Re: Substantive critique of that travesty of an attempt at writing: - Edit 1
Before modification by Aeryn at 14/04/2011 04:44:39 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
As for striving, it was pretty clear what they were striving for.
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.
"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.
Ok, now you MUST post some examples of what consider beautiful prose. Like, actual paragraphs, or at least links to paragraphs.