Gourmet magazine wanted David Foster Wallace, originally to write an innocent review of the Maine Lobster Festival. The essay transitions from a festival review to an ethical discussion about food consumption. The purpose of the essay is to encourage the culinary foodies not to continue their current eating habits. Instead, it wants them to think about the ethics and culture of food consumption. Wallace uses diction, irony and imagery to provoke a discussion while maintaining a neutral tone.
Wallace begins his diction with a rather simple choice of words. The lobster is often referred to in a negative way, with terms like “eaters” of dead things and “chewable foods”. This word choice was chosen to give readers a neutral opinion about lobsters. Wallace’s vocabulary becomes more sophisticated over time as he uses words that are scientifically and anatomically related to lobsters. His diction is similar to that of his readers. In an attempt to become more like the audience, it becomes much more intelligent and articulate. Wallace slowly changes their opinions about lobsters by using his choice of words. Wallace uses grotesque language in an attempt to evoke emotion. After adopting Wallace, the graphic diction that he uses will have a greater impact on his audience. Wallace shows he has the same interest in food ethics as food itself.
Wallace’s tone is authentic and informative. Wallace doesn’t take a position in the entire essay. The tone of his essay and the neutral language in which it is written distinguishes Wallace as a moderator. Readers will see that he does not use bloated, pretentious language in his reviews like most food critics. Wallace acknowledges on page 7 that he views animals as inferior to people. In a food publication, many writers would put animals in a privileged position. His writings show that he doesn’t try to fool anyone. He is being honest and all of his information is backed by facts. Wallace can help them realize the deeper message of the article. They will also be more likely to consider the topic critically, as he did in his writing.
Wallace uses persuasive appeals in the entire essay. He uses an array of emotional appeals in order to elicit sympathy from the reader. The article’s main argument is the fact that it’s not certain whether lobsters will feel pain similar to humans. Some of the lobsters trapped in the tanks of glass were observed huddled, piled up, and running from approaching people. The reader will get a vivid image of what the lobsters are doing. The actions taken by the lobsters are similar to many other animals and humans. Wallace shows the audience these animals’ distress and suffering. They need to be heard. In the past, most people wouldn’t care about a crab in a container, but after this experiment, they now wonder whether lobsters are capable of feeling the same emotions we do. Some lobsters have been cooked in microwaves after “several more vent holes were drilled in the carapace”. Wallace wants to shock the audience by revealing the details of how the lobsters are cooked. Wallace’s goal is not to move people, but to make them think. Even though he admits to not changing his eating habits anytime soon, he does have a new outlook on food.
Wallace uses irony for the purpose of getting the reader’s attention and to ask questions about the food culture. MLF claims lobsters are a healthy choice of food and that they do not feel pain. Wallace refutes those claims by saying that the festival offers lobsters that are stuffed with butter, and served with unhealthy sides. Wallace is able to demonstrate that the festival’s visitors are being misled by the festival. This may be interpreted by some as a lie to attract more people. Wallace gives them the impression that it’s a money grab and that humans don’t care about the animals they eat. Wallace’s images give him a unique perspective on the food festival that is dear to his audience. These foodies are likely to have attended these events before, and have an overall positive view of them. Wallace spoils this by describing the MLF’s pitfalls, such as the “aisle blocking coolers” and the “death match for NyQuil-cup-size samples”. Readers can recall all of the events they attended. When they realize that many festivals are ruined by some of their aspects, it is not surprising. Wallace describes a hypothetical MLF cow festival as the “World’s Largest Killing Floor” and compares it to a hypothetical MLF. Using this, he wants the reader’s mind to be questioned about why they attend these festivals. The festivals all have a negative connotation to them. Yet, people go. By changing the animal that is being slaughtered, these festivals are made to appear like a celebration of killing. These negatives make the reader rethink the purpose of the events.
Wallace wants his audience to examine the ethics and culture of food. He is able, through his use of style and emotional appeals, to have a profound impact on the reader. This makes them think about how they view food. Wallace hopes the effect will be felt by the other readers. Wallace has helped the readers gain a fresh perspective on their food habits, whether they do or don’t change.
Cited Sources
Original: Furthermore
Paraphrased: Additionally
Wallace, David Foster. “Consider The Lobster.” Consider The Lobster, August 2004.