Well, maybe I don't want to "Consider the Lobster"! Have you "considered" that, Mr. David Foster Wallace? You with your three-word name that must be said all in one, like bon appetit or menage a trois, but far less enjoyable. Maybe I don't need to think about the questionable questionings of the people who actually have the money and the initiative to locate and purchase a live lobster.
The one time I ate lobster was in a Cajun restaurant in Lafayette, where I munched on a bit of my mother's leftovers under the hard glass stare of the baby alligator head I'd bought in the restaurant's gift shop. It's not that I wouldn't have cared at all about the horrid fate of the marine crustacean I was chewing on; it's just that I cared a bit more about the fate of the baby alligator whose head still sits on my brother's bookshelf back home. The alligator has a face.
I could put a lobster in boiling water and watch as its futile claws clambered against burning metal of the pot. I could stand and listen to the clattering of lid and the whistle that isn't the lobster's scream after all but means death all the same. I do not say that I would enjoy it, but I could do it.
When I was young I washed the dishes after dinner and I would stand very still and hold my father's big French knife after I had dried it, staring at the inert blade in my hand and at my little brother playing on the floor, and know in an instant certainty that a twitch of my hand would kill him.
That certainty is why I do not care about the lobster's death. If I myself (and not just soldiers and not just madmen and not just children with guns in war-torn countries) have the capacity within a single twitch to kill a human being, I cannot stop to consider the lobster.
And anyway, I don't really like lobster.
P.S. In reference to David Foster Wallace's footnote: The idea that the use of the words "beef" for the meat of a cow and "pork" for the meat of a pig originates in some inherent need to separate philosophically the creature from the comestible, although intriguing, is not irrefutable. An explanation for the use of these words can be found in the socioeconomic climate of medieval England, in which the words developed into their current state.
Great stuff, Rachel. I think I really really like your writing. In fact, I think I'm already a fan.
ReplyDeleteI love the alligator. I wanted to read a whole essay just about the alligator.
I love too how you let the analogy of the knife do all the work. That takes skill, particularly the skill of restraint.
P.S., your PS should have been a footnote.
I must say this was fantastic and I agree with Prof. Hargon on wanting a whole essay. You did a great job throughout. I especially liked the section in which you talked about the lobster in the pot. I look forward to reading more of your work!
ReplyDeleteBrilliant. I find it interesting how we as a society, no longer in contact with animals in a regular basis, have objectionified the process of killing for meat. Why haven't I seen anywhere the moral disgust at hunters in the jungle who shoot an animal, cut its throat, and eat it?
ReplyDeleteRachel, brilliant as always. I have always enjoyed your poetry, as you know, and now I have the pleasure of reading some Rachel Boylan Creative NonFiction. I enjoy how you so easily relate your own creative nonfiction experience to Mr. DavidFosterWallace (one word, just as you noted). You do always have the best stories. :)
ReplyDeletePerhaps there could be a whole series on your traumatic experiences with animals. I'm sure there are more. :)
I've had several encounters with sharp instruments, and I have had very similar revelations. You put that feeling into words: it is horrifying to be able to think you may so easily blot out one's life, yet there is some safety in knowing it is all in a choice you can make. Does that make sense?
I'm with the Professor; you sure do know how to use a metaphor and restraint.
Also, I don't like lobster, either.
More, please!
I get smarter when I am among your rhetoric.
ReplyDelete