It was kind of an odd read, “Consider the Lobster.”
My major beef with the essay was its organization. I suppose the brunt of his essay regarded the morality behind cooking a lobster. However, Wallace’s introduction was just long enough that I did not know it was a mere introduction, until the end of the essay when I realized he spent the latter two-thirds of it discussing morality and sensory perception by the lobster in question.
My point is this: perhaps the topic was too broad to make a concise analysis of this major Lobster Festival…which brings me to another transgression: the author’s use of Maine Lobster Festival’s acronym, MLF, was a constant reminder of another, much more impolite, and disrespectful acronym concerning mothers.
Anyway, back to the point. Wallace started off discussing the anatomy of the lobster, followed by the etymology of the word lobster, followed by a few intimate details about the festival itself, followed by the crustecean’s rise from poverty to wealth. Anyway, it read as an organized report until the morality argument dragged on. I think if the essay’s topic were “the morality of eating lobsters,” and Wallace’s focus was this particular Lobster Fest, the essay would have been better developed. This would be adequate reasoning for focusing the entire essay on the animal rights aspect of consuming a lobster.
As a visual, this is how the essay read to me:
This very well make no sense to my reader, but you can see that the Ms take up a large portion of the total letter line. Each individual letter delineates a broader topic about lobsters that was covered in the essay. A more organized essay, in my head, would have read like this:
All this nonsense being said, I enjoyed the essay, although I disagreed with its organization.