David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster

What is the authors view of his subject matter? What evidence supports
this conclusion?

Wallaces purpose for the essay was not clear at the beginning when he started
describing the atmosphere at the MLF and a little history about lobsters. It wasnt
until Wallace asked Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our
gustatory pleasure? (Wallace 259) that his purpose for the essay becomes clear.
Wallace believes that it is unethical to inflict pain and suffering on animals for
gustatory pleasure. Since lobsters do indeed feel pain while being boiled alive as
demonstrated by behavior associated with pain struggling, thrashing, and lid
clattering (Wallace 265). According to marine zoologists it usually takes between
thirty-five to forty-five seconds for lobster to die in boiling water, and during that
time they demonstrate actions similar to a human who has been thrown in boiling
water.

What evidence suggest that the author takes a more negative view of his
subject? Explain.

Wallace suggested that the worlds largest lobster cookout, an attraction at the MLF,
is the worlds largest killing floor as lobsters are being boiled alive as peoples watch.
It is a Roman circus or medieval torture-fest as lobsters are being piled over each
other into the bubbling cooker, they frantically scramble to escape.

Overall, how would you describe the authors tone and why?

Wallace was careful on what his tone is in the essay, I am also concerned not to
come off as shrill or preachy when what I really am is more like confused, uneasy
(Wallace 269). He is uneasy and disapproving of the ways animal are killed for
peoples enjoyment. Wallace asked the readers how much do you think about the
moral status and physical suffering of the animals involved (Wallace 269).

Provide five specific details about the authors audience and explain how
you arrived at these conclusions/details.

The article was printed in one of the most prestigious food magazine, Gourmet. The
authors target audience are wealthy carnivore who enjoy fine dining and well
prepared meals.

Search the text for one sentence that stands out to you. What is it about
this particular sentence that grabs your attention, make you think, or
makes it great?

For those Gourmet readers who enjoy well-prepared and presented meals involving
beef, veal, lamb, pork, chicken, lobster, etc.: How much do you think about the
(possible) moral status and (probably) physical suffering of the animals involved?
(Wallace 269). This stands out to me because it is the authors purpose for this
article and it was not revealed until the very end. I find it outstanding the way
Wallace structures the article to draw the readers in based on the audience, if he
had revealed his contention early on it would of turn off readers, and the article
would have been ignored.

Try to duplicate the quality you admire (in this ^ sentence) in a sentence
of your own. Think about the tone and style, delivery.
Tom Brady, can win super-bowls because he is a talented athlete and hard worker.
Why then, would he deflate footballs just to win a game?

This essay can be broken down into two sections. The main idea of the
second section contrasts two points of view about lobsters. What are
they? Sum up the main idea in your own words here.

Wallace wanted to question readers about their carnivorous behavior and he wanted
readers to be aware that before the meat is on their plate, they were at one time
conscious and sentient animals who had horrible things done to them to be on that
plate. Is it worth the animals life for the humans taste of protein, even though it is
acknowledged that it is possible to live well and eat well without consuming
animals.

What is the LOGIC (be as specific as possible) governing the order of

paragraphs in this section?

Wallace decided to close out the paper with his thesis statement in the conclusion
base on his audience, he considered that his audience are meat eaters who enjoy

fine dining with particular taste for animals protein. If he had revealed his purpose
in the introduction, the readers may have felt it was an attack on their lifestyle and
the article would have been dismissed.

Name 5 especially colorful pieces of evidence Wallace uses through this

essay.

Try to imagine a Nebraska beef festival at which part of the festivities is

watching trucks pull up and the live cattle get driven down the ramp and
slaughtered right there on the worlds largest killing floor (Wallace 263).
If youre tilting it from a container into the steaming kettle, the lobster will
sometimes try to cling to the containers sides or even hook its claws over
the kettles rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a
roof (Wallace 264)
Even if you cover the kettle and turn away, you can usually hear the cover
rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off. Or the creatures claws
scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around (Wallace 264)
Some cooks practice is to drive a sharp heavy knife point-first into the spot
just above the midpoint between the lobsters eyestalks (Wallace 265
Live dismemberment, on the other hand, is big in Europe: some chefs cut
the lobster in half before cooking; others like to tear off the claws and tail and
toss only these parts into the pot (Wallace 266)

What does this (^) evidence prove for Wallace and the purpose of this
essay?

Wallaces pictorial descriptions of ways cooks prepare and cook lobster give the
readers vivid imagery of how cruel and savage is it to kill a lobster or any kind of
animal in preparation for a meal.

Does Wallace think this democratization is a good thing or a bad thing?

Explain why you think so.

Wallace thinks that it is a good thing, he wants all the readers to think about the
consequences of their carnivorous ways. Some may not know the process involved
in the preparation or those who choose not to think about the cruelty thats involve.

One of Wallaces footnotes talks about what it means to experience Main

or Rockland. Which footnote is that? What argument does it make? How

does this argument relate to the main (first) section? And why does he
compare tourists to insects?

In footnote 6, Wallace said there is a great difference between working-class

Rockland and the heavy populist flavor of its festivals and elitist Camden. Wallace
felt that tourists ruined local flavor and the MLF is a huge tourists attraction. He
compares tourists to insects because he feels they impose their self on places that
would be better, realer without them.