After rereading David Foster Wallace’s Consider the Lobster, I found the point of where he stands more prominent. Wallace is one of few who raises the concern of killing lobsters. If Wallace were to be invited to our class for a discussion I would probably ask him some of the same questions that I stated in my journal 1. One of the main and most basic questions I would ask him is why he chose such an uncommon topic for his essay? Did he choose this smaller, unusual topic as a segway into a much larger, more complex issue? Was he trying to get at a deeper moral question that we all may not think about.

I think one of the main things that Wallace is trying to get at here is our logic of killing animals (or any sort of living creature). To be honest our logic doesn’t really make sense. We find it okay to kill an insect, rodents, and in this case lobsters but yet we find problems with killing large animals such as cows, pigs, or animals we are closer to such as pet dogs or cats. I think a part of this is because we can hold emotional attachments with those things whereas with a lobster we can’t. We don’t share that bond that we do with dogs, cats, or even farm animals. Thus making us less emotionally attached and easier to kill. We sort of think of it as “not being the same”, we find excuses to make it “okay”. However killing something is still killing, there’s no getting around it.