The Art of Language and Deception in Lolita free essay sample

In his own words, he is Humbert the deadly charming sophisticate, Humbert the lover, Humbert the monster, and above all Humbert the the manipulator. In the Lolita by Vladimir Nobokov, Humbert uses ornate language and style to manipulate the audience and invoke a trust and cordialness that leads to a view of him as a sympathetic pedofile. Humberts narration is full of wordplay and hidden meanings. He is playing with our minds throughout the novel, slowly gaining our trust and manipulating us. The complexity of Humbert’s narration creates an interesting and enjoyable flow to his confession that he uses to his advantage, since it is at some points quite difficult to piece together true facts and details of his story. His narration spontaneously changes; from a serious and eloquent demeanor, to a playful tone riddle-like tone with wordplay, as well as from his monstrous and uncontrollable pedophiliac yearnings, to a somewhat sensible and remorseful individual. We will write a custom essay sample on The Art of Language and Deception in Lolita or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page His change in voice allows him to commit crimes in one hand, while fooling us with his ornate language in the other. For example, in a child-like mix-up of letters, Humbert blurts out â€Å"What’s the Katter with misses? † I muttered (word-control gone) into her hair. † This is quite a setback from the Humbert who begins his phrases with â€Å"Gentlemen of the jury! †(Nobokov 69), following it by providing well thought out defenses for his nymph desires. By teasing the jury with the two sides, he shows an playful and vulnerable side to him that could not be completely ruthless, as well as a level-headed moral being who is simply conflicted with an uncontrollable desire. In addition, Humbert addresses the audience in this way to give them a feeling of authority towards a man who freely admits his guilt, which keeps his manipulation game in check most of the time. The fact that Humbert mentions numerous times the lolita’s sexual deviousness and flirtatious demeanor, while in true sense mind, her child-mind at the age of twelve could not have grasped and control the relationship, regardless of her sexual experiences embodies this manipulation. The constant mixing of moral values shields the audience from seeing the true monster that he is. He tells us on numerous occasion that he loves her and even displays remorse from time to time â€Å" in retrospect, was no more than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires and her sobs in the night—every night, every night—the moment I feigned sleep† (176) quickly offsetting it by showing his ruthless and evil perversion the sensualist in me had no objection to some depravity in his prey (124) at what he has created Humbert referring to himself as a monster and pedofile therefore, is only to distract the audience from their manipulated minds. The changing style allows more time for a visual stimulation in his ornate style and shocking accounts, and less time in actually deciphering the fabricating lies to the actual evidence and occurrences. The ending result is that the stimulating narration is its analyzes itself and that the reader gives up on decipher some of his clues Being the writer that he is, Humbert cannot help but create beauty within each moment of his story, which work to distract the audience out of complete repulsion towards his actions. Whether it be admiring the sunlit lake in the mundane suburban noontime, having a brief tryst with a nymph-like prostitute in a cheap hotel room, or contemplating a drowning murder in which he described â€Å" passed like the tail of a falling star across the blackness of the contemplated crime. It was like some dreadful silent ballet, the male dance holding the ballerina by her foot and streaking down through watery twilight. † (Nobokov 86-87), he does not fail to veil his crimes with lavish brilliance. In this case, the imagery he creates using a simile of graceful ballerinas amid the darkly lit backdrop of a vicious homicide illustrates the genius of Humberts distractions that keep the reader intrigued and unquestioning. Though the audience may be aware of the fact that his thoughts and actions are repulsive most of the time (he clearly states it), like an infatuated lover in the middle of an abusive relationship, we are hooked on to his language, and seem to take less offense towards him because what he feeds us in his style and imagery. Diverts reader from the real problem. The masterpiece in his language: distracts the reader from fully grasping or taking seriously the sadist that he outwardly presents to us. By displaying his sadist desires bluntly and at the same time being able to capture the empathy and understanding of such the jury, who by all societal standards, should be rioting his confession, Humbert can revere himself on yet another feat, in which he is able to manipulate by empathizing beauty in his evil, insteading attempting to hide is dark thoughts. In a way, his self-confessing and guilt ridden outburst towards his inner-most pedofilia desires displays that the guilt he feels is not completely at his fault. It is the societys fault that, the laws that prohibit that type of relationship. Although Humbert may have felt remorseful towards the destruction he caused lolita, it is unjust to label him as a reformed criminal and a hero. He never really states that there is something completely morally wrong with his thoughts, only that the society he is a part of believes Based on the novel, a man of Humberts intelligence: one that strategically places each detail of his liaisons, each sentence, each word in place to create a riddle-like confession that leaves the reader speechless or sorrowful does not simply show us his true self to an audience without thinking it through. In other words, it would make little sense for a man of Humberts intellect to so easily forget his judging jury and directly show his vain and arrogant personality to further accusate himself. Not to worry however, because Humbert had after all strategically mannered each one of his jolts of laughable conceit and arrogance. His too-good, smarter than everyone demeanor is apparent when he mentions his adult companions (Valeria, Charlotte, Rita) in his less-fortunate and pitiful voice. While envisioning how he could use Charlotte to his advantage he says â€Å"I might blackmail—no, that is too strong a word—mauvemail big Haze into letting me consort with little Haze by gently threatening the poor doting Big Dove with desertion if she tried to bar me from playing with my legal stepdaughter. †(Nobokov 71) Here, he purposely shows us the ease he believes he has in getting what he wants and in controlling the other characters, while in reality the audience is aware that these flaws inhibit greater consequence. In additon, Humbert also allows himself to exaggerate the size of his reproductive organ when he tells us â€Å"I was to her not a boyfriend, not a glamour man, not a pal, not even a person at all, but just two eyes and a foot of engorged brawn–† (Nobokov 283). The intent in each of these instances therefore, is to show that on top of his moral flaws, he also has character flaws such as his vanity and cockiness, which allow him to humanize himself outside of the pedofile box he is put in. Furthermore, it strangely but logically enhances his reliability as a narrator because his bouts of denial and arrogance works to show the reader that he is not as conniving and calculating as the reader may think if he is able to forget the simple aspect of his own voice when writing his confession. This effect, however is exactly what Humbert wants us to think, that his moments of inattentiveness and feeling vulnerable he describe obviously biased scenarios and viewpoints. Of course, the true effect is that Humbert has succeeded yet again in manipulating the audience, in this case allowing us to see him more as an honest narrator, whether it be out of his own recklessness, or his inability to contain his emotions. As a result, the reader will in some cases, be occupied with analyzing his psychological motives of a sick man at odds with his feelings and desires and inexplicably releases on an easy twelve year old prey, instead of acknowledging that he is quite simply a manipulative sadist. He had to paint a more pathetic and self-delusional image of himself in order to hide his sinister and manipulative side. Classic ruthlessness to some of his actions. He purposely displays his human weaknesses as a first person narrator to gain an excuse for his actions. Like how serial often blame narcotics or demonic possession for their actions, Humbert inexplicably blames his imbalanced mind, while in reality it is his manipulative genius that causes us to believe this. The stated point to the work is to show us the confession of a reformed pedofile. The imbalance of chemicals in the mind of such a monster and how to spot one. Most importantly, to show that he has changed for the better. Upon closer inspection it is seen that this interpretation is simply a distraction from sinister and almost comical manipulation that he puts the reader through. It is a roller coaster of feigned attractions that ends with a triumphant Humbert who has fooled the audience with his deranged sympathy games. He is a true manipulative (monster) because through the jail he is able to manipulate the audience, ironically through his confession. Blurs line between sadism and beauty

Definition and Examples of Acrolects

Definition and Examples of Acrolects In sociolinguistics, acrolect is a creole variety that tends to command respect because its grammatical structures do not deviate significantly from those of the standard variety of the language. Adjective: acrolectal. Contrast with basilect, a language variety that is significantly different from the standard variety. The term mesolect refers to intermediate points in the post-creole continuum.The term acrolect was introduced in the 1960s by William A. Stewart and later popularized by linguist Derek Bickerton in Dynamics of a Creole System (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975) Observations Acrolects . . . are better described as linguistic innovations characterized by the incorporation of linguistic features which have their origin in the contact situation itself. Unlike standard languages, acrolects usually have no overt set of linguistic norms and are pragmatically motivated (i.e. depend on the formality of the situation). In other words, the concept of the acrolect is both absolute (on the level of the speech community) and relative (on the level of the individual) . . ..(Ana Deumert, Language Standardization and Language Change: The Dynamics of Cape Dutch. John Benjamins, 2004) Varieties of British English Spoken in Singapore For [Derek] Bickerton, an acrolect refers to the variety of a creole that has no significant difference from Standard English, often spoken by the most educated speakers; the mesolect has unique grammatical features that distinguish it from Standard English; and the basilect, often spoken by the least educated people of the society, has very significant grammatical difference.In reference to Singapore, [Mary W.J.] Tay points out that the acrolect has no significant grammatical differences from Standard British English and typically differs in vocabulary only by extending the meaning of existing words, for example, using the word bungalow to refer to a two-storied building. The mesolect, on the other hand, has a number of unique grammatical features such as the dropping of some indefinite articles and the lack of plural marking on some count nouns. Also, there are several loan words from Chinese and Malay. The basilect has more significant differences such as copula deletion and do-de letion within direct questions. It is also characterized by the use of words that are typically considered slang or colloquialisms.(Sandra Lee McKay, Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford Univ. Pres, 2002) Varieties of American English Spoken in Hawaii Hawaiian Creole is now in a state of decreolization (with English structures slowly replacing the original creole structures). In other words, one may observe in Hawaii an example of what linguists call a post-creole continuum: SAE, which is taught in schools, is the acrolect, that is, the socially prestigious lect, or language variant, at the top of social hierarchy. At the bottom socially is the basilect- heavy pidgin or more accurately heavy creole, a lect least influenced by SAE, usually spoken by people of low economic and social status who had very little education and very little chance to learn the acrolect in school. Between the two there is a continuum of mesolects (in between variants) which range from being very close to the acrolect to those which are very close to the basilect. Many people in Hawaii control various parts of this continuum. For example, most educated, professional people born in Hawaii, able to speak SAE at work in the office, switch to Hawaiian Creole w hen relaxing at home with friends and neighbors. (Anatole Lyovin, An Introduction to the Languages of the World. Oxford Univ. Press, 1997)