Once again, you can respond in any substantive and non-qualitative fashion you wish to the piece. (Again, this is not the place to say whether you "liked it" or not; nor should you feel inclined to put in your two-cents about what you'd cut if you were the editor.)
You might want to consider thinking about the ways in which this piece is about the Maine Lobster Festival, and also much more. What kind of work is Wallace, as the narrative perspective of the piece, doing? What could be a different way of approaching this subject, and what might be gained or lost from those alternative approaches?
Remember to write a minimum of 250 words to receive credit and to respond to one of your peers' posts as well.
In “Consider the Lobster”, I first thought this article was only about the Maine Lobster Festival so I expected it to be more persuasive to make you want to go to the festival and eat lobster but it really does the opposite. Wallace goes about his article stating reasons not to go to this festival like how they boil the lobster alive and the moral issues behind the scenes of the festivals that are actually right in front of the festival goers faces. As a narrative perspective of the piece, Wallace is trying to convince or just point out facts to people about the lobsters and what moral questions the festival itself and festival goers are going against. Wallace points out in great details the history of lobsters, how they are cooked, and the animal cruelty eating issues behind all of this. From the title, “Consider the Lobster”, it is apparent that Wallace wants to consider the side of the lobster and not just the festival. His example of the Beef Festival puts this all into great perspective, people wouldn’t kill cattle on site just to contain its freshness but that’s exactly what they’re doing here at the Maine Lobster Festival to lobsters. Alternative approaches to get his point across could’ve been to just focus on the festival not on other aspects like the history of lobsters and their past. This alternative approach would have caused his article to lose its sense of meaning in the aspect of understanding the history of lobsters because not all readers will know these facts he threw in. His article did seem to focus more on the moral issues of eating lobster and less on the festival than expected. He could have just tried to focus more on what happens at the festival or more about his personal experience there. He also could have tried to get other’s inputs into his article by interviewing the people who enjoy and dislike the festival to get both sides. This could have made his article less of a personal opinion and more of an objective piece.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I noticed that if Wallace had chosen to be more objective the article honestly would not have been as interesting or even as touching as it is. Wallace took the route less taken and it all worked out. I especially appreciated the beef festival reference because it really put everything into perspective.
DeleteI agree with you both! I certainly appreciated the honestly of Wallace's perspective while being respectful and considerate of his audience and what opinions that they might have. It definitely was an interesting piece altogether.
DeleteI agree, as well. The article seemed to be explaining facts and listing the details of how the event would unfold to inform the reader about the positives of attending a lobster festival. However, there was certainly a twist when Wallace showed his intentions of dissuading the reader to visit a lobster festival, it was very unexpected.
DeleteWallace's article definitely initially strikes the reader as some sort of persuasive article that is trying or at least attempting to persuade the reader to attend this festival. The first line of Wallace's article honestly seems to be congratulatory and Wallace's tone at first, genuinely seems impressed. But then Wallace does something that the reader did not quite expect and continues on to sort of release a cluster of facts that people, when attending these sorts of festivals, do not think of. When attending a lobster festival in Maine, the majority of people are not thinking of the morality of it all and even how much pain the lobsters may be enduring at the point in time. Wallace's approach absolutely gives his article more depth than it would have had, had it merely been appraising the lobster festival. Within the article, because of his approach, the reader is forced to actually take into consideration a number of different aspects of the festival and his article even manages to evoke some sort of empathy from the reader when thinking of how inhumane the treatment of these animals is, and that is something that is incredibly impressive. Wallace even managed to create a very vivid illustration that served as the absolute perfect example and representation of the lobster festival. Wallace mentioned a "beef festival", something that automatically seems completely disgusting and repulsive yet, the beef festival would be essentially the exact same thing as the lobster festival so this again, cause the reader to question why is it okay to slaughter hundreds of lobsters for show when we would never dream of doing that to hundreds of cattle. It's a subjective article with a multitude of facts.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Wallace releases many facts to the audience which is a lot of information to absorb. The comparison of a beef festival struck me the same way that it did you. Wallace's point made complete sense because that would be disgusting, yet people support the Lobster Festival.
DeleteI like how you mentioned the concept of the "beef festival". I agree that that was a great comparison, because it completely supported Wallace's view about a lobster festival, by clearly explaining it to readers by using an analogy.
DeleteThis piece about the Maine Lobster Festival is not only about the festival, but also ways that the author, David Wallace, thought that this festival was wrong and inhumane. Wallace is trying to give readers his perspective on the Maine Lobster Fest by revealing how disrespectful it is towards these sea creatures. When I first began to read the article, I thought this was going to be a piece persuading me to go to the Maine Lobster Festival, but it was the complete opposite. Wallace uses the structure of his writing to convey a message to the readers. He uses a larger font when discussing gruesome details about what the lobsters have to endure. Sentences like "A detail so obvious that recipes don't even bother to mention it is that the lobster is supposed to be alive when you put it in the kettle" and "Some cooks take one of those little lightweight plastic oven timers with them into another room and wait till the whole process is over" are sentences that are bolded and in larger font. Wallace wants the attention to be on the fact that lobsters are thrown into boiling hot water while still alive, then some cooks cowardly walk away as they hear them scramble in the pot. The focus is definitely on the helplessness of the lobsters, and how cruel this festival is. The most compelling topic of this paper in my opinion was when Wallace compared the lobster festival to a beef festival. This comparison made complete sense as to why the Maine Lobster Festival because people would never gather around to watch a cow get killed, so why are lobsters any different?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that the beef festival put it into perspective about how the lobsters are being treated. I like that he thought to use that to show people what's going on. Wallace took a different route writing this article and it paid off making the readers realize whats really going on at the Maine Lobster Festival not persuading you to attend.
DeleteAlexandra Lewis
DeleteI agree with you, it really seemed like this would be persuasive writing targeted towards why you should go to the Maine Lobster Festival and instead focused on why it was cruel. The beef festival was definitely a great comparison.
I also agree that the comparison of the lobster festival to a beef festival effectively put things into perspective for most readers. A lot of people tend to feel more remorse for the mammals they see more often and are more familiar with. But this comparison, like you said, created the deeper question of why are lobsters being killed any different than a cow.
DeleteAt first glance, this piece looks informational and persuasive. However, it was quite the opposite. The author talks about the Lobster Festival in Maine every July but also encompasses his personal opinions and biases. The author obviously has a strong dislike towards this festival. He attacks the moral perspectives of eating lobsters. He dives into how inhumane it is that lobsters are alive when they are placed in the kettle and that restaurants fail to mention that because it's so obvious. According to Wallace, some cooks leave the room while the lobster cooks so that they don’t have to watch the process of the lobsters dying. He also criticizes the event itself for the overpriced seats and overflow of people which makes the experience even more unenjoyable. Form the way that he structures his arguments, the reader can tell that Wallace is strongly against animal cruelty. The purpose of this article is for the reader to think about the truth behind all of the good times and laughter that goes on at festivals like these. Personally, I learned a lot of new things such as the fact that lobsters used to be served for lower class individuals due to its abundance in supply. It’s weird to think about lobsters went from being tossed around like casual food to a high class cuisine. I also found Wallace’s approach to the article interesting because not many people write about festivals to criticize them, In fact in most articles i've been exposed to, they have been positive features and reviews. Overall, I definitely appreciate his perspective of writing and respect his careful approach in his arguments.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is very easy to tell that he is against the festival and definitely pushes hard in persuading his perspective on animal cruelty. He doesn't hold back at all and is a bold style of writing nowadays because of how touchy everyone is on literally every subject. Wallace does do a good job with making the reader remember this article because of the approach he had in writing it.
DeleteYou talked about some of the many things I talked about in my post and I really agree with what you noticed in the article. I also found it interesting that lobster used to be a regular food like French fries at McDonalds, and now it has turned into a food some people can not afford. You also brought up a good point about most articles about festivals or carnivals are in a positive viewpoint but Wallace takes a point of view of a critic to write about this festival.
DeleteSayawni Lassiter
Initially jumping into the article, I thought this was just going to be a descriptive piece on how the Maine Lobster Festival works and excerpts of interviews with some of the people who attend it or set it up, but was I completely wrong. By the end of the first page I was very intrigued as to what they were going to go into detail with about the festival and cool things they do with it, but the author had something else in mind that he wanted to talk about. First talking about the history of how lobster became a delicacy, then giving actual instructions as to how they are cooked, and then going right into saying we torture them and should reflect on our moral values is pretty overwhelming and had me all sorts of confused. Once Wallace explained it all though and brought in the point of the “beef festival”, it all made sense and actually did make me reconsider the ways in which we view things. This article is definitely based off of a personal opinion and strongly biased towards Wallace’s opinion, seeing that there are no other inputs from, say fair attendees or even PETA protestors at the fair, which could have given the article a bit more depth. I would have liked to see more about the fair though and what it has to offer because he talked about it so strongly in the beginning and seemed like he was setting up the article to get all into it, rather than take the turn he did.
ReplyDeleteWallace uses the Maine Lobster Festival as an introduction and great example for the question being asked- why do we boil lobsters alive? He is making us believe in something that seems remarkable at first but by the ending most readers are disturbed by. The world’s largest lobster cooker and festival seem like somewhere you want to be and then slowly he convinces you of the reality behind it. I believe he makes lobster seem as an animal which we humans cherish on our own and not for what it actually is. He tells us how they wouldn’t even feed lobster to prisoner’s multiple times a week because it was believed to be a cruel practice. As readers, our view of lobster as a delicacy is dwindled by the authors telling of its history. He could have chosen not to tell this side of the story and not changed the readers view of lobster as a gourmet food. He could have gone further into detail about customs that have come over time about how people appreciate lobster. The animal will die either way and if boiling it makes it tastes better than why not? I catch lobsters and boil them and never really thought about how much pain they are in while being boiled. My first thought was how delicious my food was going to be that night. An appreciation for lobster and the customs that go along with eating it could create a better argument towards the reader: Does he want a delicious lobster that was boiled alive.. Or a not so delicious lobster that was killed seconds before entering the pot.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a very good read as I have been to Maine multiple times to go on my friend’s boats, but we have never been able to catch this festival when it is happening. I think that having been to Maine and living in New England, it puts the article into perspective even more. I found it interesting that lobster used to be food that was consumed by the lower class because it is such an expensive food now. Whenever I get the chance to go to Legal Sea Food or Red Lobster, it is a monumental day due to the lobster being so expensive. One thing that struck me about this article is that it seems to be as if he is having a conversation with the reader. In the end, he asks the reader many questions regarding lobster cruelty and animal cruelty in general as if it is conversation. My view on the matter is that it is cruel to kill innocent animals for human agribusiness, but I love eating crab, burgers, shrimp, steak, and all the other animal based foods. Wallace mentions the fact that cooks sometimes have to leave the room in order to not see the process of a lobster dying, and having cooked lobster before it is scary watching them die. After you let the water boil for awhile and you put the lobster in the water, the lobster will squirm and flap due to the water being so hot, which initially makes you jump because it seems as if the lobster is jumping out the water. After a while, the lobster will eventually stop flapping because it is beginning to cook and die, and it is a cruel thing to do. I do think as a society we should cut back on killing so many animals because eventually there will be even more of a shortage than there already is. Although I do enjoy seafood and eating animal based foods, I do think it is cruel to not only boil an animal alive, but to kill them in general. I also liked how the article changed perspectives mid article as initially it seemed as if the article was going to just be seven pages about the Maine Lobster Festival, but as I kept reading it shifted to being about lobster morality and animal cruelty. Overall, I enjoyed this article because it is about the region I live in, but also because I enjoy seafood.
ReplyDeleteSayawni Lassiter
I like your view on this article. I enjoy how you made the connection to your personal life and explained why the article made a little more sense to you. I also agree with you on how the author talks to the readers, asks them questions and makes them feel like he is really talking to them.
DeleteAlexandra Lewis
ReplyDeleteThe article “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace gives away what the main subject of what writing is about, however the first couple pages are strictly about the details of the Maine Lobster Festival, which gives the misconception that the article would be focused on what the event is all about, what occurs during it, etc. The author then gets into the purpose of the writing, and makes the reader question their own morals. Wallace points out that lobsters are often disregarded as living, breathing creatures as they are caught in thousands and cooked alive. The author also points out that if another source of meat was being used at this attraction, such as cow, there is no way the attendance would be as high as 80,000 people, or that they would willingly watch the animal be killed/kill it themselves. I think that Wallace made great points- the lobsters do show signs of distress when cooked alive (however that can also just be them “preferring” not to be in there), however I feel as if he does not have the authority to talk on the subject. He clearly stated at the end of the article that there are meats he enjoys eating, and although many people feel guilty about eating animals so they avoid thinking hard about it, he should have provided more insight as to why you should not eat animals. It is an extremely disturbing and inhumane decision to cook a living creature alive, but Wallace is not vegetarian, therefore he still supports the killing of animals in other ways, such as slaughter houses, which is just as inhumane and being boiled. The article would have been more effective if he perhaps interviewed individuals that are against the Festival, therefore the readers could get a perspective from someone who supports animal rights.
The article, “Consider the Lobster” initially had a very personal feel to it, and gave the impression that it was written for a person native to Maine, assuming they are familiar with the streets by name. The narrator, Wallace, describes a traditional scene of a Lobster Festival in Maine, but uses the strategy of listing facts, rather than using descriptive words to set up how the festival is arranged. This can set a sense of dullness to the tone of the entire article. Similarly, a large portion of the first section of the article was mainly listing facts and numbers about the event, which can get lost while a person reads it. However, the article maintains a very personal level to it. By, adding sentences with assumptions to them, it may confuse the reader if they are not familiar with the topic and are using this article to discover more. Similarly, a lot of this article explains historical or scientific facts about lobsters, which can defeat the purpose of writing an article about the festival. Although Wallace makes it seem that the article will portray the highlights of a lobster festival, it actually has a negative spin to it. Wallace, rather than convince people to go to the festival, explains many aspects that can persuade the reader to stay away from the festivals all together, which I found very surprising. This article, at first glance, seemed to have been written in hopes of describing a joyful festival about lobsters, but resulted in the reasons why one should not attend the festival all together. I found this interesting, but it may have been smarter to state that in the title to avoid confusion for the reader.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the fact that the title might have been misleading because I definitely thought the article was going to be a persuasive one towards the festival. I enjoyed how you made the connection between knowing the street names and being a native to Maine. Although I enjoyed learning the facts, I understand where readers can get lost or disinterested due to the long listing.
DeleteIn "Consider the Lobster" by David Foster Wallace, there isn't a secret about what the article will be about. The author gives it away right away. In the first part of the passage he talks about what the "MLF" or the Maine Lobster Festival is. After reading for a little i assumed that the entire article will be about this event and what goes on in this event and what kind of people attend it. As you delve further into the article you quickly realize that it isn't all about the event itself, but rather the morals that the event seems to disregard. It talks about how many people tend to forget that the lobsters that they are killing and eating are living breathing creatures. The author seemed to point out key facts that myself wouldn't realize unless someone pointed them out to me. People wouldn't go to such an event if it wasn't lobsters. If there was a event killing cows and cooking them right in front of you to eat, you wouldn't want to eat them and have a sort of empathy for the cows. The people that are attending this event don't have that empathy because they are disregarding that the lobsters are living creatures. When the author stated that lobster used to be consumed by the lower class was a huge shock to me. I was belittled by this statement because lobster seems to be a higher class food now. Personally i enjoy eating lobster a lot but now that i am more educated on how the lobsters are trapped and cooked alive i will rethink what i order when out to a nice dinner.
ReplyDeleteDavid Wallace's article "Consider The Lobster" was not quite what I had expected. The lobster Festival seems like a place that many people attend and even more people would like to attend. During his piece, Wallace voices his opinions towards the festival-which are not good ones. Although the piece is obviously biased because of how many subjective arguments are thrown at the readers, I found it important and just as interesting. Many people do not know the extent of cruelty that goes on during these events, and he might have opened some people's eye to it. Throughout the article, he managed to place questions and facts that could possibly make readers question their own morals. I even had some deeper thoughts about the subject and wondered if it was ethical to enjoy the occasional lobster bisque even after learning about the cruel processes that goes on behind the scene. Wallace also made sure to emphasize with large and red fonts, which did grab my attention while reading.
ReplyDeleteI found that this article might have a big impact in today's society. Many people are realizing the cruelty and inhumane paths the food industry takes so we can enjoy meat products, and Wallace definitely makes a contribution with his arguments. Although you can sense very clearly that he does not agree with the festival, he states many facts throughout that reinforces the arguments and gives us reliable sources. Overall, I learned a lot from the article and found Wallace's position very moral.
It was not what I had expected either. I had expected it to be about the lobster festival, but it was more of his opinion on why eating lobster is wrong. I think he should have titled it something different because of this.
DeleteThis article is definitely eye-opening in several aspects, and while the author did not making a definite statement on whether lobsters deserve to be boiled alive or not, he posed the question and gave the readers the ability to decide on their own.
DeleteJust by reading the title of "Consider the Lobster" it was clear that the article was going to be biased towards the authors opinion on the lobster fest. I was kind of confused why he went into such detail describing the history of lobsters and what they look like. I was expecting the article to go straight into the lobster festival. I also thought that this article would be a positive one because the subtitle, "for 56 years, the Maine Lobster Festival has been drawing crowds with the promise of sun, fun, and fine food. One visitor would argue that the celebration involves a whole lot more," hints that he would think it was much more than a festival in a good way. It seemed as if the author had a really bad experience with the festival or just lobster in general by the way he describes the flat drinks at the festival, and the fact that lobster used to be a poor man's food. I feel like this was more about the author's experience and opinion on lobster than about the festival itself. He went off topic a lot, and I feel like if he talked about the festival without bias and used it as an informational piece rather than a persuasive piece he could have gotten the message of what the lobster fest entails across a lot better. He could have also titled the article something different because it talks about animal cruelty a lot and focuses on the ethically reasons why you should not eat lobster.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the author of this article was not trying to completely shame people who eat lobsters but rather to encourage them to think about the morality behind what they eat, specifically lobsters though. He even mentioned himself that he wasn’t trying to give “a PETA-like screed”. I think he approached it from the most effective direction. If he were to focus more on the festival itself, yes it would be entertaining, but he would not be able to get his message across as efficiently. If he were to cut the information associated with the festival out of the article and rather solely focus on the treatment of lobsters for our own selfish enjoyment, I believe that he would have come across more aggressive and harsh. He also would not have been able to grab the readers’ attention as easily as he did without the information about the Maine Lobster Festival. His use of subjectively describing the Maine Lobster Fest on its’ own in the beginning was an effective strategy at leading to the point he was trying to make. I felt that this made the reader somewhat unable to take their eyes off the page because they were curious as to what the author was going to say next. I believe that the sharp direction he took threw readers for a loop at first, but it was easy to see that his article was meant to have a much bigger purpose than to talk about a lobster festival.
ReplyDeleteI also think the author was not shaming people who eat lobster, but just trying to inform them about what people do to lobsters so they can decide for themselves if they still want to eat lobsters.
DeleteI agree with this. I do not think he was trying to shame people, but he wants people to look at boiling lobsters and killing them alive in a different way. I think is was nice that he said he was not trying to give a PETA like screed or that he is not part of anything culinary. This is was just his true opinion.
DeleteAfter reading the first couple of paragraphs of this article, I thought the article was going to be an informative piece on the Maine Lobster Festival. I was curious to learn more because I have never heard of the Maine Lobster Festival. However, the article was not so much about the Maine Lobster Festival, it was more about how the whole process of eating a lobster is very cruel compared to almost anything else humans eat. The author goes into a lot of detail about the cruel process, and how they can feel the pain. Some people boil the lobsters alive, while some people will just cut their claws off, or cut them in half, neither of which kill the lobster. This sounds very cruel. If people did this to something else we eat, there would be plenty of outrage. The author talks about imagining if their was a beef festival, where the cows were brought up right in front of you. That would never happen because of how cruel it would be. So why do most people not care when it is done with lobsters. I have never tried a lobster, and after reading this article about how cruel the process of cooking a lobster is, I do not think I will ever want to try a lobster. I think an alternative way the author could have approached this subject could have been focusing more on the chefs who actually cook the lobster instead of just briefly talking about them and focusing less on the festival. If the author used this approach, it might have been lost on the reader how many people are okay with the way the lobsters are treated, but they might be better informed on how to make the process less cruel by seeing the ways other people try it.
ReplyDeleteThe article is somewhat deceiving in that sense, yes. It starts off as an informative piece, but then turns into a heavy criticism, against the Maine Lobster Festival, and against animal cruelty. It was extremely well-written, and filled with a copious amount of facts and pathos.
DeleteI felt exactly the same way when the article starting mentioning the process of preparing a lobster to be eaten. It's disgusting and cruel and I could not imagine not feeling some sort of emotion after learning what goes through boiling a lobster alive. Wallace did a fantastic job of influencing me as a reader to not eat lobster. I don't really agree with your perspective of including a lesser painful process to prepare lobsters to be eaten because I feel like it would take the effect and impact away. Wallace included all of these facts about lobsters so that we have a connection to them, especially in the way we feel pain, and then explain the process of boiling one. I feel like the piece has done its purpose and that introducing a "solution" wouldn't help.
DeleteI agree with your thoughts about this article. The author does have a strong passionate feel about the cruelty amongst these lobsters at this festival. I did like how the author mentioned about the beef festival as well. It does make the reader think from another perspective.
DeleteDavid Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster”, starts off with somewhat of a happy, jovial and informative tone. Wallace begins the article, which was published back in 2004, simply talking about the Maine Lobster Festival and how it is a very popular ordeal, considering the fact that it is held every July and it hosts thousands of people. He introduces the topic discussing the importance of the festival and how much of a good financial impact it has on Maine’s economy. Wallace then proceeds to take this article into a whole different light, and begins addressing the morality of actually burning crabs and using that to target audiences for both entertainment and food. He questions this, using a wide array of facts to get his point across. One thing that was particularly interesting about the article was the fact that he actually claimed that lobster was also a low-quality food, for poor people back in the 1800’s. That makes everything very ironic, considering the fact that over 80 thousand people go to this festival every year. He also uses pathos within his writing, or appeal to emotion, in order to continue addressing the issue that it isn’t okay to just boil live animals. The concept of the article was sort of odd, usually when people write about popular festivals that happen annually, they have nothing but good things to say. Festivals like Coachella usually have a lot more positive reviews than they do negative. All in all, the article was directed to criticize the morality behind the Maine Lobster Festival.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the article did seem to have a "jovial" tone in the beginning and that the facts given were entertaining. I feel this and the pathos presented are some of the key factors that capture the audiences immediate attention. he presents these before going on to his "topic at hand" which is the factor of animal cruelty. Overall I believe you are correct in stating that the article was directed to criticize the morality behind the festival but also behind all animal cruelty involving lobsters.
DeleteThe way Wallace wrote this article made it seem like more of a conversational piece at some points than an average article. This was a very difficult article to read, but not in the way it was written, but rather how it mentions how the lobster is boiled alive and the grueling and painful death it experiences. At first, I thought this article was meant to show the different aspects of the Maine Lobster Festival and what it's like to be there. And while it does do its purpose of explaining what goes on at MLF, it takes a negative perspective on the entire festival and eating lobster in general. We are told more facts about lobsters and how they feel pain just like humans do, and also the history of how lobsters were originally meant for the poor and institutionalized because of how abundant they were. Wallace also mentions how PETA will attend events like MLF to protest and hand out fliers that say the lobster you are going to eat has been boiled alive specifically for you. This entire article took a dark turn quick and Wallace does a fine job persuading me to stray away from festivals like MLF and even restaurants like Red Lobster. I'm not usually easily persuaded by articles, but this piece made quite a significant impact on me by making me more aware of what I eat and the process of making the food that I eat. If the animal I am eating has been boiled alive specifically for me, I do not want it.
ReplyDeleteInitially, Wallace starts his article out with a great sentence that catches the reader's attention and makes one think they are about to dive into the setting of a lobster festival. Towards the beginning of the article, I thought it was very helpful to get some background knowledge of the specific lobster festival Wallace was going too. Wallace did a really good job showing his opinion of the lobster festival. He was really descriptive about his dislikes of the festival and the things they could improve on. He has his opinions and he had the government officials opinion who had said he had never been to this one before because typically you have to wait in very long lines for lobster and people are always protesting for PETA. Also, I thought this article was more casual at first, but then became more formal when he started talking about animal cruelty and science. I learned way more about the brain of a lobster than I ever thought I would and it really got me thinking about the way we eat lobster. Wallace’s comparison the ‘beef festival’, saying if we slaughtered cows in front of everyone so we could have the best meat truly made me think about what PETA does and how we I guess celebrate certain foods at festivals. I enjoyed how Wallace said he is not a culinary expert nor Peta activist in order to attempt to not be bias in the article, however I think putting such a vivid comparison of lobsters being boiled to cows being slaughtered helps PETA.
ReplyDeleteLauren Otero
ReplyDeleteDavid Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” appears to be a review of the Maine Lobster festival at first glance; Wallace initially starts by describing the festival and what it has to offer before going in to more depth about the lobster as a species. His information on lobster cruelty and the anatomy of the animal is really eye opening. It allows the reader to consider a thought that was unexpected when reading about a lobster festival. Wallace writes in a way that lowers him to the reader’s viewpoint, opening the topic for discussion rather than just stating his own opinions. This style of writing really promotes a thought provoking debate about the lobster and the different ways that they are treated and how they should be treated. He uses the information to state his own opinion and offer the audience a bigger picture as to why the practices of killing the lobsters are, in reality, inhumane. The comparison to killing other animals such as cattle along with his description of the lobsters showing humanistic qualities (like grabbing the sides of the pot and struggling to get out of the boiling water) gives a new perspective to the readers. By ending his article with rhetorical questions, he uses the article as a start to what seems like a debate. Here, is where I felt that he was truly opening the floor for reader response and opinions in a humbling way. Overall the article offered insight on the festival but truly entertained the debate of animal cruelty, specifically lobsters, which offer the audience a topic to consider.
I agree that ending with rhetorical questions did leave room for debate and personal reflection, and I also agree that it was a subtle way of doing it. Although he can add personal opinions, Wallace wasn’t an “in your face” author.
Delete“Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace did make an interesting “turn” in this article for me. I did not expect the author to be against the Maine Lobster Festival, however, now that I look back, I did wonder why, under the title it said, “One visitor would argue that the celebration involves a whole lot more.” It makes a lot more sense to me now. The author is against with what the Maine Lobster Festival does. There are many negative inputs to it, such as the people there thinking it is okay to boil the lobsters alive. “Wave their hobbled claws impotently” or “scrabble frantically” shows how the author feels about the lobsters in the festival. Although he has a lot of negative feedback towards the Maine Lobster Festival, he does still make the reader want to check it out to see how cruel they treat the main course in the festival (or at least that is how I perceived it). In no way was the author being disrespectful when writing about this festival. His opinions were pretty powerful, and there will be people who disagree with him, but I respect his opinion. It may only just be lobsters, but the way the author writes about them shows how much he is passionate about the lobsters. The way the author writes is him basically trying to tell us that a big festival, such as the Maine Lobster Festival, should change some of the things they are doing, especially when many people attend to this large event every year. Imagine how much could be changed if more people have an outlook like Wallace.
ReplyDeleteThe author's opinions were very powerful. However, the way the article ended made his point of view unclear when he stated he ate other meats. It is ironic how he does not encourage the murder and consumption of lobster but encourages and takes part in the murder and consumption of other animals.
DeleteThe article “Consider the Lobster” is a really interesting piece, beyond its message and the questions it brings up. Wallace introduces the Maine Lobster Festival as an exciting and quirky place that features anything and everything lobster-themed that you could think of. Then on the second page there’s a sudden shift and he dives in, with extensive detail, about the nature and biological makeup of lobsters. At this point the reader might start to question the purpose of the article. The lines under the the title, (“...[the MLF] has been drawing crowds with the promise of sun, fun, and fine food. One visitor would argue that the celebration involves a whole lot more”), made me assume this article would be more about some sort of personal attachment to the festival or a persuasive piece encouraging the reader to visit. However, the deeper Wallace gets into the article, the more he almost dissuades visitors. It’s hard to show a neutral position with such a subjective topic, like boiling lobster alive for pure human preference, and at times he does seem bias (against it). Wallace does, however, use a lot of biological and psychological research to back up emotionally and factually-based arguments. The question of ethical killing is really complex and he tried to show both sides with simple language, which can be appreciated for such a science-heavy concept when writing for an average person audience. The footnotes were also helpful at times and brought up important questions at others. The last few lines of the article try to explain that this isn’t intended as a persuasive piece, merely a comparison of the two sides of this ethical debate, but it does leave the reader thinking.
ReplyDeleteI agree that including the biological and psychological research as back up did really help with his argument. The inclusion of these facts really makes one question if the treatment of lobsters is moral or not.
DeleteWallace's article, "Consider the Lobster," begins persuading the audience that this is an advertisement to try and get people to attend the Maine Lobster Festival. However, this article discusses that the festival is not the greatest. It features ways to make the festival and is structured to go into detail describing ways to improve the Maine Lobster Festival, the way a profile on an event should. The author points out immoral issues of the festival. For example, the extreme cruelty of the lobsters being slaughtered. Lobsters are being boiled alive and are being killed in a way the author goes into detail about that PETA would not agree with. The structure of the article with the bolded words in the beginning of each paragraph and idea, as well as the sentences that are pulled out the article and are largely fonted, was well thought out. It draws in the reader's attention and makes the informational article more entertaining; it keeps the attention and interest of the reader more than a normal informative article would do. The foot notes help the audience better understand every description and detail of the article, giving an in- depth explanation. The author not only criticizes the cruel treatment, but also tears up the festival informing the readers that the event is over- crowded and over- priced. It is ironic that the author ends the article saying that he enjoys eating other meats because all animals are that are cooked to be eaten are not slaughtered in a humane way. Even though he does not eat crab, he hypocritically eats other murdered animals.
ReplyDeleteThe article “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace was an interesting read. It managed to touch on a controversial topic, with some bias, all while still providing a lot of research and evidence to back it up. I thought the intro was a clever way to hook the reader. It started by enthusiastically describing the Maine Lobster Festival and its great all-things-lobster theme. I thought the piece was trying to persuade readers to visit the festival, or at least raise awareness of the festival to gain popularity. Then, I realized that the purpose of the article shifted. Wallace started to describe how inhumane boiling alive lobsters really is. While the piece does try and include both sides, I did sense a bias that Wallace does not support the killing. That makes me wonder about how he feels about other meats, because all meat it killed at some point. It also makes me wonder, when he says he likes other meat, what his mindset is. Why is the killing of lobster worse than other animals? Either way, Wallace does a nice job of backing up his arguments with facts and research. This brings more credibility to a somewhat bias piece. The piece had nice contrast from the intro and other parts, by starting off with Wallace seemingly supporting the festival, to saying it is overpriced and over-crowded, almost discouraging that people actually attend the festival. It is an interesting way to write the piece, and a good way to keep readers engaged and questioning things.
ReplyDeleteDavid Foster Wallace’s article “Consider the Lobster” was quite an interesting read. The title of the piece makes it quite clear that lobsters are the focus of the piece. The first half of the article focuses on the lobsters and the Maine Lobster Festival so I initially thought that this would just be an informative article. However, as the author continues in the piece he eventually goes deeper, brings animal cruelty into play, and makes the reader question his or her morals. Wallace does make a good point by including the Beef Festival and making us view another perspective. By using this approach, the author successfully evokes empathy from the reader. If there were to be a Beef Festival there would be a riot, but why is it not the same for lobsters? By focusing more on this aspect, the article was made much more interesting and unique. Although the author clearly states that he enjoys eating meats, I appreciate that he was able to respect the one’s view that eating meats may be morally wrong. One addition that could improve the article a bit would be the addition of interviews or actual stories from people who have experience with lobsters. For example, he could have interviewed people at the festival and asked them how they would about a Beef Festival. This would have made the article a bit more interesting and could have added a bit of a spin to it. Overall, the article was quite interesting and does throw the reader for a loop by making them question if the Maine Lobster Festival and the killing of lobsters is moral or not.
ReplyDeleteIn the feature, “Consider the Lobster” you first think this is going to be about a festival held in Maine. It looks like an attempt at a persuasive article, but is the complete opposite. Wallace starts mentioning all the reasons why you should go to the Maine Lobster Festival. He uses different points to persuade the reader why you should not go, one being that they boil the lobsters alive. This brings up a point to the reader that does not cross your mind when you’re going to attend a “fun festival”. The title “Consider the Lobster” is the moral approach of the feature, thinking of killing the animals before you think of enjoying this huge festival. This gave me a better feel on what a feature is like. He used the Maine Lobster Festival, as what seemed was going to be his main focus and switched the topic to something more detailed and specific to himself. The article became more personal when the author, David Foster Wallace, brought up the whole concern for the lobster of the festival. Another personal and noticeable detail was the sizing of the fonts and even bolded letters. He then decided to use more real examples to help the readers truly understand the point he was getting across. An example would be about the beef festival. Using vivid details and my own personal perspectives when writing my feature is something I should consider making an impactful approach on my audience, just like Wallace did.
ReplyDeleteThe article does well capturing the enthusiasm of the festival, but the transition it made to lobster seemed less entertaining in my opinion, but well written piece nonetheless.
DeleteThe article "Consider the Lobster," written by David Foster Wallace, begins with introducing the Maine Lobster Festival, before transitioning into lobsters in general. The author wrote the first section mainly to be informative on the subject matter, or to at least provide an idea as to what it is to the reader. Moreover, going into the next few paragraphs where the writer decided to go into depth with the lobsters kind of bore me out. In other words, I understood the importance lobster was for him, but being a reader the material seemed a little dry. I additionally noticed that each time Wallace it about to begin discussing new topic, rather than creating a subtitle, he changes the boldness and font size of the first two words in the paragraph. The opening of this article led me to believe that Wallace would be biased in writing this, but it is actually quite the opposite. "Especially when you're squeezed onto benches alongside children of various and vastly different levels of fine-motor development." The author, Wallace, says it how it is. He paints the real image of what the festival is like. However, this creates a reinforcement as for another reason since Wallace is basically saying the lobster is worth the trouble. Seeing that the author goes back into the cooking of the lobster, and the "pain" it feels, the story lost some more interest. Nonetheless, the story ended on a happy note, successfully placing the cherry on the ice cream.
ReplyDelete