A.) "the Maine Lobster Festival has been drawing crowds with the promise of sun, fun, and fine food." Wallace is assuming here that humans are attracted to sun fun and fine food.
B.) The beginning of the essay didn't delve into the real issue. The article is not about the lobster festival at all, but rather about the moral status and physical suffering of the animals involved. Much of this essay is very controversial. I believe that Wallace tried to play devils advocate, or so he says, but he did not succeed very well. He focused far more on the negatives of this business than the positives. The only real positive he mentioned was that lobster are a delicacy, and lobsters are fresh. He goes into detail about how the lobsters suffer and how they feel pain and how they are like humans being tortured. If you ask me he is being rather one sided in his argument. I secretly think he is a member of the PETA. He also questions morality. Should humans feel bad for boiling the lobster alive just for ones own pleasure? If you ask me I personally am rather biased. I cannot eat seafood because I am allergic and I do not eat red meat because it grosses me out. I only eat chicken and I cannot find a good reason as to why I find eating chicken okay but everything else not. If I owned the magazine I would check the demographics of my viewers before publishing this controversial article.
I think your idea that Wallace is secretly a member of PETA is a very interesting insight.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about Wallace's bias. Although he claimed not to be on any one side of the argument, it was clear that he thought the MLF to be cruel.
ReplyDelete