Across the world, food can be found as a common link that can bring almost any community together. People enjoy eating food, cooking food, and talking about food with other people who have the same tastes as them. Food is a significant aspect of most social events. However, most consumers do not consider the origins of their food, or how it came to be on the plate sitting in front of them. Many prerequisites take place in order to provide families with a tasty dinner, and some of those events are more horrific than one would imagine. David Foster Wallace describes the details of the behind-the-scenes events that occur in order to allow the Maine Lobster Festival to happen each year. He offers a different perspective on how humans can view the food that they eat. By looking at paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 64 in David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster,” we can see that Wallace’s diction and use of hyperbolic comparisons support his point that humans do not consider the rights of other living creatures, specifically lobsters, when deciding what to eat, which most people do not see. This is important because in order for consumers to make choices regarding what to eat, they must first be aware of the inhumanity that exists in the means of cooking certain foods.

David Foster Wallace’s diction in “Consider the Lobster” provides support for his argument that humans neglect the rights of other animals, which subsequently results in both the support of and participation in inhumane acts. It is often easy to forget that animals, especially those that we eat as food, are creatures with brains, emotions, and lives. Humans tend to overlook the fact that alternate forms of life exist for reasons other than to provide for humans. Wallace draws attention to this neglected reality with his word choice when describing the lobsters’ experiences during the festival. The diction in paragraph 3 on page 64 of the article presents the lobsters as more human-like than the average person would initially imagine. Wallace describes the scene before the lobsters are cooked by saying, “the fresh-cut lobsters pile over one another, wave their hobbled claws impotently, huddle in the rear corners, or scrabble frantically back from the glass as you approach, it is difficult not to sense that they’re unhappy or frightened…” (64). By using verbs such as “wave”, “huddle”, and “scrabble”, Wallace assigns human feelings of fear to these nonhuman creatures. This depiction of the festival scene presents itself as torturous. The term “torture” may seem aggressive for this situation, but it is essentially what is happening. Wallace questions humans’ refusal of the idea of murder when he asks: “Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person who’s helping to inflict it by paying for the food it results in?” (64) By using words such as “primitive” and “inarticulate”, Wallace belittles the lobsters, highlighting the viewpoint that most people have on the idea of killing animals for food. To humans, torment does not seem detrimental, because it benefits them in the end. They solely concentrate on the tasty food that will come from the tank of lobsters, not the pain that the creatures must go through in order to provide for the people. Consumers do not tend to think of their food as victims of murder, so Wallace chooses words that draw their attention to that perspective by presenting the lobsters with humanlike emotions, and describing the insignificance with which killing the lobsters is viewed. 

In addition to his word choice, Wallace uses hyperbolic comparisons in order to present a new perspective on eating lobsters. He suggests that, in the future, our current eating habits may be regarded “in much the same way we now view Nero’s entertainments or Aztec sacrifices” (64). While the idea of sacrifice in relation to standard human food seems extreme at first glance, it raises a valid point about how humans view animals. The thought of comparing human sacrifice to cooking lobsters seems far-fetched because we do not hold animals to the same esteem at which we hold other humans. This is a natural instinct for us, but in reality all animals have just as much a right to life as humans. There is no valid reason that humans are dominant over the creatures that they choose to eat. Wallace continues to compare humans with animals when he states the common belief, and even admits that he himself has this perspective, that “animals are less morally important than human beings” (Wallace 64). Although this statement is not an exaggeration, when examined closely it is an extreme claim. This opinion is so common that it is automatically taken as truth, and almost never questioned. Consumers must think about why this idea is almost inherent to them. In order to make well-informed decisions regarding food, and to be confident in the moral impact of those decisions, common opinions must be questioned. Wallace points out this comparison between humans and animals in order for the readers to realize that what may seem to be a solid reality must be rethought. This idea does not seem hyperbolic at first, but the fact that many people automatically assume dominance over animals in a sense of self-worth is quite extreme. Wallace uses hyperbole in his comparisons in order to prompt the minds of consumers to think about this topic in a different way. He is not attempting to persuade his readers in any certain direction. However, it is necessary that humans become aware of the less popular perspective in order to make a well-informed choice about the food that they choose to eat.

Awareness about the inhumanity and suffering that so many animals undergo in order to provide food for humans is imperative to making a morally sound choice regarding what to eat and what not to eat. Each person is entitled to their own opinion, and no one should be forced to give up certain foods based on the personal beliefs of others. However, it is impossible to make a well-informed decision without being educated on the realities of the experiences of these animals. David Wallace calls his readers’ attention to these realities through his word choice and hyperbolic comparisons in “Consider the Lobster.” He assigns humanlike qualities to the lobsters in order to present them in a different light than they are commonly viewed. This new perspective could change the choices that humans make when it comes to food ethics and consumerism. Overall, Wallace’s goal is to open the eyes of his readers to a new way of looking at the food that they eat, and his writing style in paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 64 supports the main idea of his work. 
