dear friend is my beta reader, and while she liked the story
and the voice, she was pretty sure there were too many secondary characters.
My first thoughts:
They are wonderful characters and I’m quite sure that Tumblr would develop
a massive fandom for them! *cough*
The main character spends the
first two chapters in the company of a delightfully colorful sidekick. He’s a
deep-fried, whiskey-marinated redneck with a gambling problem and a heart of
gold. What’s not to love? And then there’s the tough, world-wise preacher who’s
far too handsome for his own good. He’s a holy man crossed with a Hell’s Angel,
and he’s just about the only person who gets my tough-as-nails MC all aflutter.
I adore both characters, but my
friend had a point. It wasn’t that they weren’t developed. Both characters had
distinct personalities, and they were both fairly memorable. But the first half
of the book basically had a revolving door. These guys came and went and didn’t
contribute anything major to the plot.
Redneck Guy was more set dressing
than anything else. He establishes the situation – not good – that the MC is in at the beginning of the story. Then he
disappears after Chapter 2 and only reappears via phone call in the back half
of the book. His only major contribution could have been done by literally
anyone else in the book.
Preacher Man was only slightly
more significant. He first appears around Chapter 6 to give the MC some sage
advice and stir up an old crush, and then is off-stage until the very end of
the book. Like Redneck Guy, he doesn’t do anything that can’t be done by
someone else.
Furthermore, the book already has
a fair number of minor characters. It follows two main characters solving a
mystery, so they encounter a number of suspects, witnesses, and law enforcement
officials. Each one of them either takes some action that pushes the plot along
or contributes information that helps solve the mystery.
Preacher Man and Redneck Guy, as
lovable as they were, didn’t do either. Sadly, these darlings had to go.
Now that I’m editing, I’ve given
them their pink slips. Redneck Guy actually makes a brief cameo, and he’ll
hopefully show up in another book. I’m avoiding Preacher Man by having the
protagonist simply not return to her hometown to see him for now.
It’s difficult to cut a
character. I’m a hardcore outliner when I write, and when I first envisioned
this book, it involved both of these darlings. Obviously, they seemed important
at the time. I mean, why would I have come up with them if I didn’t think it
was the best way to tell the story? And with all the time spent on a first
draft, it’s easy to become attached to them. But if they’re not doing their
job, they have to go. A story grows and twists as you write it, and you can’t
be afraid to follow where it leads.
I was going to offer some advice,
but Margo wrote an absolutely fantastic set of questions to ask yourself if a
character needs to go. So, I’m going to defer to her awesomeness and direct you
there for more advice. (Hyperlink to Margo’s post: http://darklydeliciousya.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-darker-side-of-cutting-characters.html)
Don’t be afraid to cut those ties.
If your darling is dead weight, then push them on out of the boat Dexter-style.
If you meet your darling on the road, you must kill the darling.
I love this. The gifs are perfect. "You must kill your darling" So true.
ReplyDeleteLove your reference to Buddhist philosophy. I actually just edited a book entitled Meet the Buddha, Kill the Buddha... so now I totally understand that doan! and yes, I guess it does translate to writing as well!
ReplyDeleteGreat advice!
ReplyDelete