
When Gourmet readers opened their August 2004 issue, they expected to get an interesting report on the Main Lobster Festival. Instead of a pleasant review of a family event, author, David Foster Wallace, gave a blunt critique on the event, concluding by diving into an uncomfortable conversation on ethical eating. “Consider the Lobster” discusses the idea that what society considers a delicacy to eat, may actually be a real immoral murder. The author’s use of precise structure, rich tones and convincing word choice allow him to present this perspective to the Gourmet readers gently, rather than harshly trying to change their beliefs.

The author was strategic in his argument, structuring it in a way that would pull the reader in rather than deflect them away. This is clear in the way that he begins the article by fulfilling what he was being paid to do: review the Main Lobster Festival. Beginning the piece by telling the audience they should reevaluate their meat-eating habits would cause too much discomfort for anyone to continue reading on. Thus, he eases into the subject. Continuing his clever organization, he provides important information about lobsters’ history before questioning the morality of eating them. He adds that “there’s much more to know than most of us care about” (55). Acknowledging that most are not knowledgeable about lobsters yet providing such detailed facts establishes Wallace’s credibility. This step is significant because he is addressing an audience experienced in cooking. Therefore, to prove that his argument is legitimate and to further his persuasion, he must prove that he is a credible source. Supporting his distinct structure, Wallace makes his tone flow with the changing points in throughout the essay

The author displays significant tones throughout the essay, an important aspect that makes his essay convincing. For instance, as he begins the piece by reviewing the Main Lobster Festival, he has a significantly negative tone. After giving several examples of things he disliked about the event, he states, “Any one example is no more than a petty inconvenience, of course, but the MLF turns out to be full of irksome little downers like this…” (55). Phrases like “petty inconvenience” and “irksome little downers” are evidence of his hypercritical and aggrieved tone. This rhetorical device aids his argument because it leads the audience to a curious state of mind about the festival, making it easier to persuade them to question the ethics of eating lobsters. Once he finally does introduce his reason for writing the article, he offers sympathy with the audience. He notes that the “animal-cruelty-and-eating” debate has always been an uneasy topic (62). By acknowledging the difficulty of the discussion, he gives an understand that diminishes feelings of being attacked that the audience may initially have. Giving off this sense of unity, Wallace has a clear path to encouraging his audience to question their beliefs about eating lobsters. He continues this innocent tone as he finishes the article. Rather than deliberately trying to change the audience’s beliefs, he explains that he’s simply trying to figure out where the controversial discussion of eating animals relates to a festival that is assumed to be a happy gathering (64). Presenting the topic in this way conveys Wallace’s curiosity, allowing the audience to reflect on their habits rather than forcing them to conform to a different lifestyle. His specific tone makes examining the ethics of eating lobsters more manageable because he is leading the reader to do it on their own. 

Wallace employs specific word choice to aid his ethical discussion of boiling lobsters. This strategy is evident as he informs the readers about lobsters’ anatomy. When assessing their ability to sense pain, Wallace states, “And there’s more unhappy news respecting suffering criterion number one” (63). The phrase “unhappy news” prefaces the information following it the way a news anchor gives a disturbing report on a recent tragic event. Wallace chose these words to evoke feelings of sympathy from the reader, just like an audience watching a tragic news report would feel. The author appeals to the audience’s emotions around preparing lobster to eat as well. He depicts the cooking process as having “intimacy” all within the comforts of your own kitchen (62). The word “intimacy” conveys the process as being private and personal, reminding the cook that it is just them and the lobster in that room. This diction suggests the cooking process to be a “one-on-one” brawl, in which the lobster was born to lose. Thus, the audience is left to question the ethics behind it because they do not want to be labeled as a killer. Wallace is intentional in his diction because he is attempting to influence the audience’s opinion on lobsters. He wants to show that they are more than just an expensive meal and might be more like humans than believed. 

David Foster Wallace introduced the idea that these crustaceans may deserve more credit than society gives them; a difficult task even when it is not being presented to an audience of predominately cooks. Thus, he had to employ devices such as clear organization, distinct tone and precise diction to gently persuade Gourmet readers to take a second look at their beliefs about lobsters. It is because of the devices he used and the way he used them, that this essay stands as an effective piece of rhetoric. 