I agree with you on some points, disagree on others. - Edit 1
Before modification by Legolas at 14/04/2011 06:58:31 PM
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.
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.
You seem to be purposefully ignoring that rhythm is very important in this paragraph. The author wants to depict the characters having frantic sex, which works better with long "run-on" sentences than with the sort of staccato short sentences you suggest below (though I suppose it'd be possible to write a sex scene in staccato, creating an effect where each short sentence is supposed to represent a thrust, or something... ).
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?
I agree with you there. It becomes clear from the context what she means, but only with the reader's goodwill and readiness to overlook that it doesn't make any sense strictly speaking.
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.
It's called a polysyndeton. That's a Greek name, because it was an established stylistic tool even in Antiquity (as was its opposite the asyndeton, sentences lacking the conjunctions that you'd normally expect to see). So I see no reason why Tanith Lee shouldn't use it.
"No rough and no cunning caress" is of course not the most obvious way of writing that, but a stylistic choice to make a point, and I wouldn't say it's technically wrong, though I'm far from an expert on English grammar. It certainly doesn't bother me the way the "margin" does.
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.
I'd have to agree here, but only after you pointed it out and I started thinking about it.
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.
The subject is the "he" in the previous sentence, that makes the sentence technically elliptic but then tons of quality writers use elliptic sentences. I do agree about "beheld the duality of eroticism", though.
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".
A number of your points of criticisms are based on grammatical rules which Lee bends for rhythmical purposes. I'd have to say I think she's right to do so, style should indeed trump the more insignificant rules of grammar, but it is of course a debatable matter.
"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.
Agreed about vaguely astonished, not about the rest. "His own" feels unnecessary to me.