In the article “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace and “Let Them Eat Dog” by Jonathan Safran Foer, use different argumentative strategies in an effort to persuade the readers to not eat lobster or animals in general. Through the use of questioning tone, a minimal degree of irony and optimal sincerity, Wallace attempts to express to the reader the brutality of killing a lobster for one’s own self-gain. Unlike Wallace, Foer takes a much different approach using sarcastic tone, an extreme amount of irony, and a lack of sincerity to convey to his readers the act of killing any animal is morally wrong. The tone of an article reveals many different aspects of the message the writer wants to send to the readers, and also his style in
…show more content…
Irony is the main thing that Foer uses in for instance when he states, “we should kill them quickly and painlessly” (Foer 604), this irony is used as another example of saying something he does not mean, making the killing seem less brutal if it is quick and the animal feels no pain. Wallace however uses minimal irony, his reason for doing this is to seem non-judgmental. However, Wallace uses some irony in his article such as the question “isn’t being extra aware and thoughtful about one’s food… what distinguishes a real gourmet?” (Wallace 774). Wallace uses this sarcastic irony as criticism toward the readers using characteristics they typically pride themselves in, to prove they don’t really have these characteristics due to the fact they don’t think about their food if they don’t think about the suffering it has been through to be cooked. Stating if they were “real gourmets” they would be “extra aware” of their food and wouldn’t commit such heinous acts of allowing an animal to …show more content…
To show the readers that he is truly concerned about the topic he is questioning them about and not just merely asking to get a response from the readers, he uses the phrase “I’m confused” (Wallace 774) very often. By stating that he is confused he allows himself to ask further questions about the readers morals without attacking them. Foer on the other hand shows no sincerity at all he is blatant with his sarcasm, and continues to use sarcastic tone to clearly show this. For example, his statement about eating dog instead of other animals continues further when he suggests dog meat supplies “would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame” (Foer 606). This comparison of a “farming” (Foer 606) system of dogs, known as a human companion, to a traditional farming system, mainly consisting of animals such as cows, shows his lack of sincerity because he doesn’t truly mean that people would eat dog instead of cow. Foer uses the comparison to instead show the readers killing any animal is wrong even if it’s socially
Irony is the main thing that Foer uses in for instance when he states, “we should kill them quickly and painlessly” (Foer 604), this irony is used as another example of saying something he does not mean, making the killing seem less brutal if it is quick and the animal feels no pain. Wallace however uses minimal irony, his reason for doing this is to seem non-judgmental. However, Wallace uses some irony in his article such as the question “isn’t being extra aware and thoughtful about one’s food… what distinguishes a real gourmet?” (Wallace 774). Wallace uses this sarcastic irony as criticism toward the readers using characteristics they typically pride themselves in, to prove they don’t really have these characteristics due to the fact they don’t think about their food if they don’t think about the suffering it has been through to be cooked. Stating if they were “real gourmets” they would be “extra aware” of their food and wouldn’t commit such heinous acts of allowing an animal to …show more content…
To show the readers that he is truly concerned about the topic he is questioning them about and not just merely asking to get a response from the readers, he uses the phrase “I’m confused” (Wallace 774) very often. By stating that he is confused he allows himself to ask further questions about the readers morals without attacking them. Foer on the other hand shows no sincerity at all he is blatant with his sarcasm, and continues to use sarcastic tone to clearly show this. For example, his statement about eating dog instead of other animals continues further when he suggests dog meat supplies “would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame” (Foer 606). This comparison of a “farming” (Foer 606) system of dogs, known as a human companion, to a traditional farming system, mainly consisting of animals such as cows, shows his lack of sincerity because he doesn’t truly mean that people would eat dog instead of cow. Foer uses the comparison to instead show the readers killing any animal is wrong even if it’s socially