Let Them Eat Dog 'And Consider The Lobster'

In Jonathan Safron Foer's essay “Let Them Eat Dog” and “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, the voice the writer chose to exhibit is very conversational and casual. Wallace details the Maine Lobster Fest in almost photographic detail, being so precise that one can almost smell the lobster rolls and taste the butter on sticky fingers. He peppers his essay with surprising facts about the lobster business such as how lobster was originally eaten only by the very poor and institutionalized. Wallace's essay leads us along with him through exploration of the festival before begging the question, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” Then his tone changes from the casually familiar to the
questioning, asking over and over if its morally irresponsible to treat another living creature the way cooks treat a lobster. Similarly, Foer's essay “Let Them Eat Dog” explores a moral imperative concerning dining mores. In a very casually friendly manner he tells his readers how its permissible in most states to eat dog, most people would recoil in revulsion at the very thought. He charges on by telling his audience how beneficial it would be to the world hunger crises to eat dogs, that we euthanize 3-4 million dogs and cats annually, but you get the impression he knows he's convinced no one. The reaction that both writers tries to elicit is to question. Wallace details how lobsters try to escape the boiling pots of water, and how some cooks opt to leave the room, taking their timers with them “until the whole process is over.” He also admits he's confused as he wonders “what ethical convictions have you worked out that permit you to not just eat but savor and enjoy flesh-based viands.” Foer questions why do we keep dogs as pets, love them, revere them, adore them, when dogs are basically “unremarkable in their intellect and experiential capacities” and that pigs, which are happily eaten in various and delicious forms are just as intelligent and feeling. He ends his essay by flatly stating, despite the various reasons for eating man's best friend, that “the case for eating dogs is likely to be repulsive to just about every reader of this paper.” Because the topic of each essay deals with ethics and social mores, it is more effective to use an unusual approach to the argument than it would be to choose a more traditional one.
Wallace can show us on one hand how huge a tourist attraction the Maine Lobster Fest is, tell us in salivating details what one can find to nosh on, and every detail right down to how long you can expect to stand in line for a freshly cooked lobster and how much you can expect to spend for it. But then he also wonders how many people would line up for a Nebraska Beef Festival in which the attendees stand and watch trucks of cattle drive up and unload to be slaughtered on “the World's Largest Killing Floor.” His tinges of sarcasm work to help soften the blow of his pointed questions. Foer had to choose a more unusual approach because of the utter repugnance at the thought of eating the very animals we let sleep in our beds, ride in our cars, snuggle with on our sofas, and buy all sorts of pricey foods, toys, and other things to make their lives cushy. He knows from start to finish, that despite his clear and concise argument, he's convinced no one. He goes so far as to quote George Orwell's Animal Farm as he states, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This quote seems to be the crux of his argument. Dogs are more equal than other animals, perhaps because they are slavishly devoted to their human owners, at least in the United States. He valiantly tries
to make his case, telling his audience where its not taboo to eat dog, how the Chinese have special dogs for consuming, and other fairly noxious insights, but those factoids won't have much effect on the people in the United States, even if the “ecologically-minded” don't find eating dog to be “a realistic food for realistic environmentalists.” In as much as Marie Antoinette was out of touch with the people in her remark as to why the people were crying for bread as she declared, “Let them eat cake,” Foer is out of touch with the general populace if he thinks anyone in this country, when they balk at eating game like venison, rabbit or alligator, would concede to eat Lassie, Benji or Airbud. Both Foer and Wallace assert their authority to speak on the issues of their respective essays by presenting well thought out arguments strengthened by facts and lurid details.
Wallace makes you feel like you're actually at the Maine Lobster Fest as he takes you along, step by step through the deliciously buttery process, but then leaves you alone in a kitchen trying to hold the lid on a boiling pot so a pain stricken lobster can't make his escape. His alternatives to boiling your lobster dinner alive aren't any more appealing. Most cooks would balk at driving a knife down through the lobster's head, or popping him in a microwave. Foer uses facts and figures and a little bit of guilt to make his argument to eating dog more palatable and to make himself more authoritative on the issue. He seems to have done extensive research, draws parallels between the amount of dogs euthanized and devising a plan to end world hunger and detailing how it can all be devised in a humane way. Both writers are assertive, speak with authority and are very effective in detailing their arguments. Their audiences probably won't be boiling up a lobster tonight and if they eat it again it will be with much guilt, but then again dog probably won't be on the menu anytime soon
either.