What do you think constitutes strong "narrative texture"

Ah yes, the flagging of narrative texture. I've experienced this in my own work, but never called it by such an elegant name. I usually say I'm just "getting from A to B" in some sections of the book.

I'm great at openings, as you say, "weaving" dialogue, description, and action into a lovely tapestry of a narrative. But when I get into the heart of the story, so much has to happen that I begin to focus on getting it all in. Developing plot and relationships takes priority.

In chapter one I'm setting the scene, hooking with action, and throwing in dialogue that distills the essence of the characters. I have trouble naturally doing that later in the book. My solution is to write each chapter as if it's the opening to a different book. It's just a re-framing in my mind, but I find this perspective shift helps me keep the narrative just as "textured" as the beginning of the story.

Good luck!

Beats the heck out of me. I suspect that only the editor can tell you what he really meant. I sure don't have a clue.

I haven't heard this term before, but I'd guess your take on it is correct. Maybe it's the feel, tone, voice, and style of the novel? Maybe related to the way your setting and description is woven into the action of the story?

Heck, as if there's not enough to worry about being rejected over with regards to the particulars of plot, character, overall craft and so on.

raburrell said:

The other day, my agent forwarded an editor reply, which, while very helpful and complimentary, contained a phrase that has me (over) thinking. The editor praised the "great narrative texture" of the opening, but thought it fell off later in the book. (Which is absolutely a fair criticism). So now, as I'm working on another story, I find myself wondering what exactly constitutes well-done narrative texture.

My sense is it's the weaving together of dialogue, character, plot, setting - all those things. But some of which, once established, become less prominent as the story progresses. To me, character and plot should always be advancing in some way, and I probably do let them take over after the first few chapters. How do others handle this?

Click to expand...

I would guess it means the quality of the narrative fell off after the opening chapters, and became more sparse, less textured with detail. Sure, once a thing is established it doesn't need to be hammered on, but then you should always be weaving in new elements. What the editor calls texture is, at a guess, what I've seen called underpainting elsewhere: it's the material that fills in the spaces around the action and dialogue. It's comprised of description, incidental action, internals, sensual information, foreshadowing, and all the things that go into making the fictional world seem real.

Something written on canvas?

Bufty said:

Something written on canvas?

Click to expand...

I 'ed at that.

It was a term I heard a lot from one specific mentor, "You need more narrative texture and layering." Her definition of that was adding more to the story besides the present, linear narrative.

It's like, we watch a television show about two brothers who hunt monsters (Supernatural). And they go from town to town and kill bad guys. Save the day and move on.

Texture, to me, is adding to that. One brother doesn't trust the other, so he's having to deal with that while this other stuff is happening. The other brother has a drinking problem and is trying to keep it together. Both have a traumatic event in the past (lost their mother to a demon) and are always looking to find answers about that.

If we just saw the initial premise unfold w/o anymore depth, I'd call that a story with very little (or no) texture and layering.

Not sure if it's the same thing as the OP's dealio, but it's one possibility.