Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Jillian Bennion
ENG 1010
02/29/16
What evidence suggests that the author takes a more negative view of
his subject? Explain.
There wasnt a positive spin on cooking lobster in his writing, it seemed to be
pretty clear that Wallace took a negative view on the subject due to several
aspects. He showed this in the way he described the way lobsters to suffer during
cooking. The detail that he uses in explaining the process made me as the reader
never want to eat lobster. Such detail and emotion would not be used unless the
author may have had a somewhat of a negative view. Another way Wallace
indicates his disapproval is the way he painted the picture by asking questions like;
How much do you think about the moral status and probable suffering of the
animals involved? And: Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less
urgent or uncomfortable for the person whos helping to inflict it by paying for the
food it results in?
Overall, how would you describe the authors tone and why?
(enchanted, sarcastic, detached, disapproving, angry, cheerful?
Something else?) Offer 3 details in support.
I feel the authors tone was at times thought provoking and at other times
disapproving. One piece of evidence that seems to support such a stance or tone,
is the statement Wallace made on page 264 when he described cooking the lobster
alive and how the lobster will sometimes try and cling to the containers sides or
even hook its claws over the kettles rim like a person trying to keep from going
over the edge of a roof. I believe this demonstrates his disapproval. Another piece
of evidence that supports his thought provoking tone is when Wallace says: I like
to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it I feel this
maybe an indication he isnt necessarily entirely against the eating lobsters, but
maybe think rhetorically about the lobster. He is simply trying to provoke reflection
and thought. Lastly, in the closing paragraph of the essay. Wallace said, Im not
trying to bait anyone Im genuinely curious. After all, isnt being extra aware and
attentive and thoughtful about ones food and its overall context part of what
distinguishes a real gourmet or is all the gourmets extra attention and sensibility
just supposed to be sensuous? Is it really all just a matter of taste and perception?
I believe Wallace genuinely wants the reader to take the time to think critically on
these questions and to think big picture, not just about the lobster.
Provide five specific details about the authors audience and explain
how you arrived at these conclusions/details. A bulleted or numbered
list might work well here.
1
At first it seemed that Wallace was writing to the readers of the Gourmet
magazine but on page 262 he said, I should add that it appears to me unlikely
that many readers of Gourmet wish to think hard about it either indicating that
Gourmet magazine readers are not his intended audience.
I think the intended audience could have those who eat and prepare lobster.
Not necessary to make them stop eating lobster but to get them to think big
picture on how we treat animals and yes people that we deem to not be on the
same status.
4 Another way you showed his audience maybe for the occasional lobster eater is
how he used he described those eating and cooking the lobsters as normal
everyday people not chefs or some horrible monster. By doing this he opened
it up to a larger audience.
5 I think Wallace had a younger more liberal audience in mind I dont think hes
an activist but he does reference PETA many times throughout his essay.
Search the text for one sentence that stands out to you. What is it
about this particular sentence that grabs your attention, makes you
think, or makes it great? Is it the word choice? The Rhythm?
Something else? Explain in detail and get my help if you need
assistance putting it into words.
One sentence in particular that really seemed to grab my attention was the
description that Wallace gave on page 263. Try to image be a Nebraska beef
festival at which part of the festivities is watching the trucks pull up and live cattle
get driven down the ramp and slaughtered right there on the worlds largest killing
floor or something- theres no way. I think the bluntness and image this created
caught my attention, and it makes this sentence great sentence. Words like
slaughtered and Worlds largest killing floor are extremely descriptive and really
make the situation and image be put into your head. I think the big part of this
sentence is the shock value, everyone seems to be okay with hundreds of lobsters
being cooked alive in front of everyone, but slaughter cows in front of everyone for
a BBQ and nobody will be able to eat beef again. This comparison makes the
reader stop and think about the differences and the lack or really the lack of them.
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.
Wallace writes about how the city council and many other feel that lobsters
dont feel real pain, the second opinion is that lobsters are capable of feeling
pain. In the first section, Wallace explains the anatomy of the lobster, outlining a
lobsters nervous system, and how many use this to argue that lobsters are
incapable of feeling pain. He then goes into the argument that lobsters can feel
and pain, Wallace then describes what happens as lobsters are put into a boiling
pot of water as they try and cling to the container as if trying to escape. He points
out that this that such behavior would indicate that the lobsters do in fact to feel
pain, and would attempt to save themselves just like any person would.
4. However stuporous the lobster is from the trip home, for instance, it tends
to come alarmingly to life when placed into the boiling water. Page 264
5. Try to image be a Nebraska beef festival at which part of the festivities is
watching the trucks pull up and live cattle get driven down the ramp and
slaughtered right there on the worlds largest killing floor or something- theres
no way. Page 263
What does this (^) evidence prove for Wallace and the purpose of this
essay?
By describing each detail of what the lobster goes through, Wallace was able
to appeal to the emotions of the reader. Reading the phrases made it hard not to
get the image of the lobster boiling to death out of my head. Im not sure if part of
his idea was to stop people from eating lobster, but I do think he was trying to get
the reader to critically think about the way we treat everything that we believe to
be inferior to us. As mentioned before, Wallaces tone certainly seemed to be
thought provoking. By using descriptive language, he definitely was able to
accomplish this.