Rhetorical Analysis Of Consider The Lobster By David Wallace

The controversial documentary Blackfish, directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite rose to popularity four years ago in 2013, when it was released. Blackfish tells the stories of killer whales, or orcas, that were caught and kept in captivity, and the effects that arose due to their capture. The documentary focuses on Tilikum, an orca caught in 1983, who was kept in captivity in SeaWorld Orlando since his capture for 34 years. Blackfish does an excellent job in using all three rhetorical appeals, providing many real life examples and statistics, to defend their argument that orcas should never be captured or held in captivity.

Lobsters and orcas are both creatures of the sea, that is an accepted statement, but what isn’t as easy to accept is the tragic lives they lead. ‘Consider the Lobster’ by David Foster Walace bares many similarities to the SeaWorld controversy. Walace in ‘Consider the Lobster’ and people in the fight against SeaWorld both explore the complexity of the animal brain. They both focus on how these animals struggle in captivity and the horrible impacts of it. Similarly to ‘Consider the Lobster’, they discuss the issue of how these animal centered events are for our pure enjoyment and entertainment.

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,

In this essay, Wallace uses pathos to show to the readers that lobsters are not what people think they are. In paragraph 5, Wallace says: “…lobsters are basically giant sea-insects”, and “it’s true that they are garbagemen of the sea, eaters of

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.

Save the Whales, Screw the Shrimp is an essay written by Joy Williams, about the overwhelming complacency that todays culture shows towards nature.Williams argues in a very satirical way, that todays culture has all but completely lost touch with what nature really is, and that unless we as a nation change our morals regarding the role that nature plays in human existence, we may very well be witnessing the dawn of our own destruction.

A short parable comprises the opening paragraph of Wallace’s speech. In this, there are two fish swimming along when they pass an older fish, headed in the opposite direction, that asks them how the water is. The two fish continue along for a bit before one asks the other “what the hell is water?” This serves as an extended metaphor used by Wallace to demonstrate his main argument for awareness in life. Just as the fish do not consider their surroundings, people more often than not fail to consider

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.

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

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

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

Ever been coaxed into believing another person’s persuasion because they said a commonality felt by all humans? As human beings capable of possessing nociceptors, they tend to be sympathetic towards the populace on certain matters. In the article “Hooked on a Myth,” the author, Victoria Braithwaite, utilizes pathos to understand that fishes are privy to emotions that all humans could relate to, pain. Braithwaite coaxes the readers’ to withdraw from the notion that implies animals, much less a school of fish, aren’t competent enough to own emotions; she taps into their emotional frame of mind by giving evidence from emotions the whole society has felt at one point in their lifetime. The author asks the reader, “Do we really know whether fish

Fish’s primary element that allows him to create such a persuasive argument is his use of