I alluded to this in my last post and thought I better elaborate.
‘Kill your darlings’ is advice from William Faulkner; the full quote is (supposedly, but different versions exist) “In writing, you must kill your darlings”. Gee, thanks for qualifying with that ‘in writing’ bit, Will, otherwise who knows what kind of serial murdering spree you might have set off by desperate writers prepared to follow any advice to get published.
(Not to get too diverted, but originally the phrase was ‘murder your darlings’, and it came from Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch: “Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it – whole-heartedly – and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlings”.)
It can be taken at face value to mean kill off your favourite characters, but in general what it is taken to refer to, as the Sir Arthur quote makes clear, is those bits of your writing that you really, really like. If you like them, it means you can’t be objective about them. If you’re not objective about them, it means you can’t judge them. If you can’t judge them, it means they’re probably not nearly as good as you’d like to think.
I agree that it’s important to not get so attached to scenes or dialogue that you can’t bring yourself to cut them for the sake of the overall story (never ‘cut’; just copy and paste into a scraps file and save for another story). There’s also the danger of falling in love with a particular phrasing and then failing to see that it doesn’t make the point you need it to make; your attachment obscures your message. That’s why it is important to have an editor, an independent first reader, or at the very least a long gap between writing and editing.
However, I do not agree with the generalisation/over-use of this advice: that you should cut things just because you like them – stupidity! If you cut the things you like, you’ll cut the things your audience will like.
In my case, I write for myself – I write the books I personally would like to read, with strong female characters, and a bit of romance but not too much, and lots of dialogue but not much description, especially of the weather or what people are wearing or what furniture is in a room. If I cut everything just because I liked it, I’d have nothing left, not even the sad bits where characters die because I like those bits too.
The underlying ethos, I think, is more damaging. There’s this assumption there that if you enjoyed writing a scene, that means it was too easy, which means it’s not any good. In the talk by Terry Pratchett that I linked to in the last post, he repeatedly talks about how much he enjoyed writing particular scenes. It doesn’t mean they were easy for him – something can be hard but still enjoyable – but it does mean he had fun writing them, and isn’t one of the great things about pTerry the sense of fun he has, still, after 25 years of Discworld?
Writing is allowed to be enjoyable. Even if you’re writing literary fiction, you’re allowed to admit that it’s enjoyable (unfashionable, I know): not easy, but fun.
Editing can also be enjoyable, if in a different way (seeing the diamond begin to shine out), but if you’re going into edit mode with ‘kill your darlings’ guiding your hand too literally, you’re going in to cut out all the warmth and spirit of the book. Perhaps ‘just mess your darlings up a bit into they fall into line and serve the story properly’ would be better advice.
This is the latest in semi-ongoing series about misapplied writing rules. The others are linked below:
Write what you know
Cut 10% in editing
Avoid adjectives and adverbs
Show, don’t tell
Just keep writing

[...] is the latest in semi-ongoing series about misapplied writing rules. The others are linked below: Kill your darlings Write what you know Cut 10% in editing Avoid adjectives and adverbs Show, don’t tell Just [...]
Hi, I don’t think one should kill their darlings routinely. I agree that the writing should be fun. However, some of the most difficult sections of my stories have improved when I’ve cut a scene or idea that I previously wouldn’t give up.
Definitely. The advice is long-lived for a reason, it has a valuable place. But people shouldn’t remove their favourite bits just for the sake of following the advice, they should see how it serves the story.
Thanks for visiting.
[...] go bad. Previous entries are here: Adjectives and adverbs II. Don’t consult your thesaurus Kill your darlings Write what you know Cut 10% in editing Avoid adjectives and adverbs Show, don’t tell Just [...]
[...] Palmer’s article Writing Rules, Misapplied: Kill Your Darlings tells the history of the advice and picks it apart. I enjoyed reading her point of view on the [...]
Thanks for the good post as always, can’t wait to the next one!
I like the concept of your writing but your misuse of punctuation bothers me! periods go inside of the quotes!
Only in America, my friend, only in America. Look it up.
This is a nice thread. I’m recommending it to my students, in fact, so thanks for helping out.
I feel compelled to respond to two items. First, to the persuaded comment by Mayan. I would recommend that one propose ideas or questions rather than state opinions as fact. With that, the “periods inside quotes” thingie is a bugaboo in academic writing as well. My discipline uses the MLA cookbook, but disciplines that use AAA, APA, ASA, CSE and (deep-breath) Chicago recommend something different. Or so I am told. Is this true?
On “darlings:” The whole point of the irony, is to suggest the text in question is more dear to the writer than the reader. If the piece is self-serving in any way, it is a candidate for the trash bin. If the text is informative, such as when it provides an insight into the narrator, it perhaps ought to stick around.
Hi Hoagie, thanks for visiting.
re periods inside quotes usage as recommended by various style guides, I’m afraid it’s been so long since I used academic guides that I can’t comment on the differences. I used to use APA, but even then, I can’t remember how it addressed this particular issue. All I know for sure is that Australia and the UK put punctuation related to a sentence outside any quote that happens to be in the sentence, which I find perfectly acceptable, not least because it allows you to differentiate between:
She regularly announces, ‘that is so annoying!’.
and
She regularly announces, ‘that is so annoying’!
Which gives each line a slightly different connotation.
This article has a good overview of using quote marks
http://www.karlcraig.com/quotation.html
re darlings – that’s the trick, isn’t it, telling the difference between self-serving and informative…I tend to get a niggling feeling when I’m leaving in a bit of text that I like but that no longer serves the story but it’s by no means foolproof.
Thank you for your advice!!
[...] him, I love her… and I have the sinking feeling that it’s a darling, and must therefore be murdered [...]
[...] But alas, that was the only thing that was good with opening the film with the third act, and it didn’t work in the test screening we had. So you have to kill your darlings. [...]
[...] William Faulkner told writers the world over to “kill your darlings,” he meant something like “less is more.” Faulkner’s further implication was that what you may [...]
The point is if something needs to be edited, don’t let your fondness for it stand in the way of radically changing or totally deleting it.
I mean, “kill your darlings” does NOT mean “less is more.” Sometimes more is better than less. It does NOT mean delete whatever you love. If that were true, then writers would never love anything they let stay and their judgement as to what’s good or bad could never be trusted, which is no way to fine tune one’s skills as a writer. No, “kill your darlings” does NOT refer to any SPECIFIC types of editing rules or processes. Rather, it is a GENERAL concept, which means, “if your assessment of your own writing leads you to a logical, unbiased, artistic conclusion that something should be changed, then your fondness for what you’ve written, just as all parents naturally love their offspring, should NOT be allowed to stand in the way of the creative process. It’s hard to do, of course, because often writers love a particular character they’ve invented, love a dialogue, a scene, a paragraph, a chapter, a plot device, whatever. But if has to go, then it needs to go. It’s not easy. It feels like murdering your own children. Aha! That’s it! Hence, Faulkner’s advice. “Kill your darlings.” Then and only then does it apply. It’s not really a rule. It’s more like, “This is the MOOD all good writers need when destroying parts of their own output for the sake of good writing.” I hope this clarifies.
Hi Jonathan. I understand that; what this post is warning against is taking the general concept and applying it too literally or too rigidly, which is something new writers tend to do.
Hi, Wendy. I hope I wasn’t butting in. I was just offering an interpretation of what the concept actually means. Obviously, understanding what the concept means should be preliminary to any discussion about how to apply it, and some of what I saw on this post seems to me to miss the crucial point. “Kill your darlings” is conditional. It comes into effect only if one part of the creative process indicates that some product X of that process should be edited and if the creator’s reaction is “Oh, no! I love X too much to change it or get rid of it!” Then the rule “kill your darlings” applies. Whether “too literally or too rigidly” is scarcely the point. In my humble opinion anyway.
No, not at all, you’re welcome to comment as much as you like.
From my point of view, a) I’ve explained the concept well enough given that the concept itself is not the main point of the post and aimed at a different audience to people who need the concept explained in great depth, and b) the fact that it is conditional on something needing to be edited and the writer being reluctant to do so is self-evident; when else could it possibly apply?
You obviously feel otherwise, and you’ve explained the concept now in great detail to other readers who also feel otherwise, so that’s great.
Oh, now I get it. The main point of the post is to kill our darlings where “darlings” refers to writing rules misapplied. I was dense. I thought the title of the post meant that the rule “kill your darlings” was the particular misapplied writing rule being focused on in this post. I see my error. In all seriousness, thanks for explaining enough times that I finally understand. I especially appreciate your patience. On the bright side, maybe my misunderstanding will help others. Anyway, I can see clearly now, the rain is gone. LOL. By the way, I think this is a really great post you have here, Wendy.
[...] writing, you must kill your darlings” is advice from author William [...]
[...] William Faulkner told writers the world over to “kill your darlings,” he meant something like “less is more.” Faulkner’s further implication was that what you may [...]
I know this is an old post, but this line makes me laugh every time: “Gee, thanks for qualifying with that ‘in writing’ bit, Will, otherwise who knows what kind of serial murdering spree you might have set off by desperate writers prepared to follow any advice to get published.”
Thanks
Sometimes I’m funny…
[...] I love the book, that was the problem. It needs editing, and editing hard. I’m going to have to kill some darlings. I’m sure Joss would [...]
I used to be *so* embarrassed that my own writing could make me curl my toes in delight or (and old forgotten passage) surprise me and make me laugh out loud.
I felt weak (and now I sound angsty) and embarrassed by my own delight until I was at a writer’s conference where an editor declared, “If you don’t love it, there’s no reason anybody else will.”
And I’ve never apologized for my delight since.
Oh! and I loved this description of your work (I write the books I personally would like to read, with strong female characters, and a bit of romance but not too much, and lots of dialogue but not much description) so much I’m checking out your books.
This is pretty much verbatim what I like to read and write. Have you written elsewhere on your blog about your response to (have you had them?) calls for more description?
I haven’t [written about it] and have [had calls for more description]. To be honest, I mostly ignore it: after all, if an editor calls for more description, it probably means we’re incompatible, and if a reader calls for more description, they might just be a fan of that style of writing (which again may mean we’re incompatible)…but if certain of my beta-readers mention it, that’s when I’ll take another look, because I know these people, know they like my style, and therefore know that if they’re flagging a problem, there might really be a problem.
I think this thinking is more than a bit naive or proud. You are saying that only people you choose can possibly point out an error regarding description in your writing.
Now, I’m personally a fan of just the amount of description needed to move a story forward, so I may be a fan of writing like yours (based on the other parameters you described of your writing as well). However, I do recognize when lack of description is an error on the part of the writer. The most proving point is when a description of a character (or setting, or situation) changes or is otherwise further described and confuses the reader due to lack of previous information. This is something that happens routinely in even generally good writing.
Now, I hope you do not take offense and regard this as sound advice because it is not simply an opinion.
It’s good that you recognise when lack of description is an actual error rather than just not to your taste. Not everyone has the same ability to separate out a real issue from a personal peeve. I listen to people I know have that ability. That doesn’t mean I don’t listen to strangers, it just means I don’t accept their critiques blindly; I consider it in context with what else they’re saying and what style of writing they’re looking for.
Writing is not done by committee, you can’t please everyone, and you can’t change your story to fit in every suggestion that people make. What some people will consider an error, others will love. So yes, I choose who I trust to listen to.
BTW, when I talk about people wanting more description from my writing, I don’t mean they’re saying they don’t understand what’s happening and need more detail – I wouldn’t ignore that. I mean they are wanting paragraphs and paragraphs describing the furniture in the room or what people are wearing or whatever, the kind of scene-setting which many people love but which I actively dislike.
Also, it sounds like you have similiar tastes in books to me, so I can recommend Sarah Rees Brennan’s demon trilogy (YA but don’t hold that against it) and the Lisa Lutz Spellman series.
[...] to William Faulkner, that says writers should “Kill their darlings.” According to author Wendy Palmer, “originally the phrase was ‘murder your darlings’, and it came from Sir Arthur [...]
[...] Faulkner advised writers of fiction to kill your darlings. I think that advice can be applied to any pet project, including [...]
[...] develop a thick skin while working with editors who (quite right, as it turned out) required me to “kill your darlings” or think differently about the content of my [...]
[...] the writing world there is a term referred to as ‘killing your darlings‘. That’s why I’ve decided to do with this blog. No, I’m not getting rid of ‘Turning [...]
[...] to the gods of copy and paste – or, as I suspect they like to be called, Cee and Vee – murdering more than my darlings. I’ve reached a point in the writing where there’s no stepping back, no perspective but [...]
[...] realise now what I need to chop is going to really truly involve some darling killing. My whole thousand words from the Memorial Day Challenge, the thousand words that got me started on [...]
[...] advice from Kurt Vonnegut in How To Write With Style because it is more explicit and less open for argument about what it means. Have guts to [...]
[...] conclusion, don’t be afraid to kill your darlings. If you can not justify an element of your presentation get rid of it. This will help you focus [...]
[...] wait you must, because there’s another great line attributed to William Faulkner that every writer should take to heart: kill your darlings. When you fall in love with a phrase, a [...]
Its great advice, when applied correctly. I’m currently working on a short piece that focuses on 2 main characters, with 2 side characters setting the scene for where we (the audience) find ourselves. They are great side characters, that are full formed with contradictions that create drama not only in themselves but with each other… but they distracted from the story. Their place in this world is so interesting to me that it was hard not to have them take over the story completely. So they’ve been cut (and pasted elsewhere) where they can be better served in a different story and let this piece tell its own story.
I just discovered your blog while searching for the “Kill your darlings”-quote. I’ve been quickly looking through your other posts and am quite impressed. I translate (and of course edit) for a living, love to write and also took the WordPress 2012 challenge to write a post a day (musicproject 365). Whew, fitting that in with work etc! Trying to write and edit one good post a day. Seeing how I can’t always live up to my own high standards under those conditions but still having a ball trying!
Maybe you have wanted to be capable to prepare food meals inside the design of your selected eating places while in your own home lots of people have. For the most part, i really believe it is certainly not simply because they …Thousands of free Recipes
[...] conclusion, don’t be afraid to kill your darlings. If you can not justify an element of your presentation get rid of it. This will help you focus [...]
[...] conclusion when presenting predictive analytics don’t be afraid to kill your darlings. If you can not justify an element of your presentation get rid of it. This will help you focus [...]
[...] you wrote, doesn’t mean it works. That being said, I’ve found a couple of blog posts (here and here) that dispute this piece of advice, taking it entirely literally. Of course, this is [...]
[...] won’t take long. I deleted the thread when it seemed discursive—a case of my “killing my darling” for the novel’s greater [...]
[...] An Arab publishing industry, where nothing is edited, and every book is flabby and full of punctuation errors, typos, sentences that go nowhere, and darling scenes that should’ve been killed. [...]
I think the contect of Faulkner’s ‘kill your darlings’ is moreso pieces of writing that the writer loves, however these pieces are not condusive to the story and really should be edited. ‘Killing your darlings’ is the acceptance ofthe author that despite their love of certain dialogue or scenes, it is best for the progress teh manuscript to delete them
I think the context of Faulkner’s ‘kill your darlings’ is more so pieces of writing that the writer loves that are not condusive to the story and really should be edited. ‘Killing your darlings’ is the acceptance of the author that despite their love of certain dialogue or scenes, it is best for the progress of the manuscript to delete them (re-posted due to silly typos!)