1) If David Foster Wallace was invited into the classroom, I would be intrigued to know why he choose lobsters as the topic of his essay. When was he first interested in the lobster industry? Why did he decide to write an essay on the topic? Does he have a connection to New England? Why did the Maine Lobster Festival stick out to him? Was it the questioning of the inhumane ways of cooking the lobster that stuck out to him? How did he research the background knowledge on the anatomy and history of lobsters? After doing so much research on the lobster industry and other mass meat production, does he still eat meat? Does he advise people to stop eating meat due to the inhumane ways it is prepared? Did he receive any backlash from the lobster or culinary industry after the publication of the essay? Did the essay have an effect on the amount of people going to the Maine Lobster Festival?
2) Written discussion is excellent for a speaker to get all the information they want to address to the public at once, in a condensed and eloquent piece of literature. However, there are limitations, such as the fact that the reader cannot respond to the writer immediately to dispute or agree with the stated opinion. The reader would have to write a response to the writer, and without face to face contact, things could be lost in translation. Without the proper inflection and understanding that face to face conversation gives, it can be like communicating big topics by texting. As a writer, you could anticipate questions, confusions, or disagreements by writing from multiple sides of the argument, and including many details about the topic. David Foster Wallace addressed this by writing from multiple perspective and not villainizing a certain side. For example, he did not describe the PETA protesters at the festival as crazy fanatics. Wallace wrote about the immortality of lobsters being boiled alive, but he also mentioned how this might be the most humane way to cook them, and described other ways people cook them that might be less painful for the lobsters. He also went into detail about the background about lobsters and the festival to illustrate how the cooking of lobsters is most likely very inhumane, but it is a big part of the region’s culture. By addressing different sides and going into detail about the background of lobster culture, Wallace is able to take advantage of the positives of written discussion and possibly anticipate audience questions. Though written discussions have limitations for very pressing issues, it is the best way to reach a greater audience. By writing an essay and having it published in a magazine like Wallace or in other forms of media, your point of view could be represented at a larger scale and more people would be introduced to the topic. This is why many people opt for written discussion so that their issue could garner more attention, despite the limitations that the format introduces.
