+0
This is a desire to throw over reality a light that never was might give away abruptly to the desire on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower?

Isn't ‘was' in italic type unwanted in this sentence, because we already have the subordinate verb "give away to"?

And what in "on the part of what " is referring to what? Don't you think it has to be replaced by which , if it refers to "the desire"?
Comments  
I think that the mistake in your sentence is the addition of "is a" (second and third word in the sentence) and should be deleted and corrected to:-

"This desire to throw over reality a light that never was might give away abruptly to the desire on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower."

The sentence can be rephrased like this for clarity:-

"This desire to throw a light that never was OVER REALITY, might give away abruptly to the desire(on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist) to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower."
I'd like to change your sentence the way like;

On the part of what [=the people] we might consider as a novelist-scientist, this desire to throw a light over reality might never give way abruptly to the desire to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture.

I think what the sentence wants to mean would be that a novelist-scientist's desire is different from that of a simple scientist in the way to show the reality of flowers.

paco
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Thanks so much, temico and paco.
I think that the mistake in your sentence is the addition of "is a" (second and third word in the sentence) and should be deleted

It sounds reasonable. It may be 'A desire to throw over reality a light that never was might give away abruptly to ....'

But I really don’t get what “throw over reality a light that never was” means? It seems something was left out after “was”. But I don’t think it’s “over reality”. Because “throw a light that never was OVER REALITY” doesn’t make any sense for me. And, is it good to place “be” after “never”?

As for 'on the part of what', you two consider it as parenthesis. But I just don't know what 'what' refers to.

Could you please gimme more details? Thank you.
I agree with temico on this one. Just my 2 penn'orth! Emotion: smile
To jeff 999,

"a light that never was" means( to me, anyway) "a light THAT WAS NEVER there in the first place" or "unfounded". e.g.
i) "There NEVER WAS anybody named John in our company."
ii) "John is a somebody WHO NEVER WAS in our company."
iii) "In our company, John is a somebody WHO NEVER WAS(there)."

By the way, "on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist" is not a parenthetical clause. The reason I placed them between brackets is purely for the sake of clarity because the meaning of the sentence would be easier to comprehend if this section is omitted. The parenthetical clause in the sentence is only "what we might consider".
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thank you. Emotion: smile

You shed a brilliant light on it!