Brooke Haynes

Consider the Lobster Rhetorical Analysis

What is the author's view of his subject matter? What evidence supports this
conclusion?
I think the author in this article is trying to let his audience know of the
process of how these lobsters are prepared and how he feels about it. He first
talks about lobsters in detail. He lets us know how they act, survive, and eat.
He goes on to mention how the millions of people show up for this festival.
These people consume so much lobster and do not seemed phased by the
process. Later on into the article he discusses pain, and if it is right (or
wrong) to put lobsters through this process just to have it fresh. He talks
about all the research that has been done to prove whether or not they feel
pain. They react as though they do, but science, and the way their brain is
wired, says that they should not feel pain. The author says that he eats other
animals and so he is not opposed to the eating, but more so on if it's humane
to put these lobsters through this process just for pleasure.

What evidence suggests that the author takes a more negative view of his
subject? Explain.
When the author asks the question, "Is it all right to boil a sentient
creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?". This question, that I think
everyone needs to ask themselves, is where he suggests the negative view
on the subject. They have done so much research to determine if they really
do feel pain or not. Some suggest they do, where other studies do not. The
point is, whether they feel pain or not, they show symptoms of pain, like
trying to grab the edge of the pot, or trying to get out when the lid is
covered. The author tries to make this a point throughout the article.

Overall, how would you describe the authors tone and why?
I think the author was calm and relaxed about the matter, but that he
wanted people to know, and understand the whole process. He asks the
question, "What does all right even mean in this context". He is talking about
whether or not the lobsters feel pain and if it's alright for us to do this to

them. I think he is feeling like it should be better well known if this process to
eat them is ok, or not. I think he also feels somewhat uncomfortable about
the process. He mentions that he avoids talking, or thinking, about the whole
thing.

Provide 5 specific details about the author's audience and explain how you
arrived at these conclusions/details.
1. He says that there is no honest way to avoid the moral question of how
we eat lobster. I think that is targeting everyone that has or will eat
lobster. Most people have experienced this at some point in their lives
whether it was them, or a close friend, they have had to think about
this process and if it's ok, or not.
2. The author says, "It's not just that the lobster gets boiled alive, it's that
you do it yourself, or have someone do it specifically for you". I think
this is a very specific detail about who he is trying to reach. It's a very
confronting question. It really makes you step back and look at how
you really feel about this process.
3. He points out what would happen if we did the same process for other
animals we eat. Imagine watching a cattle get slaughtered right in
front of you just to have it be the "freshest". This puts things into
perspective for each person reading the article. Whether or not the
lobsters feel pain, this is the same concept that everyone reading it
needs to think about.
4. The question, "Is it not possible that future generations will regard our
own present agribusiness and eating practices in much the same way
we now view Nero's entertainments or Aztec sacrifices?", makes me
think about how people will think about this process years from now.
This reaches every person, whether they are ok with this process or
not, about if this will be seen as humane or not in the future.
5. He states that he is curious about if the reader will identify with any of
these reactions or discomforts. The author is trying to get both sides of
the story and finds studies to show whether or not it is alright or not.

Search the text for one sentence that stands out to you.
The sentence "A blunter way to say this is that the lobster acts as if it's
in terrible pain, causing some cooks to leave the kitchen altogether and to
take one of those little lightweight plastic timers with them into another

room and wait until the whole process is over.", really makes me think. This
whole article is all about the process it takes to trap and cook lobsters and if
they feel pain or not. Some of the studies suggest they do for sure, other
ones state they couldnt possibly feel pain. They show signs of being in so
much pain. This sentence stands out to me because even though they say
the lobsters shouldnt be able to experience pain, the cooks have to leave
the kitchen so they dont have to watch or listen to the process. They way
they react makes me feel like they are in pain and suffering.

Try to duplicate the quality you admire (in this sentence) in a sentence of
your own. Think about tone and style.
I aimed for the large buck with precision, taking deep breaths, quiet
enough to not scare him, but enough to calm my nervous shake, waiting for
the right moment to pierce his heart so he wouldnt suffer.

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.
They talk about whether or not the lobsters feel pain. They go into detail
about all the research conducted. The way their brain is wired suggests that
they would not be able to feel pain. The way they react to being put into a
pot of boiling water suggests that they do feel pain though. The whole article
ends with the main question of it is morally alright or not.

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

paragraphs in this section.
The article starts with giving details about lobsters and background
knowledge of them. It describes the way they live, how they act, and details
about their body. It then goes into the history of them, how they were first
only fed to poor people and people in prison. They are now considered a
delicacy and are fairly expensive to eat. It talks about the Lobster festival in
Maine. People come from all over to enjoy the fresh Lobster. The article then
gets into the way the lobster is prepared and if it is morally correct. The
article ends by asking very personal questions about how we feel about the
whole situation.

Name 5 especially colorful pieces of evidence Wallace uses throughout this

essay. Make sure you note the page number where you found each piece of
evidence.
1. "The point is that Lobsters are basically giant sea insects." Page 254
2. "A detail so obvious that most recipes dont even bother to mention it
is that each lobster is supposed to be alive when you put it in the
kettle." Page 258
3. "As you may or may not know, a certain well-known group called
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thinks that the morality of
lobster-boiling is not just a matter of individual conscience."
4. "Since at least the mid-1900s, articles in everything from the Camden
Herold to the New York Times have described PETA urging boycotts of
the Maine Lobster Festival..." Page 260
5. "The intimacy of the whole thing is maximized at home, which of
course where most lobster gets prepared and eaten (although note
already the semi-conscious euphemism "prepared" which in the case of
lobsters really means killing them right there in our kitchens)." Page
263

What does this evidence prove for Wallace and the purpose of this essay?
This proves that Wallace showed both sides of the situation. He gave
background knowledge and different points of view without pushing his
opinion on you. He gave detailed descriptions about each point in his essay
and followed through with the proper facts to help the reader better
understand his point.

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

Explain why you think so.
I think that Wallace doesnt really care for this democratization. He
mentions how chaotic this whole festival is. He talks about so many people in
a cramped space. It's loud and messy. It isn't very clean. Youve got
protesters chanting and handing things out along with people that just dont
care. He is open to everyone's opinion, but I believe he is a little put off by
the whole festival.

One of Foster Wallace's footnotes talks about what it means to experience

Maine 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?
It is in the footnote on pages 256 and 257. It talks about how being a
tourist just makes us greedy and ungrateful, wanting things we cannot have.
It spoils the what you are there to experience. It heads back to the first
section by talking about how we go to certain places to experience
something and then it's all over, whether it is good or bad.