Lobster Festival

The Maine Lobster Festival is supposed to be a celebration inviting anyone and everyone to celebrate the delectable lobster, but Wallace uses it to shed some light on the welfare of the animal when cooking and eating it. He does a great job at analyzing the festival as well as challenging the meaning of food based on how we define the animals we consume. This includes the substitution of words, people’s ignorance, and the scientific language. The way we identify food can all be supported by these three main influences.

First off Wallace does an excellent job on creating a background and explanation of the festival. “The assigned subject of this article is the 56th Annual MLF, July 30 to August 3, 2003, whose official theme was “Lighthouses, Laughter, and Lobster” (Wallace 50). Already you can see the effect of words on the event. The theme uses the word laughter in order to convey a sense of happiness. However, some people would disagree when thousands of pounds of lobsters are killed in order for the event to take place. This word usage not only can be used to convey happiness but be used as to keep up morality.

Our food consumption can be identified in a way where our morals and ethics are not called to question through word alternatives.

“Is it significant that “lobster,” ”fish,” and “chicken” are our culture’s words’ for both the animal and the meat, whereas most mammals seem to require euphemisms like “beef” and “pork” that help us separate the meat we eat from the living creature the meat once was?” (Wallace 62). Euphemisms for food can definitely be used as a way for us not to associate it with death. Not only that but there is an expansive list for it such as poultry, seafood, etc. My mom would use words like beef or pork to me when I asked her what food was. Now I know they’re synonymous to dead cow or dead pig. The way we use our words can impact our morals on subjects such as food in my case. Not only that, but it can keep your ignorance on a

subject.
People choosing to ignore the truth in order to cope with things is common, especially with food. For example, people believe if the animal can’t feel pain when being killed, it can be used as an excuse for eating it. “There’s a part of the brain in people and animals that lets us feel pain and lobsters’ brains don’t have this part” (Wallace 60). This ignorant statement can be proven untrue but people remain ignorant in order to eat what they love. However, there is science that does try to back us up on the morality of killing a lobster.
People try to use science as a way to back up their consumption. “The nervous system of a lobster is very simple, and is in fact most similar to the nervous system of a grasshopper” (Wallace 62). This illustrates how we can use words such as simple in order to make it seem as though it wouldn’t be able to feel THAT much pain, allowing ourselves the option of human consumption. They try to compare it to a grasshopper as well; an insect that can be disgusting to some and subtly becomes support to consumption too. Our scientific definitions can be used to provide evidence for our actions, in addition to previously stated evidence.
Words can be used as powerful tools as witnessed in this article. This includes how we substitute words in order to sugar coat how we perceive animals we eat. Ignorance can influence whether or not we want to devour animals. Scientific language does the same. Wallace does a great job at discussing the festival and sending a message that creates discussion.