He had no regard for her anticipation, had never troubled with such niceties, and now, his lust almost murderous, he had no margin or wish to learn.
This is clearly a run-on sentence. And what the Hell does Lee mean by "margin" here? It's an awkward word that doesn't make sense in the context.
That is not a run-on sentence. How would you break it up into two? You'd slice the thought that's being expressed.
There are a total of three independent thoughts and at least two independent clauses that have been inartfully put together and comma-spliced. "He had no regard for her anticipation." That's sentence one. Furthermore, it's awkward. "He had never troubled with such niceties." That's sentence two. "He had no margin [sic] or wish to learn." That is sentence three. Putting more than two independent clauses together is generally the mark of a run-on sentence. I suspect Microsoft Word would put the entire passage in green, but Word is sort of stupid when it comes to those things so I won't.
Not only is the sentence a run-on sentence, but there are ideas left dangling that don't have any connection to the thoughts that are clearly expressed. "Margin" is one of these. He has no "margin". "Margin" for what? Margin to learn? Margin just isn't used like that. Another word like that is "anticipation". Anticipation of what?
If I were Lee's editor (and she desperately needs a good one), I think I would restructure it as follows:
He had no regard for her anticipation of his assault. He had never troubled with such niceties. Now, his lust almost murderous, he had no patience or wish to learn.
"Margin" makes perfect sense here. It means "a spare amount or measure or degree allowed or iven for contingencies or special situations." Leopardo was entirely focused on his lust, and had no spare capacity of thought or attention or will or desire to think about her pleasure.
One has to define a margin. The "margin of a page", "margin for error", or "marginal return" are all qualified statements. "Margin to learn" (if that is indeed what is meant) is not a phrase that makes sense.
But she, who had been raped and used and left to freeze for so many years, had found in these courtships of words and blows the stimulus no rough and no cunning caress could provide.
Run-on sentence. "No rough" is hanging out there as though it were a noun but "rough" isn't a noun.
What is your definition of a run-on sentence? Anything longer than one line, with more than one clause? "Rough" is an adjective to "caress," it's not hanging out there. Maybe it's the missing "that" after "stimulus" that's throwing you.
raped AND used AND left to freeze, no rough AND no cunning caress. See all the "ands"? Perhaps it isn't STRICTLY a run-on sentence, but it certainly keeps going and uses "and" incorrectly. "Rough" cannot be an adjective to "caress" because then the modifier should be "or", not "and". It should say "no rough or cunning caress". That it does not is a straight, unequivocal error in the usage of the English language, and it's the sort of error that even uneducated people don't make.
"A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses are joined without appropriate punctuation or conjunction."
1) What are the two or more independent clauses here?
2) What punctuation or conjunction would you add?
(This applies to the first 2 sentences.)
At the first surge of his body into hers, her own body surged and came to quickness.
I'll admit, it's a stylistic comment, but "quickness"? Please. Using it to mean "life" is very cliché.
Is that so? "quickness" means "life." How is using a word in its meaning cliche? Cliche is for metaphores.
Quickness MEANT "life" back in the days of Beowulf. Language changes, however. Using it now to mean that is like saying "her passion" to mean "her sorrow and suffering". The word only has that meaning in restricted senses, like "Christ's passion and death".
Touching him, clasping him, feeling the quivering tension that ran through and through and through him, her own flesh was educated, copying his.
Did it really run through him? Because I didn't get it based on the number of times that word was repeated. Poor sentence structure to go from a string of gerunds to a verb and then back to a gerund.
I actually liked that repetition, because it simulates the actual act of sex, and I believe was intended that way. What's a gerund? I honestly don't understand what you are saying here, could you explain it to me?
A gerund is a noun derived from a verb and ending in -ing. Touching, clasping, feeling, copying are all gerunds in that sentence. You could try to say they're participles but then the sentence is really screwed up. If she had just put "In" or "By" at the beginning of the sentence it would have removed that problem.
And so for the first time in his selfish impoverished existence, beheld the essential duality of eroticism under him, twisting and straining and striving as he himself twisted and strained and strove.
There should be a comma between "selfish" and "impoverished", and there is NO SUBJECT to the word "beheld". That makes this perhaps the worst sentence in the whole extract. "Duality" is an abstract concept that cannot be "beheld", furthermore, and "eroticism" is as well. He could realize the duality of eroticism as he beheld her under him, but he couldn't behold the duality of eroticism under him. Also, the fact that the object of the preposition and the missing but implied subject are the same, it's really stylistically better to use "underneath" rather than simply "under". There's also no complement for "strive", which isn't really proper.
Your comma objection is entirely stylistic. And wrong, I believe. You need a comma when the adjectives are similar, a list, but not if they interact with each other. He didn't behold the eroticism, he beheld the duality. I don't understand your objection to the word. "Behold" means to observe, to understand. Ah, wait, I think I understand what you're saying, it's the "under" that bothers you, it's like she's saying that the duality was under him.
No, actually my comma objection here is based on a very clear and well-known rule that even second-graders know. Not putting a comma there implies that the word "selfish" is an adverb modifying "impoverished", but it should be "selfishly" in that case, which it isn't. "He was tall, thin and evil" is correct, but not "He was tall thin and evil". Commas must separate adjectives in a list of adjectives if not separated by "and".
I note that you also don't tell me what the subject of that sentence was supposed to be, since it doesn't have one. It doesn't say "he beheld". The sentence begins with a prepositional phrase and goes straight to a verb with no subject. We don't really even know, unless we guess from context, what "beheld" that "duality of eroticism".
As for striving, it was pretty clear what they were striving for.
Contextually, yes. From a word usage standpoint, it's still wrong.
And seeing this, his eyes blackened and his heart engulfed him and he fell down on her into the great explosion of ecstasy, vaguely astonished to hear his voice cry out just as hers did.
"Vaguely astonished" is a phrase like "slightly devastated". The verb already has a level of intensity to it that makes the adverb out of place. Someone hearing their "voice cry out" is poorly worded. It should be either "his own voice" or "himself" because the reflexive cue is needed grammatically.
I'll grant you this one, I don't love it, but I understand why this was done - it's to demonstrate his detachment, non-presence of rational thought.
Ultimately, Tanith Lee just doesn't have a good grasp of the meanings of words and the proper use of the English language. She also uses "and" far, far too often. It reads like a first-grade child's book report: "And then they went to the store and they saw something and they liked it and so they bought it and then they went home."
Also sounds like an epic story. It's a stylistic choice. This book specifically is a retelling of Romeo & Juliet, and goes for an older, more poetic feel in the prose. Your objections (most of the ones I understood at least) were matters of personal opinion - which is fair, but you'll find yourself in the minority, because one thing she's universally praised for is her prose.
Jens agrees with me! In all seriousness, I suspect that others agree with me on this point as well, and I was ultimately expressing just that - my opinion. There are, however, some objective flaws in that paragraph.
Ok, now you MUST post some examples of what consider beautiful prose. Like, actual paragraphs, or at least links to paragraphs.
Yes, yes. I do have a job, though, and each time I answer one of these posts I realize I've spent ten times as much time as I had planned on it. I will endeavor to post something today.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
Your favorite sex scene (post here)
- 10/04/2011 08:04:15 AM
1833 Views
Cersei and random noble chick, last GRRM novel I read. (like 5 years ago) *NM*
- 11/04/2011 12:04:17 AM
317 Views
This request is causing me a great deal of distress.
- 11/04/2011 04:12:19 PM
1072 Views
You have to type up some samples for me, b/c so far I think your crazy. I love that paragraph. *NM*
- 11/04/2011 11:42:26 PM
290 Views
"you're", not "your". And the paragraph was awful.
- 12/04/2011 12:28:02 AM
753 Views
Yes, and punctuation marks go inside the quodation marks, "like so."
- 12/04/2011 05:16:55 PM
907 Views
No they don't, at least not in my reply.
- 14/04/2011 05:44:50 AM
780 Views
Re: No they don't, at least not in my reply.
- 14/04/2011 04:38:37 PM
710 Views
Substantive critique of that travesty of an attempt at writing:
- 14/04/2011 06:00:16 AM
809 Views
Re: Substantive critique of that travesty of an attempt at writing:
- 14/04/2011 04:30:58 PM
791 Views
Once more into the breach
- 14/04/2011 05:27:37 PM
918 Views
The ones in Illuminatus were sometimes hot, and usually pretty funny. *NM*
- 11/04/2011 07:34:49 PM
313 Views