“Consider the Lobster” left me feeling…hungry. I realize that the author was trying to show the moral gymnastics one might go through to justify cooking and eating a lobster, but honestly, I just couldn’t stop thinking about eating some seafood. I understand that some people might have a problem with boiling a sentient creature, but I’m not one of them. Yes, being boiled alive would be a little uncomfortable, but luckily for me I’m not a lobster. Lobster is food. Food is eaten. People are not food (at least not for me). I don’t think the author would like my general dismissal of his whole argument, but I can’t help it if what he said didn’t resonate with me. I am probably not part of the audience that David Wallace is writing to since I really don’t care about his topic and I’m not going to change my mind on that because I see no reason to. He seems to be writing to people who may not have realized that they cared about the way their food is prepared, or people who didn’t know that this way the way certain creatures are cooked.
I guess people like me would be a potential complication for Wallace. I need a more practical reason for caring about the way lobsters are prepared. I would say what that reason is, but I don’t know what it is which is probably why I don’t care how my lobster is prepared. My take away from this article is that you will never be able to convince everyone of your point even if you do everything right in your writing. Wallace communicated his opinion very well and presented all the relevant data to back up his position, and yet here I am wishing I was at the festival eating some tasty lobster.
Comments