Thanks for clearing up the origin for me. I know the textbook definition, too. King didn't give examples. Did Falkner?
Actually, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch is generally given credit, although Faulkner was certainly one of the ones who popularized it.
Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch also wrote something similar. It's an old problem so there are probably many quotes back through time on it(ooops, wrote that before the post above was visible).
I don't think giving isolated examples would work. Things are only 'darlings' in the context of the whole story. A person has to read the entire thing, and start identifying their own darlings by going through the thought process. Some darlings just leap out. They'd be darlings in any story. They're just little very clever bits of dialog. Often the developing writer will collect these as they come to him. ''That'll go great in a science fiction story!'' he might think. But there are other sorts of darlings as well. There are a zillion blogs on the subject, with advice on how to find those passages that need to be removed. One piece of advice is to flag every passage where your attention wanders, but I think that's actually quite difficult for most people. Especially if they really like what they've written. It's extremely difficult to find one's own mistakes. They just do not stick out. One's brain just is not set up to do that. And one's ego is involved. One tends to like what one writes. Deleting is not seen as an option. The best thing one can do if one is having trouble finding these things is to have someone else who is very good, read what they write.
They all need to be killed. By definition. The definition being ''things that do not add to the story''. That's the problem: that the author needs to develop a certain parsimony.
By your definition. But I don't think there's a universal understanding of what the word means. ETA: And in your definition, we need to decide what is meant by "story". I assume it covers not only plot but also characterization and setting and style and mood and all the other elements that make fiction both interesting and beautiful. In which case one reader's "darlings" will be another reader's "details".
That sort of thing always works for me... but I'm a bit slow when it comes to stuff like that. If someone isn't doing the Monty Python Fish Dance with me, I often don't see what's obvious to others... Not that I let it bother me.
Example: Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderley again. It seemed to me I stood by the iron gate leading to the drive, and for a while I could not enter for the way was barred to me. Then, like all dreamers, I was possessed of a sudden with supernatural powers and passed like a spirit through the barrier before me. The drive wound away in front of me, twisting and turning as it has always done. At that moment, an excellent joke occurred to me; "What do you call a T-rex selling guns? A small arms dealer." I chuckled and turned my attention back to the drive. But as I advanced, I was aware that a change had come upon it. Nature had come into her own again, and little by little had encroached upon the drive with long tenacious fingers, on and on while the poor thread that had once been our drive.
Well people in this thread are making up their own definition, apparently in an attempt to invalidate the concept entirely. That isn't how the discussion usually goes. Darlings aren't EVERYTHING one writes that one likes. Darlings are things that are extraneous. Extra. Could be removed from the story. As an example, in the first Indiana Jones movie, Indiana Jones had no major effect on the outcome of the story. He could have been removed from the story and nothing in the story would have changed. That's a darling. Oops!
So "darlings" are like "info dumps". We know they're bad by definition and should be burned with fire, but they're sometimes hard to spot, plus, readers may disagree what they consider too much info... or superfluous.
Well, crap, if it's stuff like that... Easy-peasy (lemon squeezy). I thought it would be (somehow) harder to spot.
Okay, but... what? Sorry, I can't tell if your "Oops" means you acknowledge that your example has disproved your point or if you think the filmmakers actually made a mistake by including a character who's become completely iconic and made the movie what it was... If the first--I agree. Your example makes it clear that we need to have a pretty broad definition of "story" in order for your definition of "darlings" to work. If the second--I disagree. Indy's characterization was what made the movies enjoyable. Obviously.
There's an example of a darling. And I think in older styles of writing, the pace, the rhythm might be slower, but that doesn't necessarily make it a darling. As an example, at one point in that story, the narrator is in complete shock, and all she can think about or notice, is some ash on the carpet. Her brain is just over-loaded. In a workshop one gal insisted that was a darling, and every one else explained to her that it showed how deeply in shock the narrator was at that point.
Generally, it's a little more subtle... Like, was duMaurier's language unnecessarily florid? Was one of her descriptive terms a little too much? Was it a darling that she loved but that didn't add to the effect of the scene? Subjective, really.
While info dumps might be included under the 'darling' umbrella in some cases, info (but not dumped) can be essential to understanding character motivation and/or reaction. Otherwise, every character would have to take the obvious route (whatever that might be) toward solving the story problem... and that, I think, would get boring for a different reason.
That's my point: the way it's defined depends on the reader/writer/publisher/pet dinosaur, so if they decide it's a darling, it's bad, kind of like deciding "this is an infodump imo" -- ergo bad. Or... just never mind. I'll go back to my happy place.
No, one does not need a broad definition of 'story'. I mean, that's a clever attack, but it sounds more like denial than anything else. One just needs to dial down the ego for a few minutes and accept that not everything one may write may be needed for the story. And part of the craft of writing is getting rid of unnecessary things in the writing. My oops followed right along with what I had written. In other words, there was a character in the story who could be considered as completely extraneous. Probably very few people would think of that BECAUSE he is handsome and dashing. That's the whole point of 'darlings'. That they're clever and dashing and handsome, and we think we need them, and we LOVE them. Just like Indiana Jones. We assume we must have them. Because they're loveable. The whole zen of getting rid of the darlings is JUST LIKE looking at Indiana Jones and asking, "Okay, what does he actually DO? How does he change the outcome?" And yes, 'my' definition (the definition used by King, Faulkner and Quiller-whatziz-name) is inclusive, complete and specific. Darlings are things that are unnecessary for the story.
No, the description of the drive wasn't a darling. It was necessary. The idea of nature taking over and obliterating evil.
I think it was a joking way of creating a darling that was screamingly obvious. And of course, using someone else's writing showed another part of the problem: that it's a lot easier to be ruthless with other peoples' writings, than with one's own.
...I was just wondering if it was @Tenderiser 's "joke that dare not speak its name"...but the fact that @Tenderiser 's original post mentions that it pertains to the female MC's name suggests that a joke about a saurian arms dealer WASN'T the joke.
So you think I was right to change 'T-Rex' to 'Jane'? You're right. I don't have my WIP with me to insert my WONDERFUL JOKE into Rebecca.