Active reading is the ability to dig below the surface of a text and engage with the themes and ideas it’s addressing. Our first-course text and one we’ve been working with a lot is David Foster Wallace’s essay Consider the Lobster. For this course, I’ve read this text multiple times and each time I learn or understand another piece of the author’s argument differently. The first time I read it I simple marked up the text as I had been taught previously. Underline things that seem important, rephrase difficult points in the margins, Make notes of themes in the margin, and so on. For the Wallace text, I did a fair amount of annotation and it helped me write about some of the questions and ideas I found while reading. As Susan Gilroy mentions in her interrogating texts piece I was “thinking-intensive from start to finish” (Gilroy).  I was taking the time to consider the larger arguments being made rather than simply saying the article is about why boiling lobster is bad. In reality, the text goes into so much more than that. It discussed human’s relationship with animals, morality, change, and so many other themes that continued to be examined through the entirety of this course.  After reading for the first time I wrote a journal entry going over what I thought and what questions I had. Looking back at my old journals I see myself posing some deeper questions about what gives humans the right to treat other creatures in cruel ways and how it’s okay to boil a lobster alive but cooking other animals alive is taboo. Its questions like this that helped fueled class discussions. In Class discussions, I was able to see other perspectives on the reading. Some of my classmates picked up on things I didn’t. I didn’t think about the money and status element of eating lobster at first but once I was brought up in the discussion I made note of it in my text annotations and in my later journal reflecting on the David Foster Wallace text.  The discussions, annotations, and questions posed helped me look critically at the reading and think differently about the topics brought up, all elements of this courses third learning outcome.

Annotation Examples: 

 <—- Noticing Status

 <– Noticing Money

Journals on DFW: 

Old/ First One:

1 September 2018

Journal 1-DFW

Wallace is constantly posing questions to the reader but because of his writing style the reader finds themselves asking questions of their own. As a reader i would want to know more about the Maine Lobster Festivals origins. Wallace goes into detail about the events that take place and how lobster plays a role but for a person who is just now hearing about this event i find myself knowing how it came to be. Knowing this information could help better explain the festivals attraction. It would also help explain the locals involvement and approval of the event. I would also like to know why lobster is cooked alive. Wallace explains in earlier times the creature was cooked dead. What happened between then and now to cause a change? Is it a taste difference? Is it more efficient? Knowing the reason behind the method would clarify societies current moral standards and values when it comes to our treatment of animals.I found the criteria for suffering intriguing. For the lobster it for sure checks off the box for behavior associated with pain but if it has the equipment capable of feeling it is still up for debate. I want to know if only having one of the boxes ticked automatically dismisses the idea of suffering. For the lobster its on the brink of ethical suffering the only thing stopping it from being confirmed is our lack of understanding about its neurology. Because of that theory do we as humans have the right to continue our cooking practices?   Written discourse is writing about a topic while inserting yourself and your personal accounts into the details. The flaw in this method is the authors experience itself. Experience is unique to the person or animal that has them so as a reader its difficult to get the full picture if the author does not cover every inch of the topic. The reader finds themselves riddled with questions because they have not had the experience themselves. Its then the authors job to predict the readers questions and answer them as they write. To do this effectively the author could ask for peer reviews or second opinions on their writing. They could also conduct a survey to see what questions the audience already has on the topic their writing about. Essentially it’s their job to put themselves in the readers shoes.

Last One:

5 November 2018

Journal #14: Reconsider the Lobster

My thinking has changed slightly when compared to my previous analysis on DFW. Originally, I was more concerned with the lobster and its suffering more than anything. I was looking at the criteria for suffering and if the lobster’s behavior qualified as suffering. Now when I read the sections involving the lobsters suffering when being cooked I also look at the human behavior. What does cooking the lobster alive say about us as a people? Does our behavior show our guilt? When we leave the room as the lobster bangs in the pot is it because we know what we’re doing is wrong? These are some of the deeper questions I’m not considering after reading the text a second time. The subject I always find confusing is how lobster used to be regarded as horrible food and now its representative of high-class standards. I see the contrasting ideas but coming up with reasons or questions to consider is difficult for me.