To give advice in writing is one of those paradoxes. Inevitably, whatever “lesson” or “rule” you learn will be proven wrong by some amazing exception. And then another, and another. Until you’re not sure if the rule ever made sense. Or, perhaps more efficiently, a real-life writer will immediately rebut you, “No, actually, my entire writing strategy rests on the opposite approach to what you just said. Did you like my novel? Well, I wrote it–” with no outline, with no commas, from the 2nd person POV, ad infinitum.
Well, I wanted to share one fantastic article that picks apart the idea of “killing your darlings.” Redefining Ornament: An Argument for the (Seemingly) Inessential by Ayşe Papatya Bucak. A good friend and fellow writer shared it with me because she felt utterly liberated after reading it, and honestly, so did I.
Bucak makes a compelling argument for allowing the writer to take detours, to sit and listen, to be with a tertiary character for a minute, to add lots and lots of detail. The argument is not to be as excessive as you like. Some darlings do indeed need to be killed so the reader doesn’t get lost. Unless of course, the point is that they get lost…
But I digress. Instead, I believe the takeaway is to allow yourself the potential to find hidden connections in the apparent “extremities” of your story. Why did you feel the need to describe the wallpaper? Is it blue for a reason? Because blue was calming to the main character’s mother long after she lost her memory to Alzheimer’s? What if you don’t spell that out – is it still “essential?” The reader doesn’t have to know why it’s blue. So long as it’s part of the DNA of your story they will feel it.
So, there’s my advice, until someone proves me wrong of course.