Personally I was not super impressed with the article, if just because it's more a narrative than a serious consideration of the facts. I don't mean to imply it's misleading, but just the way it's...
Personally I was not super impressed with the article, if just because it's more a narrative than a serious consideration of the facts. I don't mean to imply it's misleading, but just the way it's written it's clearly trying to have an interesting narrative more than be strictly objective. Still this is probably more a personal hangup with this style of writing (and documentary...) than a fair criticism of the point.
To talk about lobsters, I do think it's something I wouldn't be able to do myself (if i could still eat them), but I also think that's the same for most of the food I eat. Modern society has let us compartmentalize the horrors of mass produced meat. I do believe that most people would be fine with "ethicalish" meat (lived a reasonable life and a quick death), and of course would be horrified (but still eat it) if they were better informed in just how horrific some of our practices are.
Although to be fair that view can also be seen as very culture specific as well. There are absolutely cultures that care much much less about animal suffering.
This is David Foster Wallace, who was one of the most influential writers of the end of the 20th century -- I was surprised to see that no one brought this up but I guess I was more aware of him...
This is David Foster Wallace, who was one of the most influential writers of the end of the 20th century -- I was surprised to see that no one brought this up but I guess I was more aware of him and this essay already because of my own background as a writer.
At the core of all of DFW's nonfiction is narrative. He's trying to tell you a story but also shed light on a subset of culture you might not be personally familiar with. There's a fascinating essay that was in his collection Consider the Lobster (which obviously contained this essay too) called Big Red Son which was about his time at the Adult Video News Awards.
I personally find DFW's nonfiction far more interesting than his fiction, but you also have to know going into it that this is narrative nonfiction, not strictly journalism.
Ya I saw the title and thought .. "hmmmm, isn't that dfw?" Scrolled to the bottom and started seeing the mountain of footnotes and said, "Ya, that's definitely dfw." LOL I am planning on reading...
Ya I saw the title and thought .. "hmmmm, isn't that dfw?" Scrolled to the bottom and started seeing the mountain of footnotes and said, "Ya, that's definitely dfw." LOL
I am planning on reading the book of essays "Consider the lobster" over the new years actually. I haven't read "Infinite Jest" but have read "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again," and "The Broom of the System," and am a good DFW fan for life.
I read Brief Interviews with Hideous Men shortly after undergrad and that was enough to convince me I don't have the stamina to read any of his novels haha
I read Brief Interviews with Hideous Men shortly after undergrad and that was enough to convince me I don't have the stamina to read any of his novels haha
Ah yeah. Not particularly my style. Infinite Jest strikes me as more an interesting novelty. Right, but to me, this is inherently untrustworthy. They may (and often) care more about the narrative...
Ah yeah. Not particularly my style. Infinite Jest strikes me as more an interesting novelty.
At the core of all of DFW's nonfiction is narrative. He's trying to tell you a story but also shed light on a subset of culture you might not be personally familiar with.
Right, but to me, this is inherently untrustworthy. They may (and often) care more about the narrative or evoking emotion to convince you to their side than just stating facts. Obviously just stating facts isn't entertaining or going to reach as many people, but it's just something that automatically makes me suspicious.
I would wager that DFW would agree with you. He has a rather famous commencement speech, given a few years before his suicide, where he talked about the importance of actively choosing what to...
I would wager that DFW would agree with you. He has a rather famous commencement speech, given a few years before his suicide, where he talked about the importance of actively choosing what to think and what has meaning. I used to play it for my freshmen at the end of the year, when I taught composition.
(This is probably my favorite DFW, and far easier to engage with than most of his writing which had a very unique style, as you can tell from the Lobster essay: https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/)
Anyway, I think what it's coming down to is a gap between expectations and purpose. I don't think that DFW is really intending to argue for an objective truth. He's using pathos via his first hand experience at the lobster fest to argue for a moral stance. He doesn't set it up as investigative journalism, so I guess I have a hard time seeing it as untrustworthy. Readers can agree or disagree -- all he really wants to do is make you think about something you probably haven't considered before.
I understand where you're coming from, but you might consider questioning the way you think about things. It would be ridiculous to say that facts are useless, of course, but the problem with...
I understand where you're coming from, but you might consider questioning the way you think about things. It would be ridiculous to say that facts are useless, of course, but the problem with over-relying on them is that you tend to lose sight of the whole picture and missing details that might be important. I'm sure you've seen no end to misleading statistics before. You might have also heard of critical theory as well. Stories are an important way to understand the world. Though, of course, they also have their limitations.
Oh i'm well aware that stats can be manipulated. There is no simple way to convince someone of something, especially in a one sided plea like this, but it doesn't really change the fact that...
Oh i'm well aware that stats can be manipulated. There is no simple way to convince someone of something, especially in a one sided plea like this, but it doesn't really change the fact that obviously the writer has made up their mind, and is likely going to embellish details or include suspect anecdotes (like that of the taxi driver) to further their position.
For sure! I don't particularly like this article for some of the same reasons you mention. I don't particularly care for this author's style generally either.
For sure! I don't particularly like this article for some of the same reasons you mention. I don't particularly care for this author's style generally either.
It's very strange to me that people are so affected by articles like this, but it might be because I grew up around cooks. Of course death is a part of cooking (if it's part of your diet). All of...
It's very strange to me that people are so affected by articles like this, but it might be because I grew up around cooks. Of course death is a part of cooking (if it's part of your diet). All of the meat that you eat was at one point alive, and differentiating between death two days ago at a factory and death a few seconds before cooking is a little funny in my eyes.
Also, this article doesn't touch (as far as I can tell) on the fact that lobsters start to go bad pretty much the moment they are killed, and that lobster food poisoning can be life threatening. People have learned to boil lobsters alive not because they just felt like it but because it was quickly discovered that you get really sick if you don't, and nowadays we just instantly kill it with a knife before boiling rather than throwing it into hot water (something that the article mentions and then promptly ignores for some strange reason).
What do you mean by ignore? There's quite a long section about how using a knife in that way is not likely to stop their pain response because their "brain" is not centralized like ours.
nowadays we just instantly kill it with a knife before boiling rather than throwing it into hot water (something that the article mentions and then promptly ignores for some strange reason)
What do you mean by ignore? There's quite a long section about how using a knife in that way is not likely to stop their pain response because their "brain" is not centralized like ours.
The way I've been taught is not just to cut through the head but to continue all along the body (head to tail) and split the lobster in two, which should sever the line of ganglia. It's a gruesome...
The way I've been taught is not just to cut through the head but to continue all along the body (head to tail) and split the lobster in two, which should sever the line of ganglia. It's a gruesome task however, because even when kept in the cold for a while to put them into a stupor, some lobsters will still writhe around. It's quick if you do it properly and have a very good knife, but it certainly does not look painless for the lobster.
I didn't see any source to the statement he made about it not affecting pain, beyond just stating that their nervous system is decentralized, ignoring the obvious next step of looking into how it...
I didn't see any source to the statement he made about it not affecting pain, beyond just stating that their nervous system is decentralized, ignoring the obvious next step of looking into how it actually looks like.
At what point do you classify a lobster as dead, if not when the main ganglia is destroyed/detached? It's a gruesome question, but with the knife method done correctly you effectively separate the spinal cord, not just stabbing the lobster and calling it a day. It's a specific motion and when it happens the lobster pretty much just stops moving save for twitching, which can just as well be post mortem.
I don't claim to say that they don't feel pain during the process, but comparing it to boiling them alive is a little absurd to me. The argument is about most ethical when compared to the rest, and in my eyes it's not even close. The framing is what bothered me most, as well written as it is.
I think back to this article every year or so — it’s very well written, imo, and kickstarted several delves into the subject which have been personally impactful if nothing else. All this is to...
I think back to this article every year or so — it’s very well written, imo, and kickstarted several delves into the subject which have been personally impactful if nothing else.
All this is to say that I really liked this piece, but the author was a complex human, so FYI for folks who put importance on the voice behind a message before sharing this piece.
Personally I was not super impressed with the article, if just because it's more a narrative than a serious consideration of the facts. I don't mean to imply it's misleading, but just the way it's written it's clearly trying to have an interesting narrative more than be strictly objective. Still this is probably more a personal hangup with this style of writing (and documentary...) than a fair criticism of the point.
To talk about lobsters, I do think it's something I wouldn't be able to do myself (if i could still eat them), but I also think that's the same for most of the food I eat. Modern society has let us compartmentalize the horrors of mass produced meat. I do believe that most people would be fine with "ethicalish" meat (lived a reasonable life and a quick death), and of course would be horrified (but still eat it) if they were better informed in just how horrific some of our practices are.
Although to be fair that view can also be seen as very culture specific as well. There are absolutely cultures that care much much less about animal suffering.
This is David Foster Wallace, who was one of the most influential writers of the end of the 20th century -- I was surprised to see that no one brought this up but I guess I was more aware of him and this essay already because of my own background as a writer.
At the core of all of DFW's nonfiction is narrative. He's trying to tell you a story but also shed light on a subset of culture you might not be personally familiar with. There's a fascinating essay that was in his collection Consider the Lobster (which obviously contained this essay too) called Big Red Son which was about his time at the Adult Video News Awards.
I personally find DFW's nonfiction far more interesting than his fiction, but you also have to know going into it that this is narrative nonfiction, not strictly journalism.
Ya I saw the title and thought .. "hmmmm, isn't that dfw?" Scrolled to the bottom and started seeing the mountain of footnotes and said, "Ya, that's definitely dfw." LOL
I am planning on reading the book of essays "Consider the lobster" over the new years actually. I haven't read "Infinite Jest" but have read "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again," and "The Broom of the System," and am a good DFW fan for life.
I read Brief Interviews with Hideous Men shortly after undergrad and that was enough to convince me I don't have the stamina to read any of his novels haha
FYI, the labels on the post include author.david foster wallace ;)
Ya I have since realized that his name is at the top of the article. I'm not very good at mornings before my coffee lol.
Ah yeah. Not particularly my style. Infinite Jest strikes me as more an interesting novelty.
Right, but to me, this is inherently untrustworthy. They may (and often) care more about the narrative or evoking emotion to convince you to their side than just stating facts. Obviously just stating facts isn't entertaining or going to reach as many people, but it's just something that automatically makes me suspicious.
I would wager that DFW would agree with you. He has a rather famous commencement speech, given a few years before his suicide, where he talked about the importance of actively choosing what to think and what has meaning. I used to play it for my freshmen at the end of the year, when I taught composition.
(This is probably my favorite DFW, and far easier to engage with than most of his writing which had a very unique style, as you can tell from the Lobster essay: https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/)
Anyway, I think what it's coming down to is a gap between expectations and purpose. I don't think that DFW is really intending to argue for an objective truth. He's using pathos via his first hand experience at the lobster fest to argue for a moral stance. He doesn't set it up as investigative journalism, so I guess I have a hard time seeing it as untrustworthy. Readers can agree or disagree -- all he really wants to do is make you think about something you probably haven't considered before.
I understand where you're coming from, but you might consider questioning the way you think about things. It would be ridiculous to say that facts are useless, of course, but the problem with over-relying on them is that you tend to lose sight of the whole picture and missing details that might be important. I'm sure you've seen no end to misleading statistics before. You might have also heard of critical theory as well. Stories are an important way to understand the world. Though, of course, they also have their limitations.
Oh i'm well aware that stats can be manipulated. There is no simple way to convince someone of something, especially in a one sided plea like this, but it doesn't really change the fact that obviously the writer has made up their mind, and is likely going to embellish details or include suspect anecdotes (like that of the taxi driver) to further their position.
For sure! I don't particularly like this article for some of the same reasons you mention. I don't particularly care for this author's style generally either.
It's very strange to me that people are so affected by articles like this, but it might be because I grew up around cooks. Of course death is a part of cooking (if it's part of your diet). All of the meat that you eat was at one point alive, and differentiating between death two days ago at a factory and death a few seconds before cooking is a little funny in my eyes.
Also, this article doesn't touch (as far as I can tell) on the fact that lobsters start to go bad pretty much the moment they are killed, and that lobster food poisoning can be life threatening. People have learned to boil lobsters alive not because they just felt like it but because it was quickly discovered that you get really sick if you don't, and nowadays we just instantly kill it with a knife before boiling rather than throwing it into hot water (something that the article mentions and then promptly ignores for some strange reason).
What do you mean by ignore? There's quite a long section about how using a knife in that way is not likely to stop their pain response because their "brain" is not centralized like ours.
The way I've been taught is not just to cut through the head but to continue all along the body (head to tail) and split the lobster in two, which should sever the line of ganglia. It's a gruesome task however, because even when kept in the cold for a while to put them into a stupor, some lobsters will still writhe around. It's quick if you do it properly and have a very good knife, but it certainly does not look painless for the lobster.
I didn't see any source to the statement he made about it not affecting pain, beyond just stating that their nervous system is decentralized, ignoring the obvious next step of looking into how it actually looks like.
At what point do you classify a lobster as dead, if not when the main ganglia is destroyed/detached? It's a gruesome question, but with the knife method done correctly you effectively separate the spinal cord, not just stabbing the lobster and calling it a day. It's a specific motion and when it happens the lobster pretty much just stops moving save for twitching, which can just as well be post mortem.
I don't claim to say that they don't feel pain during the process, but comparing it to boiling them alive is a little absurd to me. The argument is about most ethical when compared to the rest, and in my eyes it's not even close. The framing is what bothered me most, as well written as it is.
If you want to read in a non-pdf format, the article is also archived here:
http://www.gourmet.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobsterd996.html?printable=true
or
http://www.gourmet.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster.html (though this link still makes you have to go through page by page)
I think back to this article every year or so — it’s very well written, imo, and kickstarted several delves into the subject which have been personally impactful if nothing else.
All this is to say that I really liked this piece, but the author was a complex human, so FYI for folks who put importance on the voice behind a message before sharing this piece.
Well, that was a harrowing read. I guess I'm never trying lobster.