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.
At the beginning of the article, we learn about the Lobster Festival, and about the lobster itself, such as what a lobster is with scientific explanation, and a little bit about how we have changed the way we see eating a lobster. Lobsters used to be fed to prisoners and were seen as a cruel meal. Today they are an expensive delicacy. I think Wallace used an interesting approach to his perspective, in that he covered a lot of topics relating to the lobster. When I first read the title of the article, I thought the reading would be about the festival. However, it was more than just about the festival. The article took an interesting turn when the author addressed the idea of how cruel it is when we cook lobsters alive. He goes into the idea that lobsters might feel pain. The piece is a feature on the Maine Lobster festival, and this approach allows the reader to get well-rounded insight on the subject, as an alternative to other approaches that might make a piece sound more biased. An alternative approach, for example, where the lobster festival is explained more as a story, would cause the piece to lose more factual information that a feature tends to embrace. I like how Wallace wasn’t afraid to address a sensitive and controversial subject, such as how the way we cook lobsters might be very cruel. He even recognizes that this is a tough question to ask people at the end of the article.
ReplyDelete-Courtney Swarthout
I thought it was interesting as well when Wallace changed the pace of the article by completely switching the focus of the feature from the festival itself to the ethics behind it all.
Delete-Ryan Telford
I'd have to disagree with you on the part of the piece not being as biased as some others may be. I think that this piece is very biased in the fact that Wallace constantly ridicules the way lobsters are treated and references the MLF as a leading perpetrator.
DeleteI think that the writing is a bit biased, however, I do think that the author provided information for both sides of the conversation. This allowed readers to come to a conclusion on their own.
DeleteI agree with this point because I believe the author himself was not biased towards the boiling of the lobsters at MLF. Throughout the article, Wallace established both the negative and positive sides the respective viewpoints.
DeleteThe author sets the scene perfectly in the first paragraph to introduce the Maine Lobster Festival to their audience. They used very descriptive language and lots of imagery to help the reader visualize what attending the festival is like, which engages helps engage the audience. Wallace mentions the large attendance of the festival in 2003, due to a spotlight from a CNN senior editor. Later on in the article, they go back on what the senior editor said about the MLF being one of the top food-themed festivals, giving their own opinion on the matter. By stating his own opinion on the festival, Wallace is showing the different perspectives that someone who wants to attend the festival should keep in mind while heading into it. This feature is packed with interesting facts about lobsters and about the festival itself, however he presented the information without sounding plain. He highlights an important question about the treatment of animals through the explanation of how the lobsters are prepared and cooked. The festival misleads the attendees with the information about whether lobsters feel pain or not, which quite in fact they do. This would make the festival-goers feel comfortable with how they are prepared, meaning they would eat the food, making the festival more money. Implicitly, the author is commenting on the marketing tactics of the festival. As the article furthers on, it strays away from the festival itself into the ethics of the practice of preparing and cooking lobster, and the celebration of killing animals for our own enjoyment. The full feature does an excellent job of dealing with a very abstract concept, through the lens of a lobster festival.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Telford
I agree that the use of imagery in the beginning of the article helped to pull the reader in and get them interested in the festival. He then used this to get their attention on the more controversial topic.
DeleteMadison Neylan
I also agree with what you said about the use of imagery. It helps draw the reader in and interest them. If he would've started talking about the boiling of lobsters I would not have wanted to read it. He used this technique to gain the reader's focus.
DeleteThe article starts out by describing the festival and the lobster itself. Wallace goes into detail describing lobsters in order to set a background for the rest of the article. He also provides a lot of information about how and when they are caught and the different ways that they can be eaten. This leads to the controversial topic of literally boiling them alive. The festival defends their stance on lobsters by stating that lobsters are missing the part of their brain that lets them feel pain, however, Wallace explains that this is incorrect and gets into the details of the truth behind this statement. I think that the fact that Wallace was able to take an American tradition and use it to criticize the people participating was very interesting. He was not just talking about an issue and explaining what should be done in order to fix it, he provided factual information that in some ways justified both sides so that the reader could come to their own conclusion. However, you could tell what his opinion was from the article even though he was not shoving it down your throat the whole time, he was subtle about it so as to not overwhelm the reader which I thought was interesting. The article started out talking about a lobster festival, and it ended up being about so much more than that. It was very interesting to read this perspective on such a controversial issue and to see an unbiased opinion.
ReplyDeleteMadison Neylan
I agree that the author is not a particular fan of the MLF, but he understands why people do and he wants to educate people about the ethical concerns of this event while still maintaining his credibility as a journalist.
Delete-Kyle Post
I will be totally honest, I have never been a huge fan of lobster. I don’t have some sob back story about how I was attacked by a lobster or anything like that, I just never liked it. But, I always remember going to Publix, Kash and Karry, or Red Lobster and seeing the tank with the lobsters and that was honestly the highlight of my day. I thoroughly enjoyed how the author gave us the background of lobster in our diets and how it used to be served to prisoners but it never explained how it morphed into the delicacy it is today, which is something I would have found very interesting. I don’t know if this is me, but I seems like high society has a thing for sea crustaceans. They eat lobster and snails (escargot) and the eggs of fish (caviar) When I saw the title of the article, I thought this was going to be an article that was going to convince me not to go to the Maine Lobster Festival or ever eat lobster because of environmental or ethical concerns. Which, to an extent it does. The article goes into a lot of detail about the experience of “properly” cooking a lobster. But after the author gives you all this grotesque imagery of the lobster being boiled alive, he says that lobsters don’t have the same nervous system as we do so they don’t feel pain the same way we do. There is a lot of speculation about how lobsters feel pain. The article mentions there are no wild old lobsters anymore because of the growth in their popularity, which I feel like could have been expounded upon to talk about how that affects the population of lobsters.
ReplyDelete-Kyle Post
I agree, When I first started reading I thought it was going to promote the festival. I also like your idea of expanding the idea of the affects on the population, this could have fit well in the piece.
DeleteI agree with you in that the factual background information was used in a good way to lead into a controversial topic. I also think the way the article was written helps eliminate bias that might have been present had the piece been written more as a story.
ReplyDelete-Courtney Swarthout
The article starts off with Wallace explaining the Lobster Festival and what it is. We learn what kind of lobster is available there. We get a very descriptive lesson about lobsters and where the name comes from, and other freshwater creatures. Wallace talks about how lobster used to be food for the lower class and used to be fed to prisoners. We really don't learn much about the festival itself, we learn a lot about lobsters. Wallace is focused on proving how cruel it is to boil lobsters because it is predicted by zoologists that it takes about 35-45 seconds for lobsters to die in the boil. He says how lobsters are more vulnerable to pain because they lack something in their nervous system. He really gets his point across by explaining the pain that lobsters go through as they die. He addresses the topics that he feels strongly about and isn't afraid to say it. At first, I thought this article was going to more of a promotion for the festival, but he kind of bashes the festival. He doesn't hold back about saying what he believes. He digs deep; he explains why he believes that boiling lobsters is wrong. He writes as if he's having a conversation with the reader. He addresses us as "you" and poses questions to the readers that makes them think. He gives his comparisons and he asks if it seems like a bit much and asks why. He puts into perspective that if you attend the festival, you are permitting the killing of lobsters which he thinks its cruel.
ReplyDeleteBrooke a good point that you made and I agree with is that Wallace did not talk much about the festival but instead about the actual lobsters. I think he does this to illustrate the cruelty humans treat them with. I also thought that the article was going to be mostly about the festival and how it was so good, but instead he does speak more negatively about it.
Delete-Alyssa Mahadai
When I first saw that I would be reading about a lobster fair I believed that this would be a simple article about the big Maine lobster fair and what it meant to the community. However, based on the title and the bold headings alone it was easy to see that this would not be the case. The author instead reveals the horrors that are taking place in order to meet a community’s demand for lobster. Even though he chooses to include this information Wallace makes sure to include other perspectives. These perspectives vary from the background of the festival, to a spotlight article by a CNN senior editor treatment of lobster, and goes into detail about the types of lobster and lobster catching. The wide variety of perspectives brings the writer away from the festival itself, hitting sensitive and important issues instead. Even as Wallace writes about such a controversial subject he still manages to keep an unbiased opinion while keeping the readers’ attention. A main part of this may be the amount of detail he put into the piece. Between the facts and the sensory details, the piece is packed. At the beginning while talking about being at the festival Wallace uses so much detail that it becomes instinct to picture being there myself. This drew me into the piece and urged me to see what else Wallace had to say. The details also carry over into the gruesome details on how a lobster is cooked, making me really think about how cruel the process is. The piece was successfully able to talk about the ethics of a sensitive topic through an event that people from around the country attend.
ReplyDelete-Isabel Tomsich
I agree with what Isabel said. The title of this article and the content inside of t are two completely different things. It was actually quite misleading in its own way. I also agree with how it explained vivd details about how lobsters are treated and prepped for cooking in a "inhumane" way.
Delete-Victoria Dumornay
I agree, I definitely expected something else. Now that I've finished reading it, I can see the purpose of the subtitle, "...One visitor would argue that the celebration involves a whole lot more." The "whole lot more" is a philosophical approach rather than a new lobster recipe.
DeleteThe author starts off the article with talking about the Lobster Festival, the way Wallace talks about the festival is by using very descriptive and vivid images of the event. I believe he does this because it allows readers to connect to the festival, and relate it to their own past experiences at festivals much like this one. Also by starting off the passage by talking about what the lobster festival is and what it is like, it allows him to criticize the event, and killing living lobsters later in the article. A central theme that I could not help but to notice throughout the article, is the questionable way people really enjoy eating lobsters along with the cruel ways with which people prepare it. Wallace also provides his audience with history and background knowledge of lobster, and how it was not always considered a gourmet meal, and then in the end of the article he leaves us wondering how will future generations think about lobsters and animals in general, in how we prepare them for ourselves. Overall I feel as if the article was prepared to open our eyes to how little we know about the animals and environment around us. This article shows how oblivious and selfish humans can be, we only care about ourselves, not about how other animals might suffer or the consequences of our actions. This is especially prominent with lobsters because of the unorthodox way humans prepare them, by throwing live lobsters into boiling water. This article points out clearly that what is socially acceptable is not always the most moral or ethical thing to be doing.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Mahadai
I agree with Kyle. I think the author does a nice job using a variety of resources to accurately depict many perspectives on the fair itself.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first impression the article gave me was a sense of not being sure. It places in parenthesis in the first paragraph, “ Actually, it might.” Which gives the impression that the article might not know much or might be invalid with it’s facts. The information bolded throughout section which provides some insight into the main idea seems like a good idea but instead confused me initially with the structure of the story. Overall it was unnecessary for the passage and could be done without it. It was interesting to include the opinions of the local people on the moral viewpoint of eating lobsters. Knowing that there was an opinion from a cab driver and not just a group or organization showed the impact it has had on the locals instead of just the viewpoint of everyone else. One thing that I would decide on taking out would be the amount of fluff in the article. There are instances where the article stated the location multiple times in different formats. For example, “ this whole interchange takes place on Route 1, 30 july, during a four-mile, 50- minute ride from the airport to the dealership to sign car- rental papers.” this instance feel repetitive when it talks about the location then refers to location in reference to another. I found it interesting that the article touched on the feeling of pain compared to a human as it reaches into deeper meanings that would help the reader gain their own perspective on the matter. Overall the passage seemed to jump around with topics until the end.
ReplyDeleteIn the passage, the author describes a lobster festival filled with fun and laughter, but most importantly lobster. He uses good word choice to trusty depict his surroundings without over doing the writing. As he continued through the passage, he is sure to cite his sources, but also use a wide variety of sources in order to paint a more accurate pictures. An example of this is his use of the news CNN. CNN’s point of view may be more analytical and less opinionated as the authors. As he starts going more in depth on the ethical views of the fair, you can tell he has a slight discomfort for the festival. He uses background from many sources to support his opinion on the lobster itself. I think it was a really good touch that the author focused in on not only his own personal opinion, but the anatomy itself of the animal and if one day it will even be considered an animal. This passage balanced knowledge with personal opinion that drove the reader to gain respect and information on the lobster itself.
ReplyDeleteI was really impressed with the way Wallace tackled the subject of this feature. He made it out as if it were going to be a feature about the Maine Lobster Festival, even going into depth of the sights, sounds, and people found their, but just as soon as Wallace had pulled us into this topic of the MLF, he blindsided us and brought up the true point of the article: the ethics behind eating lobsters. I found this method to be really effective in that it really made the reader stop and think and pay attention to the point Wallace was trying to make. His ethical approach and use of facts allowed for a greater understanding of the problem at hand; it showed that Wallace wasn’t simply a commentator on the subject but had done his research and was a qualified professional to discuss such a touchy subject. One of Wallace’s, most effective tactics, in my opinion, was his use of satire throughout certain points of the feature. For example, when he brings up this “preference” of pain and that the scratching, rattling, and noises coming from the boiling pot are definitely not the lobster and that is not its way of expressing pain towards the fact that it is being boiled alive. I think that by using the Maine Lobster Festival and the worlds largest lobster cooker as a point of reference, Wallace was able to emphasize how disturbing the whole process of boiling a lobster alive is.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the way the author used descriptive language to paint a picture of what is going on at the festival and later the process of cooking the lobster. I think it really helped establish empathy in the reader.
Delete-Kasey Mentzer
Wallace opened the feature on the history behind the Maine Lobster Festival. I liked how he used descriptive imagery to paint a vivid picture of the festival, from the various lobster centered foods to other things to do or participate in. I think Wallace using such imagery helped the audience picture what was happening. The descriptive writing the author used engaged the reader and made me want to keep reading about this festival. Wallace goes from talking about the festivities centered around the lobster themed foods to the torturous cooking process of the lobsters. Before talking about how the lobsters are cooked, Wallace first informs the readers about lobsters I general. He talks about the habits of the creatures and how it lives. I think the author does this to provoke feelings of sympathy or compassion in the reader. We as humans, eat to sustain ourselves but we don’t like to think about what it takes to eat what we do. Say you’re out at a restaurant about to eat a burger, you probably don’t think about the killing of a cow it took to produce the meat. So, by Wallace talking about how lobsters live, I think it creates a sort of attachment to the lobster. When he goes from talking about a live lobster to how a lobster is cooked alive it evokes feelings of something close to sympathy. It’s almost like Wallace is trying to probe the reader to think about the consequences of any kind of action and that each action a person takes has a story.
ReplyDelete-Kasey Mentzer
The author, David Wallace, chose to start the article off by giving a description of the environment of the Lobster Festival. He gave sensory details of the environment and described the people that came to the event. I enjoyed the way he continued to write the article. Wallace went on to give the audience even more information about the event. I think the amount of information provided was necessary for the article because it was a controversial topic of boiling the lobster alive. He made sure the audience had enough facts to then pick their side based on this information. Wallace gave plenty of information for both sides and didn’t seem to be extremely biased throughout the article.This strategy of his writing made the writer think strictly on the problem of boiling the lobster rather than the actual festival itself. Although, the author did not really seem to come off as biased, I think every reader was able to read between the lines and understand that the point of this article was to recognize the cruelty of boiling the lobster while it was still alive. For example, towards the end of the article, Wallace brings up a couple of other ways that lobster can be killed and served in a more merciful way. He also presents the readers with even more information about the lobster's’ nervous system and which ways they feel pain. The festival gives false information about how the lobsters are cooked and prepared to the attendees which is a great reason to write this article to bring to their attention.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely, the article was very descriptive, i knew exactly what was going on and it was very vivid in my mind.
DeleteThe article is filled with imagery, as the author opens up with a vast array of sensory details depicting the taste smell and atmosphere of the Maine Lobster Festival. The author from the starts has a huge bias towards lobster as he immediately expresses his love for lobster and the succulent meat inside it. He goes on to praise lobster, saying it is a "delicacy" and a "step down from caviar",indicating that he believes lobster is a high class meal. This high praise would carry on into his review of the lobster festival as he praises it at every chance he gets, and explains every aspect of it ranging from the people that attend, to the cookers used to prepare the lobster. The feature article does a great job in illustrating how all these components of the festival all tie in to make it what it is. He illustrates multiple perspectives so that the reader can be transported into festival itself through the usage of sheer details. One moment in particular that stood out was the sharp contrast in emotions felt when the author first described the taste of lobster and its goodness compared to the harsh method of boiling the lobster alive so that its meat could be enjoyed. This drastic difference in tone evokes many emotions, knowing that in order for such a grand event to be possible, harsh methods must be implemented so that the lobster could be enjoyed by all. The interviewing of every aspect of the festival tie the whole event together, especially the cooks. The cooks, which serve as arguably the heart of the entire event add a level of technicality to the event, as we can see the huge preparation that went into the event, and how instead of being just a regular event, it serves as a tradition for the community.
ReplyDelete“Consider the Lobster” is a opinionated essay-style article written in first person by David Foster Wallace. It is about the Maine Lobster Festival, and how it gave lobster a certain significance in the world in the eyes of the writer. The article basically talk about certain features about lobsters and how they are cooked. It also talks about how the cooking of these animals can be seen as physically and morally wrong. It overall covers multiple topics that not a lot of readers and lobster-lovers really focus on. One element from this essay that I really liked was how he described what the Maine Lobster Festival looked like, and how it functioned. For example, he inserted a website link that gave more information about a certain lobster recipe. Also, the writer included some specific statistics, such as, “…over 25,000 pounds of fresh-caught Maine lobsters consumed…”. Another factor that I noticed about this essay that I liked was his sentence structure and style. His overall paper contains a adequate mixture of both simple and complex vocabulary sentence structure that overall brings itself together. Certain words, such as “post-hippies” and “neurological-registration-of-injury-or-hazard” really made the paper unique and fun to read. However, one thing I personally did not like about the paper was that it was more of a opinionated essay, and not as factual as I would have expected. I also wish that there was a more sufficient amount of quotes in order to back up his opinion about his personal viewpoint about lobsters.
ReplyDelete-Victoria Dumornay
David Foster Wallace has an interesting approach to writing. Since “Consider the Lobster” initially seemed like it was written for a magazine, immediately assumed that it was going to be mainly about the Maine Lobster Festival, however, it definitely took a turn to the philosophical. In fact, there is one distinctive shift to his writing and three distinctive parts. The main shift is from the Maine Lobster Festival in general to the discussion of PETA. The three parts are the Maine Lobster Festival, PETA, and then closing philosophical thoughts. Another stylistic component to Wallace’s writing are the footnotes. The footnotes provide interesting commentary as well as facts or further describing a thought process he had within the piece. Objectively, this changes the perception of usual usage of a footnote (e.g. being strictly academic, citations, etc.) and further adds to the distinctive style that Wallace has throughout the feature. Additionally, there is underlying humor (unless I am interpreting it wrong, then I just have a wicked sense of humor) strewn throughout the piece that is also crucial to Wallace’s overall style that he has. The humor can be found by how he extends a thought (e.g. “…slap canal zone mosquitoes as they eat deep fried twinkies…(56)). It is like oversaturating an adjective but it works for him and adds to the piece.
ReplyDeleteThis reading is interesting because it shows how you can push the boundaries of a profile or a feature, you are not limited to just an objective piece on a place, instead, you can also explore the ethics and moralities of an institution. The piece isn’t bound to specifics.
In the beginning, I also assumed it would be mostly covering the Maine Lobster Festival. This is an excellent feature because it's not very predictable in the way that its formed.
Delete-Deontre Youmans
I found this article petty interesting. I could tell the writer knew what he was doing in terms of progressing the article through the many topics that were brought up. First, he discussed the Maine Lobster Festival and all that happens there. He then goes on to give a bit of a history lesson on lobster, how it went from being a food served to prisoners to a delicacy that we pay a lot of money today. He then goes on to give details about the lobster species; how they live, how big they can grow, etc. Each transition from topic to topic was seamless and he hit the mark on each topic he discussed. Then we get to the topic of whether lobsters feel pain or not. He talks about the fact that lobster is boiled alive before being eaten, most times, emphasizing how fresh lobster is when eating it. He looks at boiling lobster alive from a moral viewpoint, giving many facts about the anatomy of the lobster and debating whether or not it feels pain when being boiled. At the beginning of the article it seems as though the entire article would be about the Maine Lobster Festival but as it progresses you see the real purpose of the article being about the moral conflict of cooking lobster live. At the end of the article, the writer’s stance on the topic is given, as he talks about boiling the lobsters live in a negative light. I think the actual purpose of this article was to open people’s eyes to what’s really happening.
ReplyDelete-Deontre Youmans