A) One warrant that is apparent in Wallace’s essay is his idea that the festival-goers would rather not think about the lobster suffering. Although the activists are present at the MLF, the attendees choose to ignore their presence and continue with their consumption. It's easier to block out these ideas than it is to confront them and make any possible lifestyle changes that would follow.
B) It’s true that Wallace’s essay surpasses a description of
a lobster festival; the true content lies in its discussion of what is morally
right and what is wrong. The essay is about how we quantify rightness and
wrongness and the human capacity to ignore what we would rather not think
about. Because we are comfortable eating lobster, we chose to gloss over the
touchy subject of cruelty. It makes us uncomfortable. Honestly, if I were the publisher
of Gormet magazine, though I might get personal interest and satisfaction out
of the article, I would not publish it. It’s too provocative and too ‘heavy’ to
put in a culinary magazine. People buy these magazines because they want to
read about luxurious and delectable dishes, the do not pick up an issue with
the desire to read something that will make them feel bad or indirectly accuse
them of being in the wrong.
I see where you're going Colette about how a gourmet magazine wouldn't want to diminish the luxurious perception of lobster, but I feel like in a way it also enhanced the way that we view eating lobster. I think through this article I've learned to appreciate the value of the lobster that I eat, which is what gourmet magazines typically do.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with all your points. You pinpointed exactly what I wanted to say in my post. I agree that I don't think it goes well with Gourmet magazine's theme of promoting food. Also as you say, there is a lot of controversies in the article, especially about lobster's pain receptors.
ReplyDelete