David Wallace’s article of “Consider the Lobster” is a very unique article and went above and beyond to grab the reader’s attention on a sensitive subject; the senses and feels of an animal that later becomes our food. The idea of putting yourself in the bodies of an animal that us humans later consume, is both a disturbing and difficult task. Wallace, an American novelist and professor, was assigned to cover the “Maine Lobster Festival” held in late July in the state’s mid-coast region, or western side of Penobscot Bay. The Maine lobster festival of for short “MLF” draws huge crowds from all over, around 80,000 people attend every year. Wallace who was an “assigned correspondent” at the MLF, wrote about his experience and what he saw. Wallace
…show more content…
Wallace uses this technique when he quotes a celebrity spokesperson Mary Tyler Moore, when she said lobsters are “extremely sensitive (Wallace 67).” Wallace does have constraints in this essay, if he comes off too much “PETA-like” that will draw a lot of his audience away. Wallace writes how the one year a lady took off all her clothes and was dressed as a lobster almost got arrested, it really is not hard to see that a lot of people are in the same boat Wallace is in, and that is exactly Wallace wants us to see. That boat is simple; it is in no way right to slowly boil a living creature just so we can consume it later. I don’t see how there are no protests or any questions raised for other animals like pigs, cows, lamb, bison, and other animals who are basically slaughtered for our mouths to consume. Wallace’s whole purpose was to get his audience to stop and think about what is really going on with the food we eat. Wallace calls animal-cruelty-and-eating issue not just complex but uncomfortable (Wallace 68). Wallace’s primary is claim is this; if animals feel the pain that we think they do when they are killed to be consumes, what makes that okay in our minds? Wallace highlights the moment when you put the lobster in the boiling water and you can hear their claws rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push off (Wallace 69). Again, another effective use of the pathos …show more content…
Wallace starts out explaining what goes on at the MLF then jumps to the history of lobsters and what kind of animal they are. Using the logos technique saying how lobsters are a summer food and tastes best when heated to a certain temperature. This goes on for about for about 3 and a half pages, basically very boring information for 3 and a half pages. Then towards the bottom of page 66 he says how the lobster is boiled alive and all the other cooking techniques. This is where his audience got interested, once again because of the use of pathos. Wallace gets his point across to his audience with the use of ethos. The first part of his essay, where he described the MLF, Wallace spoke mostly in first person, but in the second part, where he was discussing animal rights, he talked in mostly the third person. This technique made it seem like he was not an expert on the MLF, but rather animal rights. Wallace’s article is very non-bias and really tries to see both the arguments. For
Wallace uses this technique when he quotes a celebrity spokesperson Mary Tyler Moore, when she said lobsters are “extremely sensitive (Wallace 67).” Wallace does have constraints in this essay, if he comes off too much “PETA-like” that will draw a lot of his audience away. Wallace writes how the one year a lady took off all her clothes and was dressed as a lobster almost got arrested, it really is not hard to see that a lot of people are in the same boat Wallace is in, and that is exactly Wallace wants us to see. That boat is simple; it is in no way right to slowly boil a living creature just so we can consume it later. I don’t see how there are no protests or any questions raised for other animals like pigs, cows, lamb, bison, and other animals who are basically slaughtered for our mouths to consume. Wallace’s whole purpose was to get his audience to stop and think about what is really going on with the food we eat. Wallace calls animal-cruelty-and-eating issue not just complex but uncomfortable (Wallace 68). Wallace’s primary is claim is this; if animals feel the pain that we think they do when they are killed to be consumes, what makes that okay in our minds? Wallace highlights the moment when you put the lobster in the boiling water and you can hear their claws rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push off (Wallace 69). Again, another effective use of the pathos …show more content…
Wallace starts out explaining what goes on at the MLF then jumps to the history of lobsters and what kind of animal they are. Using the logos technique saying how lobsters are a summer food and tastes best when heated to a certain temperature. This goes on for about for about 3 and a half pages, basically very boring information for 3 and a half pages. Then towards the bottom of page 66 he says how the lobster is boiled alive and all the other cooking techniques. This is where his audience got interested, once again because of the use of pathos. Wallace gets his point across to his audience with the use of ethos. The first part of his essay, where he described the MLF, Wallace spoke mostly in first person, but in the second part, where he was discussing animal rights, he talked in mostly the third person. This technique made it seem like he was not an expert on the MLF, but rather animal rights. Wallace’s article is very non-bias and really tries to see both the arguments. For