Rhetorical Devices In Consider The Lobster

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.

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,

Wallace begins by using a story about fish in order to hook his listeners, ending with one of the fish humorously asking “What the hell is water?”(1). He explains that the meaning of the story is that “the most obvious important

Amy Tan in the story, Fish Cheeks, implies that even though America is a country of immigrants, few of their traditions are acceptable in our culture. Tan supports her suggestion by describing christmas of the year she turned 14. The author’s purpose is to point out the irony of a country of immigrants with only one set of traditions in order to make us think about what traditions we suppress. The author writes in an earnest tone for Americans of all descents.

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.

1. David Foster Wallace opens his speech with an anecdote about fish and water. Metaphorically, what does this anecdote represent? What impact does it have when Wallace returns to the line “This is water”again at the end of the speech?

Everyone has an opinion when it comes to animals being killed and eaten. If a person agrees or not is completely their own opinion and will not be the focus of the essay. David Wallace’s essay “ Consider the Lobster,” is used to address perspectives of varying opinions while trying to persuade the reader. The author accomplishes this throughout the essay through the excellent use of multiple rhetorical techniques. Rhetorical devices such as ethos, lothos and pathos are all used in the essay to convey the author's opinion and try to convince the reader to choose a side.

Wallace establishes a humorous tone in the first section to convey his argument. “There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys, how's the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’” (233) This anecdote introduces the fact the many people don’t understand what is going on around them and why Wallace believes it is important to be conscious of what is happening around you. “This is not a matter of virtue- it's a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default-setting, which is to be deeply and literally self-centered, and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self.” (233) Wallace argues that it is hard to get into a state of awareness because humans have their “hard-wired default-setting”. People need to get out of their own self-centered habits and see things in a different point of view. By using a humorous tone, Wallace can effectively get people on his side of the argument.

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

But the Old man thought, I have such a heart too and my feet and hands are like theirs.” The Old man felt sorry for the turtles because people didn’t respect these friendly animals. People would cut them up and eat them. He felt attached to these creatures because he believed that he had a strong heart, feet, and hands like the magnificent turtles. He describes how he ate turtle eggs to give himself strength. By showing the scene in which the turtle ate the jellyfish, Hemingway was trying to how the turtle was like him and the jellyfish was like the marlin being attacked. That shows the animal and human way of survival are the same. Hemingway described the turtles as sea creatures with great values, unusual, but still very friendly.

In Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace, the author questions why is it ok "to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?"(Wallace, 60). Wallace questions why people, those who eat the lobsters, find it morally and ethically correct to eat a sentient being that has been tortured. Wallace uses the lobster to convey the picture of a sentient creature being tortured before its consumption, through this he explains the preferences of the people who eat these creatures and how their morals and ethics have been redefined to find the process acceptable. This paper will discuss Wallace 's examination of his question and how the solution relates to preference, morals, and ethics. While on the surface the essay is about why those eating lobster find it alright to torture the creature first before consuming it, what the author is really exploring is humans "preferring" not to cross paths with moral problems like torture, causing ethical practices to progress the avoidance and less urgency of these moral problems.