Apropos of image overload, I think of a story Michael Cunningham tells--how when he was in graduate school, at Iowa, one of his teachers took him aside and told him to go through his story and divide the sentences into two categories. The sentences he really loved, the ones that dazzled, he should circle and mark with an "A," and the sentences that were merely good he should circle and mark with a "B." Then he should go through the story and cross out all the "A" sentences. Cunninghmam tells this story as a way of warning his students of the perils of showing off. It's similar to what Annie Dillard and others talk about when they say you should kill your babies. Often it's your favorite sentence, your favorite scene, the very thing that you're building your story around, what was the inspiration for the story in the first place, that is infecting the work and demands to be cut.
I've always had a hard time understanding the "kill your darlings" dictum. For one thing, it presupposes that all writers write fancy prose at the same level, and fails to distinguish what might be *good* lyrical writing from bad. Sure, no one wants to read a hack who thinks he's Flaubert, but try telling a stylist like Banville or the late William Styron to scale back on the flights of grandiloquence, that "less is more." These are writers who are read, in my mind, principally for their language, and if they were to hew to that line, the world of literature would be at a loss.
Posted by: leon | September 04, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Agreed. I was taught in creative writing class to "kill your darlings," and I am suspicious of this dictum. Far too many contemporary writers display polite timidity rather than bold artistry in their engagement with language, the cocoon of the sentence.
Posted by: Stephen | September 04, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Whoever first said "kill your darlings" probably couldn't write and wanted to bring everyone else down to his loveless, mundane level.
Malcolm
Posted by: Malcolm Campbell | September 04, 2008 at 06:53 PM
Leon et al--
Certainly there are writers such as Banville, Styron, and others for whom language is at the heart of their enterprise, and for whom the phrase "kill your darlings" would have to mean something different. But I don't think it follows that for a more lyrical and grandiloquent writer "kill your darlings" is bad advice or that the phrase necessarily implies less is more. Even language-driven writers aren't simply taking their hundred most beautifully written and lyrical sentences and slapping them down on the page wherever they fall. For every writer, no matter how grandiloquent or terse, there's the individual sentence and the larger enterprise, and the larger enterprise isn't simply the sum of the discrete parts. All "kill your darlings" suggests is that it may be in the writer's interest to cut something they love in service of the larger project, and this, it seems to me, is true (or at least can be true, depending on the circumstances) no matter what kind of writer you are.
Posted by: Joshua Henkin | September 04, 2008 at 07:28 PM
Joshua--
Thanks for the sound and reasonable response. I get it.
Posted by: leon | September 04, 2008 at 08:02 PM