David Foster Wallace explores a wide variety of subjects throughout his essay "Consider the Lobster". At first his ideas nay seem a bit scattered due the the broad range of material he covers, but when one takes the time to examine the work more closely it becomes apparent that he has designed this essay in a way that provides great emphasis to the points that he is trying to convey. Wallace opens with a very negative commentary on the Maine Lobster Festival. He explores the various events that occur during the festival and more specifically the hoards if tourists that the festival  brings each year. After that he moves to a more scientific explanation of the lobster such as its taxonomy and history. From that he moves once again to the Mane Lobster Festival, comparing it to the likes of Midwest corn festivals and Texas chili festivals. One might think that these topics which account for the first three pages of the essay are irrelevant to his main point, which is exploring the morality of lobster consumption. However, by expounding on the history and bioligy if the lobster while putting it in a modern day context allows the reader to have a greater understanding of the lobster and therefore they can form a more educated opinion when the main topic is finally dicussed.

Moving past these points, Wallcae still does not jump right into his main discussion. Instead he proceeds to explain the various ways that lobster is cooked, served, and eaten in both restaurant and home settings. He briefly includes a section on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals which foreshadows his point on the morality in eating lobster. The part of the essay that i find most fascinating follows this section. Wallace explores the lobster's ability to feel pain through a very scientific exploration of the lobsters anatomy.  It is here that he finally starts to being out his main argument. Is its right t eat these animals if they must suffer before you consume them? By going through these various phases in his writing Wallace is able to more greatly emphasize his main argument. Although it may seem disorganized intiitally by examining his structure one can seet that it was a very effective way to make his points very clear.

At the end of Wallace's article he concludes that he is not entirely sure  whether it is morally corrupt to eat lobster. He says, "Im also concerned not to come off shrilly or preachy when what i really an is more like confused" (Wallace 510). Therefore, instead of stating a direct opinion in his article he presents many different interesting and informative facts regarding the typical methods used to cook lobster, the morality behind it, and explores a setting, the Maine Lobster Festival, that examines the way that people participate in the activity. He does this in order to make the reader really think and consider all the implications that surround lobster consumption. I think that the facts regarding whether lobsters can feel pain or nor was particularly interesting because that is where i believe the main conflict with eating lobster resides. The best way to enjoy a lobster is fresh and that entails boiling them alive. However, if the lobster feels no pain because it has no brain then people can cook and consume their lobster essentially guilt free. However, if in fact the lobsters do feel pain, perhaps even more pain than humans do due to their lack of natural opioids (Wallace 508), then questions start to arise about whether it is alright to eat lobster. I think that whether the lobsters feel pain or not it is okay to eat them because they are killed just like every other animal that we eat. The differnece comes because we are doing the killing ourselves. If you are alright with others killing the animals for you to concume then it is hypocrtical to think that it is immoral to consume lobster. I think that Acheson's essay support the fact that consuming lobster is immoral because he seems to have a very negative view of the lobster industry in general. Throughout his ethnography he seems to portray the lobstermen as grown men that often act like children as they are caught up in the competition of being the best in the industry, or at least in their gang. Both authors work is connected in the fact that they both seem to think that at least morally, the world would be better off without the ridiculous competition of lobstering and the millons of lobsters that are boiled alive because of the industry.

Towards the beginning of this article when the author was describing the events of the Maine Lobster Festival I found myself very irritated. The author had a very pessimistic attitude and was constantly complaining about anything and everything that he could regarding the events of the festival. Personally, it was really annoying to read and if I was reading the article for pleasure than I would have seriously considered closing the book because it is not enjoyable to read something that presents such a negative attitude. However, once I moved past that section, I think that Wallace’s thoughts were very well developed and persuasive. I do not believe that boiling lobsters is morally corrupt or something to look down upon, yet I found the article is informative and mildly interesting to read. For example, I did not know that lobster was once viewed as food only for poor and prisoners. Yet somehow it made the switch so “lobster is now the seafood analog to steak” (Wallace 500). 

One line that I found particularly interesting addressed how eating lobster is an eerily personal experience. It says, “Most of us have been in supermarkets or restaurants that feature tanks of live lobsters, from which you can pick out your supper while it watches you point” (Wallace 502). I agree that is part of eating lobster feels very uncomfortable and can seem crueler than eating other animals. However I don’t think that you can condemn it an immoral act because other animals that people eat everyday are slaughtered and people do not question consuming then just because they don’t see it happen in front of them. Therefore I think it is hypocritical if people say eating lobster is wrong and then proceed to buy a hamburger for lunch.  Wallace argues that if someone did openly slaughter cattle in front of people just as they do lobsters, it would be completely unacceptable; yet people openly watch lobsters boil to death. While this is a very interesting point, I do not think that it is necessarily a fair comparison. With the boiling of a lobster there is no blood, knives, or sounds of pain which are the things that would distress people. Plus, we know that cattle experience pain, yet what lobsters can and cannot feel is very unclear. Overall, I believe that no matter what arguments one puts forth, eating lobsters or any animal is acceptable (although it would be difficult to accept people breaking our norm of abstaining from eating what we consider household animals) because I think that humans have domain over animals.