David Foster Wallace Consider The Lobster Summary

In his essay Consider the Lobster, it’s apparent what David Foster Wallace is trying to tell his audience: we should really think about the lobster’s point of view before cooking and eating it. Wallace uses multiple rhetorical strategies to get his point across, including pathos and ethos. His essay is very good in how it gets its point across, and how it forces even the largest lobster consumers to truly contemplate how the lobster might react being boiled alive. It brings up many controversial topics of animal rights that many people tend to avoid, especially people who are major carnivores. Wallace’s use of rhetorical strategies really gets the reader thinking, and thoroughly captures the argument of many vegetarians against the consumption of animals. Wallace captures the use of pathos in his essay and uses it in a way that is incredibly convincing to the reader. For example, he compares the Maine Lobster Festival to how a Nebraska Beef Festival could be, stating, “at which part of the festivities is watching trucks pull up and the live cattle get driven down the ramp and slaughtered right there…” (Wallace 700). Playing off of people’s natural tendency to feel bad for the cattle, he shows that the killing of lobster is, in reality, no different than the killing of cattle, but we treat it much differently. We tend to think that lobsters are different because they are less human than cows are, and, maybe to make us feel better about our senseless killing of an animal,

6b. With respect to the author’s conclusions (either specified or implied), I reject or do not agree with the following and why:

In Consider The Lobster, David Foster Wallace raises an ethical question: “Is it right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” However, this essay is not to provide a definite answer to this question but lets the readers come up with their own answers. Wallace uses rhetorical strategies such as comparison, imagery, and questions to make the audiences think deep about the moral lens of consuming lobsters.

In his article “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace uses the Maine Lobster Festival as a medium for his argument regarding the ethics of eating lobster. Wallace frames his article as a conversation just to get people thinking, but a deeper look at his rhetoric shows that he is arguing against the inhumanities of eating lobster, while doing everything he can to avoid sounding like he is taking a stance.

He is not even trying to persuade the reader to stop eating lobster. Wallace is trying to give different perspectives to a audience that most likely eats lobster. He effectively does this to a audience that will probably support some of the things he is saying through the use of rhetorical devices. He use pathos to try to make the readers feel different emotions on eating and killing lobsters. The author uses ethics in a special way by using a plethora of research and sophisticated writing to make his ideals seem credible to the audience. Lastly, Wallace uses logos in his article by putting loads of scientific information that helps support his argument on lobsters. This article was made for a tough audience that probably majority if not all eat or has eaten lobster. It doesn't really matter to this audience and will not change their opinions but the article was made to make them think more about the next time they decide to eat

2b) The authors provided the reader a lot of information on the topic. Each topic was very well explored. A lot of different information on different but similar studies. The authors seemed very knowledgeable on the topic. This article lacked a few things. A clear research question and a hypothesis. The paragraphs were not clear and consist, I felt that I had to dig to get certain information. The paper was very wordy, which made me have a hard time understanding the substance.

What specific evidence and examples does the author use to support this argument? Do you think they are convincing?

2.) Who is this author? What are his/her expertise in relation to this topic? What is his/her experience with this

2. What is the bias of this Author, as it relates to this topic? What might account for this bias?

According to Scruton, “Eating animals has become a test case for moral theory in Western societies,” and he believes that a moral life is set on three pillars: virtue, duty, value piety. Foer uses fishes and dogs, for example, in Eating Animals: people slam gaffs into fish, but no one in their right mind would do such a thing to a dog. Foer also mentions that fish are out there in the water doing what fish do, and dogs are with us. Dogs are our companions, and with that, we care about the things that are near and dear to us. In, “Consider the Lobster,” Wallace asks, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” Is it a personal choice to do so? PETA, of course, says no. Dick from the Maine Lobster Festival (MLF) argues that lobsters do not have the part of the brain that receives pain, which is a false statement anyhow. Goodrich (1969) says that a human’s life is worth so much more than an animal’s life. No matter how many animals there are, one human life is worth more.

In the essay “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace communicates his experience in the Main Lobster Festival as a writer for a food magazine called “Gourmet”. In this essay, he explores the impact the festival had on him as he tries to question the morals of eating lobsters. Wallace initially makes it seem as the festival is a place of fun and celebration as he describes the entertainment: concerts, carnival rides, lobster-themed food, lobster-themed clothes, and lobster-themed toys (50). In spite of that, he changes his attitude as he observes that the festival is actually promoting cruelty to animals and holds a long discussion whether or not lobsters can actually feel pain. Through the use of his language and description, Wallace convinces the audience as he claims to persuade the reader to stop eating lobsters, but he doesn’t explicitly say so at any point in the essay.

4. What do these details tell you about the writer’s assumptions about the knowledge and experience of readers?

Wallace’s use of changing viewpoints adds to what he originally wants to do, which is to give the reader a chance to pick which side of the argument they want to be on. The author not only gives the reader different views, but he also changes his tone throughout the piece. By adding dynamic shifts in his writing, he includes the reader and gives a better feel for what this article is really about. This sentence stands out due to the fact that Wallace talks about the positive aspects of what occurs during the festival throughout the beginning of the article. This includes not only the amount of lobster that is being

The gluttonous lords of the land capture those who are unable to defend themselves, boil the captives alive, and then feast on their flesh. Could this be the plot of some new summer blockbuster? It could be, in fact, but for now we will focus on how this depiction of events compares to David Foster Wallace’s essay, “Consider the Lobster,” which starts as a review of the Maine Lobster Festival, but soon morphs into an indictment of not only the conventions of lobster preparation, but also the entire idea of having an animal killed for one’s own consumption. Wallace shows great skill in establishing ethos. In the essay, he succeeds in snaring a receptive audience by laying out a well-baited trap for an

Many people at the Maine Lobster Festival find it easy to believe that lobsters feel no pain in order to continue to torture the animal before indulging it without empathy or regret. This ethical practice has been created in order to backup the thoughts of accepting the ideology that it 's "all right" to torture the animal before consumption. While Wallace is in a rental car he