Consider the Lobster and Other Essays by David Foster Wallace (February 2017)
Consider the Lobster is Wallace's second nonfiction collection. It covers a wide range of topics, including John McCain's 2000 campaign, talk radio, and (of course) lobsters.
I immediately noticed how Wallace adjusts his writing to fit the demands of his topic. Some essays are written very traditionally- he introduces a topic, explains his thinking, and makes some interesting observations. A couple others are basically delivery vehicles for several giant, occasionally related tangents (disguised as 'footnotes' that take up more space on the page than the main essay). In one essay, the footnotes escape the confines at the bottom of the page and instead camp out anywhere they like, forcing Wallace (or his editor) to draw helpful arrows that crisscross the page until they find wandering thought.
As I read, I understood that Wallace always found a way to get his insights to the reader. In some cases he tweaked the presentation of his essay while in others a traditional format allowed him to make his point. Perhaps this desire to share is reflected in his thought about charity- the best argument for becoming charitable is self-interest because those who hoard become alienated or frightened.
Of course, the main motivation for me in picking up this collection a second time was to read the title essay. The topic of animal cruelty and how it relates to dinner is often on my mind. Wallace approaches the topic without an obvious agenda. He simply points out that not thinking about something is an ineffective way to deal with discomfort. He then gives the reader some ideas to think about. My favorite of these- though it is beyond a human to know if a lobster suffers, it is at least clear that a lobster in a boiling pot shows a preference for being outside of the kettle.
I think such an approach is the mark of great writing. Instead of writing down to a reader by laying out a series of steps, the ideas are packaged concisely and presented to readers for their own consideration.
One up: I've referenced this collection in a couple of other posts (though given the way I schedule posts, I suppose it is possible those have yet to go up) and I apologize if I repeat myself a little bit in this 'one up' section.
As I hit year two on TOA, my focus on technique is increasing. Books like On Writing and The Elements of Style have pointed out a number of ways that I can improve in the coming year. Consider the Lobster was another such work.
Wallace's insights into what he describes as the imperial persona resonated with me. In using 'one' or 'we' as a substitute for 'I', writers distance themselves from the work. There is nothing automatically wrong about distance and the technique works in certain sentences. But it rarely fits with the goals of this blog and I am working hard to distance myself (!) from the 'one/we' construction.
I think his insights into how English evolved will help me improve my writing. The language's Latin roots sometimes cause problems because Latin is a synthetic language (relies on grammatical inflections) while English is an analytical language (word order matters). It suggests that scrutinizing sentence structure is a better starting point for my revisions than worrying about tense or wording.
One down: It is mentioned that leaders get people to do things they know will help and yet remain unable to do on their own. It's the right spirit, I think, but I prefer my own definition for its clarity: A leader identifies potential and teaches or motivates people to reach it.
Just saying: Wallace prints an approximation of the speech he would give to his students who did not write in Standard White English (SWE- his moniker, though one I think is clear without my adding an explanation). He explains, in essence, that the realities of American society make him responsible for teaching students to write in this form of English. Therefore, though students might be writing in a perfectly acceptable dialect of the language, he is going to grade work based on the guidelines of SWE. The speech is in line with his broader point that those aware of elitism, racial insensitivity, or the basic unfairness of life should speak up rather than hide behind euphemisms, doublespeak, or political correctness.
It is a thought-provoking section of the book. Unsurprisingly, Wallace's speech was apparently not met enthusiastically by all recipients. Given that his main point seems inarguable to me, I'll guess that part of this reaction was due to his delivery and/or word selection.
This example highlights the conservative instinct of higher education. Wallace's teaching perhaps deserves more criticism than his speech- to teach a skill because 'that's the way it is' runs counter to the instinct of truth-seeking. A truth-seeking writer has a funny habit of changing 'that's the way it is' into 'that's the way it was'.
Writing changes writing standards, a fact Wallace himself highlights a number of times in the work. But speeches like this one make him seem complicit in a doomed effort to prevent these changes.
