Looking back on Consider the Lobster.
Has your thinking changed since you last read the essay? What seems more obvious to you now in a second reading? What ideas remain murky or unreachable?
-In my first look at this essay, I thought Wallace was trying to convince us that it is inhumane to eat lobster. In reading it again, I see that he is trying to reveal to us where we ourselves might draw the line in causing pain to another being, and how we decide to deal with that limitation.
-In the first reading, I thought this essay was focused mainly on our conflict with eating lobster. But in reading it again I see it easily extends to our conflict accepting the pain we cause other animals we eat, such as cow, chickens and pigs, and why we deem it ok to put them through so much pain.
-What seems more obvious this time around is how much interpretation Wallace leaves up to the reader. On page 499 he writes “For practical purposes, everyone knows what a lobster is. As usual, though, there’s much more to know than most of us care about- it’s all a matter of what your interests are.” Basically he’s saying that one’s investment in the ideas he’s about to propose is dependent upon one’s level of interest in the topic.
-One thing that stands out is that the lies that the MLF tell are truly believed by some people because they have become something that allows the festival goers to feel okay about the possibility of inflicting pain. Thinking about this example of people telling themselves something to enable them to continue doing something reveals many other instances where people do this, mostly to avoid feeling uncomfortable.
-One complex idea is, was this avoidance of the truth started because it made people feel better about eating lobsters, or was it spread so that the MLF would still make money? And what about other instances, how people tell themselves that humans are carnivores and require meat to survive, and that justifies eating animals? I guess my question is, what is the true motivation behind hiding the truth?
