Let me draw your attention to a question posted in English Language Learners where
OP has extracted a text from the book "The Collector" by John Fowles that uses the verb lameduck. I can not find any reference to such verb online.
Violence and force are wrong. If I use violence I descend to his
level. It means that I have no real belief in the power of reason, and
sympathy and humanity. That I lameduck people only because it flatters
me, not because I believe they need my sympathy. I’ve been thinking
back to Ladymont, to people I lameducked there. Sally Margison. I
lameducked her just to show the Vestal Virgins that I was cleverer
than they. That I could get her to do things for me that she wouldn’t
do for them. Donald and Piers (because I’ve lameducked him in a sense,
too) — but they’re both attractive young men. There were probably
hundreds of other people who needed lameducking, my sympathy, far more
than those two. And anyway, most girls would have jumped at the chance
of lameducking them.
Have any of you got the original book? Does it contain that exact text? In affirmative case, what does that verb mean?
Best Answer
I found a reference to lameduck and the John Fowles' book The Collector in Something and Nothingness: The Fiction of John Updike & John Fowles By John Neary
See last four lines.
Perhaps Fowles used artistic licence with his character Miranda?
Grammarist defines lameduck as:
Merriam-Webster's second definition for the word is:
In the story Miranda Grey is kept captive by the protagonist Frederick Clegg. He is from a lower social class than Miranda, perhaps lameducking is the act of putting someone down in the context of the quote in OPs question?
A contributor to New Casebook Series:John Fowles edited by James Acheson seems to confirm this interpretation
From this essay on the book
and this analysis
Here is the Guardian book review of The Collector and Goodreads & Dutch Readers' takes on the book