I finished the David Foster Wallace essay "Consider the Lobster" this morning on the train, and then I went to Luke's Lobster for lunch. (By coincidence -- work friends suggested it.) Clearly this is an extension of the cast iron stomach that allowed me to read FAST FOOD NATION and EATING ANIMALS and continue eating both fast food (well, sparingly) and animals.
The Luke's Lobster roll is satisfying, but pricey for what you get. The atmosphere is kind of hokey. Order the ginger beer you can also buy there (Maine Root Ginger Brew) -- I was warned as to how spicy it was, but the balance between bite and taste is actually perfect. And food writing is definitely not my strong suit; I just fell into an Internet rabbit hole trying to figure out how celery salt is made.
4 days ago
2 comments:
Consider the Lobster is the reason I don't like David Foster Wallace. If you want to argue for vegetarianism, great. But to go to a lobster themed event, furrow your brow, and mock everyone else there for not worrying about the lobsters... it's condescending. He writes it like he's the first person to think about the ethics of killing and eating animals. Also, there's no real conclusion to it, just a lot of vague concern.
I understand how you could see it as condescension, but I didn't get that sense at all. Maybe it's just because I'm coming off Jonathan Safran Foer's EATING ANIMALS, which leans far more to the "first person to think about the ethics" arena, but it's in tone with the other essays in the book and his ambivalence about his point.
I think the originality of his take has to do with the fact that he was covering the show for Gourmet, an audience who I'm sure was hostile to his argument, and that's what he came back with. He does also bring up that it's possible lobsters DON'T feel pain, thus his flailing is for nothing.
Have you read other essays of his that you have the same problem with?
Post a Comment