When writing about myself I find it much harder to kill those darlings than in fiction. But sometimes the "best parts of the story" are distracting and holding back the actual story. I thank God for those patient and hands-on editors who work with writers like me because I find these things harder to spot and realize when writing personal essay and memoir. I know I'm still telling a story just like I would with fiction, but I sometimes think things are more important to a story than they actually are when writing about something I actually went through or that happened. And I'm more reluctant to cut the clutter. Still, I always come around and do what needs to be done prior to publication. But that's with the help and guidance of an editor. It's not like I don't think I kill all those darlings before submitting anything, but the truth always it that I don't. Does anyone else struggle with this somewhat (or a lot) in their memoirs and essays? It hasn't really gotten easier for me, though, I am trying. How do you spot and kill your darlings when writing about something that really happened? Why do some parts of a story seem important to the author, but could prevent publication or hold back a piece? Sometimes I seem just write darlings which makes the piece an utter mess. If you know where I'm coming from, it would be great to hear your advice on this topic.
I'd say that if this applies, regardless of fiction/non-fiction orientation, and this: Is still a conundrum, then the "don't let facts get in the way of a good story" adage would still be in play, but perhaps to a lesser degree? And you'd have to write more about the interesting facts and lessen/eliminate the more superfluous/boring ones? Tough call. I'm sure Jimi Hendrix and Winston Churchill did a lot of things that were interesting in a vacuum, but prospective readers would only be interested in reading about the more, what... "juicy" bits?
Not a memoir exactly, but I sometimes write stories based on things I've actually done, largely to get that authenticity in. The character isn't really me, but is in some ways based on me. And I find I end up putting in stuff that actually happened, often getting too involved in details that don't really need to be in the story, that slow it down or even work against it. And yes, it's hard to cut those out, at least for a while, until I roll my sleeves up and get into serious edit mode.
See, I write both fiction and nonfiction at the professional level and feel much different going through the revision process for each. Of course, I think I've killed all those darling and my work is solid for it to be accepted for publications. But when a fiction editor wants changes I'll do anything. After all, it's just a story and I'm getting paid. But I find myself more reluctant in essays and such to agree to everything in revision and I end up putting up more of a fight only to come around to the conclusion that good editors know their stuff. There guidance if often magic. Why is it harder to digest this when you write about yourself or your thoughts? And I guess I mean at the point where you're getting some sort of trustworthy feedback, but there's some sort of hesitation on your part even if you kind of know the feedback of what to admit is starting to make sense. I know killing your darlings is a difficult thing know matter the genre. But it does feel really different in memoir and essays than it does for fiction with me.
I can't really offer helpful advice (I've never written something based on my actual experiences), but maybe, if you feel as if the detail matters to the story, then editing is needed, not necessarily cutting. We are writers. We can put a spin on anything so that it makes sense in context of the story.
If I’m writing personal experiences I want my personality to come pouring out. I actually have a personal blog where I do this sometimes and that’s what the readers are looking for: all my “darlings” out there. Therefore, I cut none. Different conversation with fiction. I do kill a lot of “darlings”.
But "darling" are what hold a piece of writing back. Even good writing needs editing and revision, right? I think it's maybe harder to spot and remove said darlings when we're writing about ourselves. That's true for be, obviously, since I started this thread. If you're using your blog as some sort of diary or you're not trying to sell your essays maybe it's different, but I'm not so sure it should be. I had a piece rejected by an editor I've worked with before so I was able to ask a few questions about why my piece wasn't making the cut. I was told that it wasn't going to do me any favors to have that piece published. It just wasn't up to snuff. I had worked hard on it, but I didn't try to publish it anywhere else. Sure, it was me and my writing is always pretty clean, but I only want me best work out there. Same editor is a brilliant "darling" spotter and can take good writing to great, but that always involves killing those darlings. At least that's the way it goes with me. Darlings are not a good thing. And I realize they do prevent a piece of writing from being as good as it can be. It's just hard to let some of them go. I guess that's why they call them "darlings," but in reality they are anything but darling. Is the reason you don't try to cut them out of your blog pieces because it's hard and often hard to even determine when something is a "darling?" I can understand that. But to think they are adding anything to your writing is silly. Again, the darlings are a problem not an asset.
@Rosacrvx -- Why is it different for you when it comes to fiction? I feel the same way, but I'm not sure why or how to change the resistance I feel about killing darlings in person nonfiction writing.
It’s a question of register. On my blog my register is very informal. For instance, I get creative with punctuation. I take liberties I wouldn’t take in a more formal register. My readers are used to my voice, all my personality out there. I can be personal, humorous, serious, histrionic. All I have to care about is amusing my readers. In my works of fiction I want the opposite: I want my personality to disappear. This includes my punctuation. I don’t need extravagant punctuation distracting the reader from the story. On my blog I’m the main “character”, the punctuation reflects me. On my fiction I want the readers to focus on my characters and never think about me. This is tricky when you’re writing memoirs. What is your register, overall? And are you writing for yourself and your readers, or are you selling to a publisher that makes you follow their guidelines (for instance, no “creative” punctuation”)? This is what determines what “darlings” to keep. My “darling” could be a string of exclamation marks: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In these cases I always ask myself: is this the hill I want to die on? Maybe it really is the hill I want to die on; but maybe it isn’t. Maybe I’ll stick to only one exclamation mark or none. Whatever helps me achieve my goals. In what concerns my blog, I’m the sole tyrant of my page. If I want ten exclamation marks, ten exclamation marks it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, @Rosacrvx, you get it when you said how you were the main character on your blog. I'm the main character in my personal essays which I do and and publish. But I think we're coming some the same place. You seem to get where I'm coming from. I'm not sure how many drafts or passes you give each piece of your writing before you put it online, but I probably go through each piece three or four times after the final draft is done before sending it off to a publisher. I'm doing pretty well at it in general. But as I said earlier some parts are harder to let go of, and maybe it's because I'm the main charter and all of it's part of my story. But as I said earlier, I end up coming around to darling-cuts made by editors who buy my work. I did state the situation in my first post so I don't want to repeat everything. Bottom line is the editors are right. And then I think we start to differ because it seems like you handle things differently when it's on a professional level. I see no need in doing things I know are wrong as a bad move. Bad practice and probably not the best image. Do you really think your readers would be upset if your writing was cleaner? I mean maybe what you're doing is very creative, but it seems like you have double standards. I'm actively publishing both fiction and nonfiction. I'm not sure what you mean by register, but maybe you mean something about publishing, right? And I'm not really sure where you're going with the hill thing. I'm just talking about cutting bad writing out of our nonfiction. I don't think anyone's dying on a hill. Or are you saying I'm dying on a hill and some sort of sellout for getting paid for my writing?
Friendly neighbourhood mod here... just a reminder that we're talking only writing. Keep it civil, people. No one dies on no hill (apart from the hill in one of my stories ).
Sorry, @Lifeline, and anyone else. Not trying to start any fights. And maybe I'm just not getting the whole "hill" thing. I don't know. It probably doesn't matter. I did think it was interesting to get the perspective of a blogger writing about themselves so maybe there's some miscommunication. But this thread is dealing with the editing process. Through an editor at a publication or self editing, killing darling is something we all do at times. I just wish it was easier and I was better at it.
Dying on a hill is an idiom to mean, taking a stand and sticking with it no matter the consequences. It's a military metaphor, as in you're a soldier defending a hill and you will fight to the death, not retreating or surrendering.
Revision is not retreating or surrendering. Revision is what makes writing better. It's moving a piece forward. I think writers should embrace revision, though, I do know it is easier said than done. Hence "kill your darlings."
I'm not sure what context it was meant in originally, it just seemed you never heard the saying before.
I'm not sure why you would say that, but I'm not looking to fight with you. This was thread was started for a discussion. Of course, I know what it means to kill your darlings. Good luck to you, but I'm going to step out of this back and forth with you. I'm still interested in this topic and discussion but not the way it's going with you. No offense intended on my part. I just don't think you understand my situation which is fine, but we're clearly not on the same page.
@deadrats Oh, come on, when did I say such a thing? If I led you to think I did with my poor wording, I'm very sorry, that was not what I meant at all. Please read my post again. As for register: 9. A variety or level of language used in a specific social setting: speaking in an informal register; writing in a scientific register. Of course I have "looser" standard in informal register. That's what informal is all about. Only you can tell how much you're willing to fight for your "darlings" in memoirs. Not all editors are right just because they're editors.
OK, clearly there's a misunderstanding. Dying on a hill is a well known idiom about choosing to make a stand about a belief. In this context it was used by the author of the message to explain that minor changes are not worth fighting over. May as well just do them. It was relevant as it concerned making choices about editing and clearly not a personal attack. Not everyone has heard of it, fine. But then a polite, helpful explanation was taken as some kind of challenge. Stop being argumentative or this thread will be closed.
