TOW #11 First Half of Wallace's Consider the Lobster

When considering what Wallace's purpose is in writing the first two essays of his text Consider the Lobster, it is important to realize that they're necessarily twofold.
In the first text, for which the book is named, Foster Wallace offers up an examination of the Maine Lobster Festival, an event that draws thousands each year in a communal quest to consume some of the best lobster that money can buy. It is important to note that this piece wasn't written for the text it is contained in, but rather was taken from a 2002  issue of Gourmet magazine, where Wallace was a writer at the time. What begins as a review of the various attractions, the type of lobsters available to festival-goers, and the history of the event, quickly becomes a discussion on the morality of the festival,  and eventually dissolves into a sort of plea by Wallace to, as the title suggests, consider the lobsters. Wallace details how the lobsters are caught, transported, and eventually killed for the festival. In one section, Wallace describes in particular detail the killing of the lobsters. ‘The lobster will sometimes cling to the container’s sides or even to hook its claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof. You can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off. Or the creature’s claws scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around." In this way, the author seeks to offer up a criticism of the festival, and perhaps invoke the reader to question the morality of the event, and the systematic killing of sea creatures, as a whole.
In understanding Wallace's varied purpose, it is necessary to understand that his audience is equally varied. While Gourmet magazine would seem to obviously be directed towards food lovers, chefs, and others who devote much of their free time to food, the article also makes an appeal to animal rights activists, and perhaps scientists as well, who would be compelled to answer Wallace's questions regarding the nature of lobster killing. This variation among the audience plays a significant role in the style of rhetoric used by Wallace.
Wallace's rhetoric can perhaps best be understood as a sort of give-and-take between a cheerful, minutae-laden description of a famous lobster festival, and an ominous moral discussion on the nature of killing animals. In this way, Wallace favors two distinct styles of rhetoric as a way to keep each of these sections distinct, and capitalize on the impact of each. When praising the event, Wallace keeps the focus on aspects of the event that one might need to know to attend. Things like specific stands that he enjoyed, parking spaces, and local points of interest are all aimed towards potential festival attendees, and do much to lighten what is an otherwise ominous piece. During his more morally-inclined discussion points, Wallace favors morose descriptions of the lobster killings, and other details meant to potentially disgust the reader. He also makes use of a number of open-ended questions, mostly regarding the common belief that lobsters and other crustaceans don't feel pain. These are designed to intrigue the scientists among Wallace's audience, and also act as a means for the reader to arrive at their own conclusions regarding the morality of lobster killings for an event like the Maine lobster festival. Overall, these two rhetorical styles do much to aid the purpose of Wallace's discussion, as he is successfully able to appeal directly to two distinct audiences, and potentially act as a persuasive device, as he is able to show potential festival-goers the truly brutal nature of the festivities. In this sense, Wallace is successful in accomplishing his purpose(s).

IRB #2 Introduction: Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace

For my second IRB of the school year, I have chosen to read Consider the Lobster, by David Foster Wallace. This book comes highly recommended from my father, and APELC seems like the perfect environment through which to understand the book at it's deepest levels. Consider the Lobster is a series of essays, each written and previously published elsewhere by the author. What is unique about this book, and about David Foster Wallace, is his ability to extract meaning and symbolism from every day life. This can be seen in the title text, which bills itself first as an examination and critique of a Maine Lobster Festival, but has the underpinnings of a discussion of man's morality through the lens of consuming lobsters. I look forward to reading Consider the Lobster, and hopefully gaining more knowledge about the world as Wallace observed it.

TOW #9: Corn Pone Opinions

Mark Twain describes in detail his childhood experiences with a “gay and impudent young black man - a slave”(1) named Jerry. He outlines for the reader how this boy was quite fond of “preaching sermon top of his master’s wood pile” (1) with a young Twain as his only audience. He speaks of the boy’s views on where man forms his beliefs, saying that it is easy to determine where a man forms his opinions from, because this is always the source of the man’s corn pone, as well.  

Using the same technique as Lynne Truss in her examination of English punctuation in Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, Twain then expands this specific example to represent his own overarching views on where man forms his opinions from. This lengthy examination of his own views rounds out the remainder of Corn-Pone Opinions. He writes that “Jerry was right, in the main, but...he did not got far enough” (2.) Twain then informs the audience of his expanded views on Jerry’s corn-pone reasoning. He writes on page 2 that a coldly-thought-out and independently reasoned thought was a “most rare thing, if it has indeed ever existed.” 

He uses the examples of a hoop-skirt, and English table-setting habits to establish his belief that man in general operates with a sort of hive mentality, following all the trends of society, doing what the majority does in order to gain acceptance and approval from his fellow man, no matter how daft and unreasoning that fellow man may be. He concludes the essay by writing that man’s tendency to mistake feeling, emotion, and instinctual behavior for thought has led to the creation of a supposedly positive aggregation, called a boon, which represents Public Opinion. This boon is highly regarded, and considered by some to be the “Voice of God” (5.) In this way, Twain expands the views of a black slave living in Missouri in the 19th century to be indicative of a trend that permeates all of human society through all ages.

In so far as credibility is concerned, it is pertinent to know that Mark Twain had a rural childhood, spent on the southern ranges of the North American frontier. He was surrounded in his early years by a culture that propagated slavery and embraced new technology such as the steam engine. He was privy to a unique view of man’s tendency to embrace Public Opinion, Corn-Pone Opinion, if you will, without fail. The culture that he was reared in believed in slavery with little dissent, and was homogenous in it’s cultural, religious and social beliefs. This makes him a credible source to provide commentary on this era, this setting, and its social climate. The context of this essay is simply Mark Twain’s recollection of his childhood friend’s observations on man’s tendency to think collectively, and how he has chosen to embrace and expand these beliefs to vindicate his own. Twain’s purpose in writing Corn-Pone Opinions was primarily to relate his views on society’s collective mindset to the general public. His writing is said to have appealed to men, women, children, and the elderly alike (Zhang). This belief is applicable especially in the case of Corn-Pone Opinions due to the nature and topic of the essay. Given that Mark Twain’s works were mainly published in American newsletters and journals, it would appear that his audience was the American general public. Anything more specific than this betrays the broad appeal of Twain’s writing. 

Interestingly enough, the primary rhetorical strategy employed by Twain in Corn-Pone Opinions is essentially the same technique that appears frequently through the course of Truss’ Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. In the same manner that Truss frequently introduces examples, and then proceeds to analyze and expand them to represent her overarching views on English grammar, Twain introduces the example of Jerry the black slave, a childhood friend of his, and his views on the nature of man’s opinions, and how they originate from the same source as man’s corn pone. From this lone example, Twain expatiates his broader beliefs on the nature of society, before tying them back to the original example at the conclusion of the essay.Twain is extremely successful in accomplishing his purpose. He imparts his message that man typically subscribes to a hive mindset in his famously comedic, light fashion. Maintaining this level of relaxation in his writing makes the high-mindedness of his ideas much more palatable.

TOW #7, Freakonomics 2nd Half

In the second half of Stephen J. Dubner and Steven B. Levitt's Freakonomics, the authors continue their pursuit of applying statistics and mathematical modeling techniques in novel ways to discover the surprising underpinnings of our society. While the variation among chapter topics continues, with the later chapters incorporating such topics as plummeting crime rates in major American cities, the impact of parent behavior on child success, and the science behind why parent's tend to give their children certain types of names over others (long vs. short, number of consonants, etc.) and what impact this has on children's likelihood to succeed. As I mentioned in my previous TOW post about this book, the authors collective purpose is a simple one: to provide the general public with a logical and surprising view of the world we (think) we know so well. In accomplishing this mission, the authors continue to weave elaborate and unexpected connections between aspects of the modern world that would appear unrelated at first glance.

In approaching a topic of such a blizzard nature, the authors make use of continually applied ethos, as an effective way to clarify to the audience that their initially far fetched claims are in fact, plausible. Both of the authors are accomplished in their field, with each holding a doctorate in economics, and one being a well-known author on similar topics. To effectively use these accreditations to their advantage, the authors make frequent direct and indirect allusions to past work of theirs, and experience in the educational aspects of their fields.

It can be assumed, based on the low technical level of the authors' writing, that this book was only intended to brief the general public on the novel applications of data analysis, and provide a conversational level of understanding to the reader. In this sense, the book wholly succeeds. This is the case because Freakonomics does a tremendous amount to both interest the reader in novel data analysis, and intrigue the reader with the larger social implications of data analysis. It does this through low-level data examination of intriguing, unusual examples, in such a way that manages to inform, and entertain the reader.

In concluding this imaginative, thought-provoking text, the authors provide a final insight that effectively leaves the reader with an idea to dwell on, until they inevitably pick up the book's sequel shortly after finishing it. On the book's final page, the authors consider the perceived cycle among wealthy parents to choose unique names for their children, leading to the popularity of these names, until they are passed down to the lower classes, and the cycle repeats itself. In examining this pattern, they conclude by asking the reader to perhaps consider which other cycle and patterns exist in our society that have yet to be discovered and analyzed properly. This is an effective way to conclude the book, as the reader will carry this question with them, and perhaps modify their behavior as a result. In this way, the book, and it's message, extend beyond the pages, and remain with the reader.

TOW #6, Analysis of Joshua Rothman's "What Gone Girl is Really About"

Earlier this week, an article appeared in the online edition of The New Yorker,  outlining one writer's views on the popularity, and the underlying message, of the most popular films of the fall. Gone Girl, a complex film with a deceptively simple premise, is the story of a man who's wife goes missing, and the events that occur as the search for her takes place over a number of months through the summer and fall of 2012.

As Rothman argues, however, the film intends to tell a story much darker, and much more thought-provoking than its premise would imply.  Written and directed by David Fincher, known for thematically heavy and complex films such as 1999's Fight Club and 2010's The Social Network,  Gone Girl is Fincher's latest attempt to showcase his view of modern society to the public through an engaging and intense narrative. In this case, the message that Fincher wishes to convey, in Rothman's view, is that one of the institutions of modern society that we cherish most is perhaps deeply flawed, and that once someone realizes that truth, life becomes a daily struggle against that part of society. If this message seems familiar, that's because it's nearly identical to the idea put forth in famous literary works like The Catcher in the Rye, and even in Fincher's own 1999 cult classic Fight Club. In that film, the part of modern society that Fincher was showing as broken was the media and advertising of modern society, which the film's characters come to view as fake, and promoting a destructive lifestyle. In Gone Girl, the same can be said for marriage. While these sorts of claims might seem too far-reaching, Rothman is credible to make them, simply because he has seen the film.

While The New Yorker's audience definitely leans to the left from a political standpoint, there is nothing particularly liberal about this article, which leads me to feel that the audience for this review is simply the general public. From the standpoint of context, the article was written simply because of the film's release and huge success at the box office.

Rothman has been noted for his ability to extract meaning where no one else is able to in his examinations of books and films, and this idea can definitely be seen in his critique of Gone Girl. Where other internet reviews focus on well-known parts of Fincher's cinematic work, like his use of certain kinds of filming techniques, or focus on how the film compares to the 2011 book, Rothman attempts to draw information about what lies below the surface of a film or book, and in this way he succeeds. Most of his review centers around Fincher's views on marriage in modern society, and how the film shows Fincher's belief that modern society makes it extremely challenging for marriages to be healthy and beneficial relationships. While it is important to understand what Rothman is saying, why he is saying it is equally important.

In so far as the why of this review is concerned, the answer is pretty straightforward. Rothman wrote this critique of Gone Girl because he wished to share his observations, thoughts, and feelings on the film with The New Yorker's audience. While one could also argue that he might want others to see the film because of his writing, his message centers only around his own feelings on the film, and doesn't deliver any sort of a final verdict in the way that most reviews do. In this way, he succeeds, simply because he does a wonderfully succinct and engaging job of relating his views on Gone Girl.

TOW #4: Freakonomics 1st 1/2

In Stephen J. Dubner and Steven B. Levitt's Freakonomics, the central structure is key to the nature of the message they are conveying. With chapter titles that range from the rather pedestrian, such as chapter one, The Hidden Side of Things, to those with more curious titles, such as chapter four, Why do Drug Dealers Still Live With their Moms? 

While the topics discussed in each of these chapters are obviously varied to a great degree, their individual role within constructing Levitt and Dubner's narrative is identical. Each of the topics discussed in Freakonomics six chapters, especially the three I have completed thus far, plays an equally significant role in contributing to the authors' collective purpose. In writing Freakonomics, Dubner and Levitt wish to showcase that within the fabric of the everyday experiences we refer to as "life," there are myriad connections, however distant they may be, between seemingly unrelated concepts. Specifically, this is true within the realm of economics, hence the book's title. It is precisely for this reason that the authors' switch seamlessly from a discussion of the similarities that sumo wrestlers share with elementary school teachers (both are willing to cheat for the sake of those they are teaching,) to a discussion of Ku Klux Klan real estate tactics.

With topics as far-flung and unusual as these, it is fortunate that Dubner and Levitt, both economists by trade, make frequent use of statistical analysis and data modeling to determine the correlations they spot within society. In the case of the cheating teachers in chapter two, Dubner examined State-level standardized test answer sheets from California, and was able to discern over hundreds of students results, where and how often suspicious large blocks of correct answers appeared. Dubner then compared the students with the highest number of correct answers grouped together, and juxtaposed these students scores with their past performance in school subjects. What he determined was that the students with the most blocks of correct answers tended to be those that did poorer in the corresponding classes. From this, Dubner was able to draw a simple conclusion: the teachers of these students recognized that they were struggling more than other students, and went out of their way to help those students do well on State-level mandated testing. Put simply, the teachers were cheating for the benefit of their students. 

This sort of "big data" analysis is seen on numerous occasions throughout the first few chapters of Freakonomics, and it would seem to me that this is the main rhetorical device that the authors use to convey their purpose. 

It can be assumed, based on the low technical level of the authors' writing, that this book was only intended to brief the general public on the novel applications of data analysis, and provide a conversational level of understanding to the reader. In this sense, the book wholly succeeds. This is the case because Freakonomics does a tremendous amount to both interest the reader in novel data analysis, and intrigue the reader with the larger social implications of data analysis. It does this through low-level data analysis of intriguing, unusual examples, in such a way that manages to inform, and entertain the reader. I look forward to the concluding three chapters of Freakonomics.

TOW #3: Visual Text Analysis: Political Cartoon by Steve Kelley

This political cartoon's primary intention is to poke fun at the most prescient political and social issues facing the American public during this past week. It relies on the popular "bait and switch" technique, oft employed in political cartoons to address multiple issues that are unrelated, aside from the fact that they are both current events. In this case, an image of the White House, with speech bubbles showing a discussion of "boots on the ground" leads the reader initially to believe the cartoon is a depiction of Barack Obama discussing the pressing issue of ISIS' advance through the Middle East with one of his staffers. In the second panel, it is revealed that he is actually discussing the state of the National Football League, and its various publicity scandals.

A large portion of the comic's appeal is derived from the fact that it can be easily understood and appreciate by almost all Americans, and the fact that it doesn't play towards or against any specific political persuasion. Any American who turned on the morning news during the week of September 15th to 21st would be keenly aware of both issues that this comic discusses. This sort of appeal is rare among political cartoons, given that most rely on one sort of extreme bias or another. This comic, however, skillfully relates a clever retelling of current events without igniting any political fires amongst its viewers. 

As a result of the comic's brevity, the rhetorical devices used are necessarily very small in number. Perhaps the only true rhetorical device used is the assumption of knowledge of American popular culture on the part of the reader. Kelley assumes that the reader is aware of both issues being discussed, because they have been in the public eye for several weeks at the time of the cartoons publishing. One could also argue, however, that the use of the "bait and switch" technique discussed earlier is a rhetorical device as well. Also that the change in the angle from which the White House is shown in the second panel is a visual tool to relate the new angle from which the reader will view the comic after reading the second panel. 

In analyzing a visual text, it is equally important to understand what the author is saying, and why they are saying it. In this case, Kelley is playing off of two unrelated but equally relevant events; the various public relations scandals within the NFL, and the growing concern over ISIS' spread throughout the Middle East are both discussed and poked fun of in this comic, despite their lack of relation to one another. In my opinion, Kelley succeeds in achieving this purpose for a number of reasons. Primarily, he succeeds because I was able to find the comic humorous, even though I don't follow football in any way whatsoever. In this sense, he appeals to his intended audience, and elicits an emotional response from him.