# Murderous Editing



## Kyle R (Sep 17, 2013)

_The slash was quick and merciless.

When it was over, Art Simpson winced and rubbed his chest where the cold spot grew. That gaping void, that swelling ache of loss. He'd done it again. Another innocent murdered. Surely there had to be some other way? With a sigh, he laid the red-tipped instrument down on the table.

On the sheet before him, another line of prose lay dead, severed down the middle by a line of red ink._

Yes, you guessed it. This thread is about that facet of writing many authors struggle with—the bloody mess that we call editing. Specifically, what to do with those lines of your prose you most enjoy.

Taken from Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, simplified by William Faulkner, and poeticized by Stephen King, the following quote, in its many forms, has been preached to aspiring writers for centuries. 

_"Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart, kill your darlings."_ - Stephen King

What do _you_ think of the advice?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 17, 2013)

Kill them.  If it doesn't serve the story, it shouldn't be in there.

I realized in editing that one of my chapters had a large section with no real purpose other than to give a favorite character more screen time.  Out it went.  Sure, I liked the character, but I liked the story more.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 17, 2013)

If I ever worry about whether to keep a line I love or not, it's because I'm not certain _why _I'm getting rid of it. So before I inevitably kill my darling, I find out why she's being so naughty.


----------



## Lewdog (Sep 17, 2013)

You know now everyone that has read this thread  is compelled to testify you in court, and murder doesn't have a statute of limitations!


----------



## FleshEater (Sep 17, 2013)

I used to cut and paste them at the end of my work. I quit doing that though. I figure that if I wrote it once, the next time will be twice as good.


----------



## Tettsuo (Sep 18, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> _"Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart, kill your darlings."_ - Stephen King
> 
> What do _you_ think of the advice?


Great advice for people that know what it means.

For those who are new at writing, it doesn't mean to kill all of the parts that are meaningful to the writer.  It means to kill those parts that serve only the writer, not the story.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Sep 18, 2013)

Exactly what Tettsuo and Cadence said. This is good advice, and better when the distinction is remembered. It took me a long time to recognize it, I admit, but once I did my writing has improved greatly. I do still struggle with it at times, and feel it's one of those eternal struggles I'll have throughout my writing life.


----------



## Myers (Sep 18, 2013)

How is this different from the idea that "your words are not precious?"


----------



## Jeko (Sep 18, 2013)

^It's not, really. But this is what you do _because _​your words are not precious.


----------



## Alabastrine (Sep 18, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> _The slash was quick and merciless.
> 
> When it was over, Art Simpson winced and rubbed his chest where the cold spot grew. That gaping void, that swelling ache of loss. He'd done it again. Another innocent murdered. Surely there had to be some other way? With a sigh, he laid the red-tipped instrument down on the table.
> 
> On the sheet before him, another line of prose lay dead, severed down the middle by a line of red ink._



Is that your writing ^?

If so, I was sad that you didn't continue as I was enjoying it. I thought...oh what an interesting start to a story!!


----------



## Myers (Sep 18, 2013)

Cadence said:


> ^It's not, really. But this is what you do _because _​your words are not precious.



OK. I assumed that the next thing to do once you recognize your words aren't precious and you acknowledge they aren't needed is edit them out.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 18, 2013)

> If so, I was sad that you didn't continue as I was enjoying it.



A good thing to note: Kyle's passage contains no partiality from the narrator. It's all description and event, and suggested internal dialogue. It reads fantastically, like it didn't use to read fantastically but Kyle cut it to pieces until it did.

Or he just writes that well at first, and if so I will give him the stare of envy.:spidey:


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 18, 2013)

Alabastrine said:


> Is that your writing ^?
> 
> If so, I was sad that you didn't continue as I was enjoying it. I thought...oh what an interesting start to a story!!



Hi, Alabastrine! Yes, that was my writing. I wrote it as a quirky, story-like hook to start the thread. Glad you liked it!  Sorry it ended too soon for you.




			
				Myers said:
			
		

> How is this different from the idea that "your words are not precious?"



Like Cadence said, I believe the two ideas are closely related.

I take the term "darlings" to mean more than just words or passages, though. A "darling" can also be an entire scene, or even chapter. I particularly like Tetsuo's definition of a darling: something that serves the writer, not the story.

It's tricky to nail down, becomes sometimes our best writing stems from superfluous tangents. But is good writing still good if it doesn't improve the story? How can one tell?

I've seen some rationalization that it's better to "Kill your darlings" because those sections of your work, those pieces you are the most fond of, are no longer unattached. They have become sentimental, and thus, the writer (you) are no longer able to look at them without bias. Thus, they have gained too much power and prominence, have become immune to the editorial process, and, like a cancer, must be eradicated from your writing. (Or so they say, at least!)


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 18, 2013)

Cadence said:


> A good thing to note: Kyle's passage contains no partiality from the narrator. It's all description and event, and suggested internal dialogue. It reads fantastically, like it didn't use to read fantastically but Kyle cut it to pieces until it did.
> 
> Or he just writes that well at first, and if so I will give him the stare of envy.:spidey:



You'll never get my secrets, Spiderman!  (Your second sentence nailed my process though, pretty much.)


----------



## Jeko (Sep 18, 2013)

> It's tricky to nail down, becomes sometimes our best writing stems from superfluous tangents.



Maybe the problem, then, is not being able to affect the root of your work. If you go off on a tangent, how hard is it to cut that away from your work and use it for something else? Is it better to integrate it into its origin, or mutate it into something else?

Questions...


----------



## Myers (Sep 18, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> But is good writing still good if it doesn't improve the story? How can one tell?



How do you tell that anything you’ve written improves the story?

Or I could say, the same way you tell that anything you've written improves the story.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 18, 2013)

Myers said:


> the same way you tell that anything you've written improves the story.



Which leads to an interesting question: _How _do you tell if something you've written improves the story?  

Criteria? Checklists? Hunches?


----------



## Lewdog (Sep 18, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Which leads to an interesting question: _How _do you tell if something you've written improves the story?
> 
> Criteria? Checklists? Hunches?




Beta readers!


----------



## Myers (Sep 18, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Which leads to an interesting question: _How _do you tell if something you've written improves the story?
> 
> Criteria? Checklists? Hunches?



For me it’s about sheer writing talent and a special brand of clairvoyance that allows me to anticipate the preferences and desires of potential readers. How do you do it?


----------



## Terry D (Sep 18, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I've seen some rationalization that it's better to "Kill your darlings" because those sections of your work, those pieces you are the most fond of, are no longer unattached. They have become sentimental, and thus, the writer (you) are no longer able to look at them without bias. Thus, they have gained too much power and prominence, have become immune to the editorial process, and, like a cancer, must be eradicated from your writing. (Or so they say, at least!)



Very nice thread, Kyle. The concept is an important one for novice writers to learn. But the statement above is, in my opinion, utter bunk. There are snippets and passages in my work which I am sentementally invested in because they are some of my best writing and work well in their story. There is much difference between the willingness to sacrifice a "darling" and sacrificing it because it is a "darling".


----------



## Jeko (Sep 19, 2013)

> _How do you tell if something you've written improves the story?_



In terms of drafting, for me, it gets further from A and closer to B. Even if I end up getting rid of it afterwards, there's always something good that I look for before I cast the words into oblivion. One time I had my characters go in the wrong direction (literally) and only realized it a thousand words into the chapter. But during that tangent I had developed a character quite nicely - so I kept that, while reversing time and making everyone go in the right direction.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Sep 19, 2013)

Myers said:


> How is this different from the idea that "your words are not precious?"



Exactly what I was thinking.  Actually, I never run into this problem since I don't put any emotional investment into words or the turn or a phrase.  There is only one God which I serve - the story.  So I cut, slash and hack like a serial killer.  No remorse at all.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Sep 19, 2013)

Cadence said:


> A good thing to note: Kyle's passage contains no partiality from the narrator. It's all description and event, and suggested internal dialogue.



For the second time in two days I read about "The Narrator."  I'm really beginning to dislike this guy.  
When I read anything written in the third person, except for a Sherlock Holmes kind of story where a Narrator introduces himself at the beginning of the story in First person and then cordially steps aside and describes the rest of the action in Third person, I don't think about the VOICE as a person at all.  I just see it as a voice which describes the action, nothing more.  I don't over analyze or picture Stephen King sitting at his kitchen table telling me a story about a killer clown.  It just is.  

Considering third person Narrative - Subjective vs. Objective and Omniscient vs. Limited perspective - Is it the general consensus that one or another is superior or is there a trend, fashion that is accepted?

I didn't get the memo.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 19, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Beta readers!



Those are the final nail in the coffin for me. I'm lucky to have two very astute betas, and inevitably, the passages they question are the same ones I've had doubts about, even if I still like them. As for the basic question of how does the author know themselves what might need cutting, I think there are two initial clues:

1. You find yourself re-reading those parts because they're so fantastic!

2. You find yourself re-reading those parts because, although you think they're great, they seem to "do something" to the story.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 19, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> For the second time in two days I read about "The Narrator."  I'm really beginning to dislike this guy.
> When I read anything written in the third person, except for a Sherlock Holmes kind of story where a Narrator introduces himself at the beginning of the story in First person and then cordially steps aside and describes the rest of the action in Third person, I don't think about the VOICE as a person at all.  I just see it as a voice which describes the action, nothing more.  I don't over analyze or picture Stephen King sitting at his kitchen table telling me a story about a killer clown.  It just is.
> 
> Considering third person Narrative - Subjective vs. Objective and Omniscient vs. Limited perspective - Is it the general consensus that one or another is superior or is there a trend, fashion that is accepted?


Sometimes a narrative voice will be very noticeable, other times  relatively self-effacing. Since you mention King, in what I've read by  him he tends to use sorta limited 3rd, shifting between POV characters (this is what he does in _IT_, though he varies throughout his work, sometimes using omniscient, sometimes 1st, etc.), so the narrative voice takes a backseat to the character. 

Nothing's superior to anything else as long as it's executed well and works well for the story being told. 

As for editing practices--when I'm not sure about something, I have a separate doc where I save my scrap bits, things I'm not sure about. But my plotting practice has been very loose, I tend to write what I want and then make it fit into the overall narrative, and if other things have to shift as a result, that's okay with me. I don't really know what I'm doing, though.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 19, 2013)

> When I read anything written in the third person, except for a Sherlock Holmes kind of story where a Narrator introduces himself at the beginning of the story in First person and then cordially steps aside and describes the rest of the action in Third person, I don't think about the VOICE as a person at all. I just see it as a voice which describes the action, nothing more. I don't over analyze or picture Stephen King sitting at his kitchen table telling me a story about a killer clown. It just is.



You seem to have the general ethic that defining the aspects of the process somehow detracts from it. I'm not sure I understand why. As a writer, things don't 'just' happen. You can make subconscious decisions, and not identify every decision you make, but you still make those decisions somehow. Understanding the decisions you make can help you make better decisions overall, as I think I've already said.

Considering the narrator is hardly over-analysis, anyway. My A-level English Literature class doesn't even over-analyse things. 

Every story has a narrator and a narrative voice. Sometimes, as lasm pointed out, the narrator is as good as invisible - but he's still telling the story.



> Considering third person Narrative - Subjective vs. Objective and Omniscient vs. Limited perspective - Is it the general consensus that one or another is superior or is there a trend, fashion that is accepted?



None are intrinsically superior, but nowadays a hidden narrator is often preferred over a more visible one, particularly for third-person narratives. Thus why Stephen King hides his expertly.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Sep 19, 2013)

Cadence said:


> It's all description and event, and suggested internal dialogue.



_The slash was quick and merciless. - _Actually, that first line is pure judgement on the part of the Narrator.  How was it quick?  Compared to what?  How did the narrator know it was merciless?  (Nothing that I as a reader would ever think about and as such, nothing that I want to think about as a writer UNLESS I have already established that the narrative is third person Limited perspective - i.e: from the point of view of another character in the story - but hopefully I won't think about it, I'll just do it.)


Cadence said:


> You seem to have the general ethic that defining the aspects of the process somehow detracts from it.
> Every story has a narrator and a narrative voice. Sometimes, as lasm pointed out, the narrator is as good as invisible - but he's still telling the story.
> 
> None are intrinsically superior, but nowadays a hidden narrator is often preferred over a more visible one, particularly for third-person narratives. Thus why Stephen King hides his expertly.



To shift your perspective from Listener to Musician, from Reader to Writer, from Patron to Chef is oftentimes the death knell of two factors - 1.  Your own enjoyment of the Art (after 30 years playing the guitar I despise music - don't want to hear it anymore) and 2.  You ability to connect to your public and give them what they want.  So yeah, want to write.  Don't want to think about it too much.  

Not that I don't appreciate learning about these things - Very insightful comments and an interesting glimpse into the mind of other readers / writers.  
It would be curious to see, those people that SEE the narrator as a HE SHE person vs. those that see the Narrative voice as a disembodied voice.
Athiests vs. Believers?  Hmmmm.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Jeko (Sep 19, 2013)

> _The slash was quick and merciless. - Actually, that first line is pure judgement on the part of the Narrator._



In a way, yes, but not pure judgement; description is almost always mingled with narrator comment, as is report. It's very rare to find an impartial report or description.

I would say the use of 'merciless' is less attributed to the narrator and more attributed to the 'slash' or the character slashing, for the former personifying that it has any concept of mercy. It thus keeps the narrator unexposed at first, while emphasizing the action and introducing the nature of the character. As for quick, it is accepted without complaint from the reader due to the short nature of the sentence.

So yes, comment is found in everything. But clever use of comment can hide the narrator by distracting the reader to be in the perspective of something other than the narrator.


----------

