Maybe you missed the part where I said "we all write them. It's inevitable." Regardless, I'm not sure why you seem to have taken offense. Inexperience isn't something anyone has control over and shouldn't be taken as an insult. It's just the state we're all in before we're... experienced. Arrogance I mean not in the conversational sense ("he's so cocky and arrogant and full of himself") but in the sense that every writer to some extent thinks well of his or her own work. This inevitably leads a writer to think too highly of this bit or that bit even if he or she remains humble about the work as a whole. Again, we all do it, and I said as much the first time. Naivete? Well, I suppose it's really a combination of inexperience and arrogance ("look at me, I'm writing so good!!!"), which I suppose is also an insult. There are fewer excuses for naivete in a world where most of the information we need about any given topic is only a Google away.
But several people in the thread have said they don't create darlings, at least according to our understandings/interpretations of the phrase. So you've called all of us... whatever. I can't be bothered to scroll back up to see the triumvirate of choices. But I wouldn't really say I've taken offense--I just disagree, both with the content of your post and with the way you've framed it.
I killed an entire 2nd POV that made up a third of my novel. Obviously the 2nd POV wasn't a doing much for the story in its entirety, or I wouldn't have gotten rid of it. But man, some of those pieces of backstory and scenes I couldn't transfer over to the single POV were so hard to cut, and definitely qualify as my darlings.
I haven't read every post in the thread, but it seems there's a general consensus that a darling can be anything, a point on which I agree. Specifically, it's an author intrusion. It's any item that contributes nothing important to the story but sounds oh-so-nice or seems oh-so-clever to the author. It can be a short sentence, it can be a paragraph, it can even be an entire character or chapter or, in the most self-indulgent cases, it could conceivably be a whole story. It's impossible not to write them, only to minimize them. Good writers might even edit all of them out later, and they should, but nobody lays down a 5000 word story--let alone a 100,000 word novel--without creating any darlings. How do you define a darling?
You could read the thread to find the ways various people are defining it. ETA: But in general, I don't really write things that I think sound oh-so-nice or seem oh-so-clever. I just tell the damn story.
For me to call it a darling, it has to be something that's tough for me to cut, even though I know the story will read better overall to others without it.
Thing is, not every intrusion is a darling. Not every bit of prose that the author likes but doesn't contribute to the story is a darling. This all has to be judged in the context of the style the author is going for. Reading Nabokov, you'll find a lot that doesn't contribute to story per se, but is there particularly as playful language. Lee Child, not so much (though there are still bits that aren't strictly necessary). Does any book come out with no bits that aren't strictly necessary?
We're back to having to define "story". If it just means "plot", then practically every author worth reading litters their books with "darlings". If "story" means the whole thing - plot, mood, characterization, etc. etc., then I'd argue that Nabokov doesn't really have many if any, at least to my taste. He writes things that contribute to the overall effect of the book. I mean, if we're just talking plot, practically every book ever written could be boiled down into a couple pages. Presumably no one expects us to kill any darlings that expand beyond those pages!
I've read enough get the gist. In any case, I'm interested in how you define a darling. You've provided a lot of commentary in this thread but no definition. Bingo. Not every author intrusion is a darling, no. You're right--as with anything, context is important. And to phrase your last question another way: Is there such thing as a perfect story or book? I doubt it. But the goal is get a story as close to that point as possible before publication, no?
I have no idea how to define it. It's not a word I would use, as I think the definition is too vague/idiosyncratic to be meaningful. But according to your "bingo" definition - nope, I don't write 'em. I never have trouble cutting things from my stories. If they don't work, they go. I mean, I might not cut something because I'm too lazy to bother, but I don't keep things in because I think they're too wonderful to do away with. That's just not the way I think/feel about my writing.
Then you do write them--you just also have the discipline to cut them before you call your story "done." Which is what I advocated in my initial post. Good. (Aside from the bit about being lazy, anyway.) Everyone should write with the bolded in mind.
So a "darling" is just anything that gets edited out? It's just--that simple? None of your "oh-so-clever" qualifiers, just... anything that should be cut? Okay, then. According to a definition that broad, I guess I write darlings. But I don't think that's the definition most people are using.
No. That's not what I said, and I don't think that's what @Laurin Kelly suggested, either. If a darling is something that's "tough to cut" (i.e. the author likes it) but it's also something the story would be better without (i.e. fluffy, extraneous, distracting, inconsequential--whatever), then it coincides with everything I've said so far, albeit it's a broader definition. The idea that anyone is defining a darling as "every item that gets cut" is yours, not mine. I don't feel like I've been unclear. Is there a reason you seem more interested in keeping score than delving into this? Am I reading you wrong? Or are you still salty about me suggesting writers might be prone to a touch of arrogance? Because I feel pretty strongly that I'm right about that. Us writers would do well to remind ourselves once in a while that there is always something more in our writing to improve. Doing so might even help us identify and kill a few previously unnoticed darlings.
I think a darling is one of those things that is hard to cut, not just anything that is cut. They are the things we don't think we need to cut until we realize otherwise. And even thinking that way, this thread has taken on other definitions so I can see how this whole topic might seem confusing.
But I'm saying that I don't find it tough to cut things. It's easy. And right after I said that, in a response that quoted me saying that, you said that I therefore DO write darlings. So... I don't think it was my idea? (I certainly don't think @Laurin Kelly was involved in it!) I don't think I'm keeping score, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying and to point out that if you're saying what I think you are, I disagree. ETA: Okay, to clarify... Working definition of "darlings" - things that authors find hard to cut but should cut anyway because they don't contribute to the author's goal for a piece. We good on this? And then reality - I don't find it hard to cut things. I may be too lazy to bother, but I don't have an emotional attachment to elements of my writing that makes it hard for me to delete things that don't contribute to my goal. So, based on the definition plus the reality, I don't think I write darlings. Do you agree with that?
I certainly don't want to get caught up in a heated debate, but I think everyone writes a so-called darling every now and then at least. Or maybe not. I know, for me, I sure couldn't spot these things on my own. And let me just say, I'm not sure how much you can trust anyone you want to call a beta reader. But when a writer who was out of my league marked up a copy of my work and then said her editor friend might want to read, I cut all those darlings. What I gave this friend was already my edited work. I thought I had cut everything that needed to be cut. I would have said I don't write darlings or I don't have a problem cutting... until I did. Now, that might not be the case for you, but maybe for other people who read this thread. I think darlings are extremely hard to cut. I know I thought a few times that I was cutting the best line I had ever written or that something was part of the essence of a story. The only reason I could even do it is because my manuscript was going to be handed off to an editor. It also didn't hurt that these changes were suggested by a really great writer. Ever since this experience I am able to edit a little better, but I still think it's hard to kill darlings. I don't think it's hard for me to cut, but every now and then I come across something that I know is no good. For me, this usually comes in the form of awkwardly-worded sentences that I mistake for being brilliant.
It may come down to genre or writing style? If you're writing literary fiction where the language itself is a huge part of the story, then I can see agonizing over a particular change or possibility or, yes, cut. But I don't write literary. I just tell stories. When editors suggest changes I usually go along without, honestly, much thought. I mean, by the time the book gets to the editor stage they aren't generally making huge changes--if huge changes were required, they wouldn't have wanted my story. And I don't care enough about the tiny details of the writing to bother getting upset about losing something. Again, if I were writing literary, where I'd spent the morning putting in a comma and the afternoon taking it out, or whatever the quote is, I might be more likely to fight for the comma. But I don't write like that. I totally believe that for some writers, possibly most writers, it's hard to cut or change certain aspects of their stories. I just don't believe it's true for all writers. It only takes one exception to disprove an absolute, right?
LOL. I get ya. This is just something I struggle with. Still, I would deny to most people I have this problem even if it's true. Damn, it's the first line. I'm still not sure about the comma. hahaha.
Most of the other writers I know are, like me, very emotionally attached to their stories and characters. Some I have actually warned against pursuing traditional publishing because I know the editing process would kill them. I cried over losing several parts of my novel, and I'm known among my friends as being a pretty tough cookie. But I can definitely believe it's not a universal truth! I actually envy this ability and wish I could tap into it. Alas, I fear I shall forever lurk in the corners weeping over "my babies".
Let me put it another way...a darling is all about me. ME ME ME ME ME No one else reading the book will ever wish that it was there or sense something is missing, but I sure do. If you don't miss it even a tiny bit when it's gone, I don't think it qualifies as a darling. And by that standard, I think @BayView is right when she says she doesn't write them.
It sounds kind of hard-hearted, but for me the solution has been to have lots and lots of babies! By the time one of my books is at the editor stage I've usually written at least one other and am working on another one altogether. The one I'm currently working on is what holds my interest, so when the edits come in I'm just like: do what you want, I don't care, stop bothering me! I'm working on this one now, do you not understand?!? Possibly I'm a little low on the artiste scale...
I think you may have hit one something with the multiple babies thing. I'm the only child of an only child who went on to have her own...you guessed it, only child. I absolutely tend to throw myself into one baby at a time.
Most of the authors I 'know' (most are just online) who are actually getting anywhere share @BayView's attitude. @Laurin Kelly is an obvious exception. In general, treating characters or stories like babies and resisting any change seems to be an amateur trait.
So, to sum this thread up 1. A 'darling' is something of personal significance that doesn't add any real value to the story. 2. Killing them can be hard. 2a- @BayView is heartless
