Rhetoric Devices in Consider The Lobster by David Foster Wallace

In the article “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace contends against the cruel handling of lobsters basing his thoughts in the annual “Maine Lobster Festival.” Wallace argues that the ethical issues that come through the gratuitously painful demises of lobsters to conciliate the festival attendees. Wallace spreads the moral questions in no small concern on the ethical treatment of animals. He presents the thoughts and claims that the lobsters don’t feel any pain or self-preservation, which is reasoning meant to blind the eye rather than the unappealing topic. He has used different rhetoric devices in the article to present the controversies on whether it is humane to kill a lobster in a painful and distress manner. Wallace develops some arguments by using pathos, where he includes the foot and endnotes in his thoughts and stance on the precise sector of the article. The technique allows him to develop a new perspective. Wallace uses rhetorical strategies that he may need to contemplate. The approach makes him ponder different viewpoints, including the lobsters, chefs and meat lovers. Wallace captured the use of pathos in the ways that can be convincing as to compare and contrast the Lobsters to humans. He attracts readers attention when he states, “the lobster will sometimes cling to the container’s side or even to hook its claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of the roof”. The statement gives a reader a high sense of remorse for the lobster as if they were the ones placed on the boiling water.

Wallace likens the “Lobster Festival to the Nebraska beef Festival” and puts more emphasis on “watching trucks pull up, and the live cattle were driven down the ramp and slaughtered right there.” Wallace uses the point to make the reader feel guilty when they realize that they only think an ad for the cattle and not the lobster. He tries to emphasize on the fact that there is no difference between the two creatures using techniques presented. He introduces the readers to ethos part of the argument by implying that it is humane to boil a lobster alive by stating “it is difficult not to sense that they are unhappy or frightened even it’s some rudimentary version of these feelings.” Wallace shows that people should not judge and treat the lobster, depending on the level of pain. There is also some argument brought up using logos as a rhetoric device. There are insights in the article that lobsters are not human beings and thus, a reason why there are no ethical considerations when dealing with them. It makes a reader wonder, and conclude that its lobsters are not human, then other creatures such as cats or cows should be treated the same way the lobster is being handled. The logos are presented when Wallace gives an argument that lobsters can send a sense of pain to the brain just like humans. Thus, an appeal submitted by Wallace based on logical reasoning. Wallace has used different rhetorical strategies to prove that people treat animals in unethical and inhuman ways. The use of ethos and pathos is convincing and shows how the ingenious the article is. Wallace uses the point to make the reader feel guilty when they realize that they only think an advertisement for the cattle and not the lobster. He tries to emphasize on the fact that there is no difference between the two creatures.