Ya know, I love this style...most especially because it's such a foreign and unusual form of storytelling you will almost never see this side of the Pacific. There is no real opening, there is no real closing. You get just pure cake, not the mouse or filling.
"Savaging someone" is actually a real phrase though, meaning viciously attack them. So it kinda works here, although so uncommon compared to "ravage" as to make it look weird.
Minor note here too...whether or not a word exists doesn't particularly matter. The issue is whether or not your choice of verbiage is the best possible way to convey your meaning. If the former was a real problem, no one would have gone to any of Shakespeare's plays. It's the main reason the language is so difficult, beyond the 'everything is an exception' rule...a very small proportion of even the most intelligent, schooled, and native speakers can legitimately claim mastery of it...and even they always have something they should be working on.
My guess is that savage seemed like a better choice since it evokes a more 'beastly' and 'wild' connotation, similar to a wolf. People usually ravage, beasts usually savage. Although a fair and informed argument could be made about either word.
.jpg?1460136299)
.jpg?1408720171)
