Project #3—Reconsidering the Lobster…

Project #3—Reconsidering the Lobster…

FALL 2019

Paper 3—Reconsidering the Lobster and All Sorts of Other Things

In his essay “Consider the Lobster,” among many other things, David Foster Wallace offers a breathlessly fragmented, yet floridly elegant discussion on the concerns of eating lobster.  After you revisit the DFW text, think: has your thinking on his argument changed over the semester?  How so?

As we’ve discussed on and off all term, the consideration for the lobster, the apparatus for thinking deeply here, isn’t just limited to the concern for the lobster.  Engaging with DFW and thinking deeply opens up portals of thoughts on other, perhaps quite ordinary or orthodoxy things/practices/experiences/rituals/beliefs.

Your task: Using DFW and two other texts we’ve read, expand on David Foster Wallace’s claim that “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.”  In a 1500 word essay (PLUS a Works Cited page), summarize Wallace’s argument and explain how the other authors’ ideas of your choosing* connect/overlap/come into conflict with/complicate DFW’s thinking, and to what extent.

(Remember, we’re thinking about more than just lobsters here, bub).

As you work through this project, be sure to explain in detail how your own ideas concerning ethics/values/what it means to be considerate fit with the texts you’ve selected.  Part of your task here is to show me the trajectory of your thinking on food, culture, tradition, and behavior over the course vis-à-vis your own values, concerns, and ability to thoughtfully consider the complications of the world you live in.

Remember, DFW leaves us hanging with questions at the end of CTL—this isn’t the work of a thoughtless mind.

*Authors for this assignment:

Lizzie Widdicombe—The End of Food

Michael Pollan—“Out of the Kitchen, onto the Couch

The interview with Caitlin Doughtyhttp://www.npr.org/2014/10/08/352765943/a-mortician-talks-openly-about-death-and-wants-you-to-too

Ross Andersen— “What the Crows Know

Hal Herzog—“Animals Like Us

Optional:

Jessica Mitford—“The Story of Service

 

Some ideas to consider, and certainly NOT a checklist to answer in this paper:

What does it mean to be considerate? What are we willing to think about (to consider)?

What aren’t we willing to think about and why?

Are there reasons behind our willingness and unwillingness to be considerate?

What are the limits to being considerate?

How much of your own value system is shaped or obscured by forces within and beyond your control?  How reliant are you on your upbringing to do the work of thinking about complicated issues for you?

Just because you can eat/do something, should you?  Just because you can ignore pain/suffering/indignity, do you?  Why?

Wallace suggests an ethics built on “preference,” and yet lobsters would clearly prefer not to be boiled alive.  Is recognizing preference in living things enough to make value decisions of consequence?

How does one’s preference to do things (eat animals, buy products, believe in the value of traditions/practice rituals) square with any living thing’s preferences?

Key Dates FALL 2019:

Monday, NOV 11:___300 thoughtful words_________

Wednesday, NOV 13: 500 thoughtful words__________

Monday, NOV 18: ___ Up to 1000 thoughtful words/In-class writing lab/exchange drafts_____

Wednesday, NOV 20:___Workshop__________

Wednesday, NOV 27:  ____Final Draft Due_____ EMAIL ME BEFORE MIDNIGHT

css.php