The essay Consider the Lobster, written by renowned author David Foster Wallace, was originally published by Gourmet Magazine in 2004, then in a collection of essays called “Consider the Lobster.” Gourmet was an American food magazine that ran from 1940-2009. Though Gourmet was a food focused network, its readers perceived it as a “food connoisseur’s guide to life” (Gourmet Magazine). Rather than selling simple recipes for people at home to follow along, Gourmet Magazine adopted a novelistic way of writing about gourmet food, providing content to read, watch and enjoy. When Wallace’s piece was published in the magazine it was followed by significant controversy. This was due to the fact that the main message of the piece contradicted the practice of eating one of the world's most regarded delicacies: lobster. This caused upset among Gourmet’s readers, proving Wallace’s writing to be extremely impactful. 

In David Foster Wallace’s 2004 critique of the Maine Lobster Festival, Consider the Lobster, he strays from a typical food review and instead employs contrasting rhetorical strategies to showcase the truly intimate and complex process of cooking a lobster. With this piece he encourages the reader to not just question Maine Lobster Festival but anything in life that feels troubling and is brushed off to be inconsequential. Wallace refrains from pushing his own opinion on the reader but rather provides a space to consider and deeply think about the process of cooking a lobster. Through intelligent rhetorical strategies such as sarcasm, anthropomorphizing, scientific facts and rhetorical questions, Wallace purposely vacillates between various points of view, including his own, to encourage the reader to simply ruminate on whether eating a lobster is in fact cruel, pleasurable, or both. 

By connecting the gruesome process of cooking a lobster to our own daily experiences as humans, Wallace is able to highlight the tangible and relatable cruelty of eating the crustacean. He discusses the process of cooking a lobster and how the creature “behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water” (Wallace 6). Here, Wallace engages pathos by connecting the seemingly intangible feeling of being a cooked lobster, to the very palpable feeling of being drowned in hot water. By creating a bond between the lobster and humans, Wallace levels the playing field between the two beings so the reader sees the lobster as another living being rather than food. This offers the reader a space to empathize with the animal and understand it as more than just a dish. He repeats this rhetorical strategy when comparing a lobster that “will sometimes try to cling to the container's side, or even to hook its claws over the kettles rim” to a  “a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof” (Wallace 6?). This evokes a feeling of empathy from the reader as this concept of lobster's pain and suffering is significantly less foreign, further assisting in the reader's understanding of the lobsters’ perspective. This exposes the hypocrisy amongst these two claims guiding the reader to conclusion based on their own biological feelings as human beings.

Wallace utilizes his dry sense of humor to expose the irony on both sides of his argument, further highlighting the many contradictory aspects in the process of cooking and eating a lobster. When discussing different ways to kill a lobster, he notes  a common method is to stick a knife in the creature's head which allows the killer to “exert personal agency and accept responsibility for stabbing the lobster's head (which) honors the lobster somehow and entitles one to eat it” (Wallace 6). Using the word ‘somehow’ in this sentence, Wallace exposes the absurdity and lack of  rationalization in the claim. This word shows disbelief and confusion about the logistical accuracy of the statement, mocking the whole backbone of the argument. His sarcasm recognizes the malevolent moral implications of this action, showing distaste and ridiculing the whole practice of eating lobsters. However, later in the essay he seems to“believe animals are less morally important than human beings' ' (Wallace 7). This  directly contradicts the earlier parts of his writing and the idea that killing lobsters for the purpose of food is inexcusable. The blunt manner in which Wallace goes about expressing this cynical idea adds to the sentiment of the piece, further pushing the idea that one must face an intense moral battle and realization in the process. By admitting  his lack of moral sympathy towards animals as a whole, he exposes the irony that in the end it really comes down to one's desire for pleasure. Therefore, while Wallace may provide the reader with the tools to recognize the inexcusable nature of this process, when it comes to understanding the reader's own inclination, it seems reasonable to see these crustaceans as simply a tasty meal. 

Setting aside more creative and subjective rhetorical strategies, Wallace uses undeniable scientific facts to show the hidden complexity of this moral battle. When discussing the process of cooking a lobster he points out that  “Lobsters do have nociceptors… via which our own brain registers pain” (Wallace 6). The reader is forced to acknowledge that lobster feels excruciating pain the way humans do, again evoking a sense of tangible empathy. Additionally, the factual information makes his argument seemingly impossible to ignore. This again causes the reader to seriously question their morals and think about  whether or not they agree with the process that many, like the Maine Lobster Festival, use to cook lobsters. However, the reader is then confronted with the information that  “perhaps lobsters are more like frontal lobotomy patients… these patients evidently do feel… but don't dislike it” (Wallace 6). Again Wallace contradicts his earlier seemingly undeniable evidence exposing the complexity of the piece and exemplifying his insistence on presenting both sides. He thereby shatters the credibility of his earlier claim and pokes at the  reliability of outside information. By challenging the scientifically backed argument, he’s showing there isn't one answer to this question that can be spoon fed to you. Therefore, this decision requires deeper thought than simply considering  scientific evidence, and you must wrestle with your own morality and find the strength to stand by those morals to come away with an authentic decision. 

Through posing a series of rhetorical questions at the end of the piece, Wallace urges the reader  to use the new information and arguments he’s presented  to come to their  own conclusions and essentially think for themselves. He asks the reader to ‘consider’ it deeply , asking probing questions like, “do they ever think about their reluctance to think about it” (Wallace 7). Here, Wallace uses a rhetorical question to play on irony, now not about eating a lobster but the selfish human instinct to avoid confrontation in similar moral battles.  His series of questions seek to corner the readers' emotions, driving them to ponder their true feelings when making this decision and utilize the information and multitude of perspectives he has  provided earlier in the piece. He then poses another  rhetorical question asking, “isn't being extra weary and attentive and thoughtful about one's food and its overall context part of what distinguishes a real Gourmet?”  (Wallace 7). Again, he  confronts the irony playing with the idea that enjoying gourmet food requires  the same skills of ‘sensitivity’ needed to feel empathy and compassion to another living being. It is important to recognize that all of these thoughts are in the form of a question rather than a statement since Wallace is more interested in posing these questions to urge the reader to reflect on their own values, rather than dictate his opinion to them. 

Through delving into this flawed and complex argument for and against eating a lobster, Wallace employs several rhetorical strategies to encourage the reader to come to a personal conclusion. His underlying message clearly pertains to something larger than the Maine Lobster Festival. Like in his commencement speech This is Water, Wallace emphasizes the importance of not only thinking deeper but being aware of the decisions you make in everyday life. This awareness ensures you step out of the self-centered lens we tend to carry through our lives and better  understand the perspectives of others in order to challenge what we truly believe,  even if that means you must Consider the Lobster. 

When rhetorically analyzing this piece I found many emotions came up within myself. I have been a vegetarian for 3 years now and I often consider eating that delicious looking steak or that impeccably cooked lamb chop, because why not? However reading this piece reminds me of how terrible I really felt after eating that juicy steak or buttery lamb chop. Years back, when I confronted my feelings of regret and guilt I realized that eating meat was simply not an enjoyable or rewarding experience for me. When I would take the time to actually stop and consider the animal behind the meal I was eating I couldn't help but feel incredibly emotional and culpable. Feeling remorse and shame over a meal may seem weird to others, however because I know that there is a life behind the meal, there was no hesitation to become a vegetarian. Nevertheless, reading Wallace's piece and writing my own essay exposed the flip side of the matter at hand, allowing me to ponder what I once was: a meat eater. Wallaces’ essay exhibited the importance of striving to understand and not force opinions on others, even if they may not have the same beliefs. It reminded me that I was on the other side of the story for most of my life, which has shown me there is no right side to be on, only the side you believe in. I found Wallace’s evolving thought process throughout the novel greatly resembled my own. While I never considered eating meat before this piece, I still reflected on my journey of becoming a vegetarian and my own realization of accepting and respecting the perspective of others, because who knows which side of the pot I will be on.

CooksInfo. “Gourmet Magazine.” CooksInfo, CooksInfo, 31 July 2010, cooksinfo.com/gourmet-magazine. 

Wallace, David Foster. “Columbia University in the City of New York.” Colombia Education, Gourmet Magazine, Aug. 2004, columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf. 

Consider the Lobster URL: columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf