Consider the Lobster and Other Essays
This celebrated collection of essays from the author of Infinite Jest is "brilliantly entertaining...Consider the Lobster proves once more why Wallace should be regarded as this generation's best comic writer" (Cleveland Plain Dealer).
Do lobsters feel pain? Did Franz Kafka have a funny bone? What is John Updike's deal, anyway? And what happens when adult video starlets meet their fans in person?
David Foster Wallace answers these questions and more in essays that are also enthralling narrative adventures. Whether covering the three-ring circus of John McCain's 2000 presidential race, plunging into the wars between dictionary writers, or confronting the World's Largest Lobster Cooker at the annual Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace projects a quality of thought that is uniquely his and a voice as powerful and distinct as any in American letters.
"Wallace can do sad, funny, silly, heartbreaking, and absurd with equal ease; he can even do them all at once." --Michiko Kakutani, New York Times
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
It is hard to give this a rating because the essays vary considerably in quality. "Big Red Son", in particular was unnecessarily long and this length was not justified by the content. However, some essays, like "Authority and American Usage" were quite interesting.
I liked this book a lot. I found the content more serious and frankly depressing than DFW's other book of essays "a supposedly fun thing i'll never do again." He's funny when he's talking about things are funny. But he's at his best when he's poignant and funny and shining a light on things you'd rather not be paying attention to but also making those things simultaneously terrifying and enjoyable.
I'll briefly talk about a few of the essays.
The adult awards in Vegas. Sort of terrifying. But the author does his job well of convincing us this is a sort of market justified id. The sheer financial success of an industry that unironically acts in the exact way that it has become commercially successful. We are left realizing that this essay describes - in honest living color - a repressed and socially unexpressed portion of our friends and neighbors. It’s mysoginy, self-hatred, a desperate need to close off the actual interplay of feelings and the world and just be something else. It’s terrifying.
The Updike review. "Updike seems to really believe that sleeping with whoever you want is life’s only remedy to meaninglessness and oblivious. Whereas it’s obvious from the books first page that the subject is depressed because he is an asshole." I've never read Updike. I don't really read much fiction and I suppose I might never read the guy. If I did, it'd probably be just to confirm or deny whether this hilarious and really very damaging review is actually justified.
He writes about a manual of english usage as a means to (a) reflect on his own childhood; (b) contribute to an actual academic conversation about english usage; and (c) point out that American liberals have yielded the opportunity to take a truly positive stance on what they want to do in the world. And these things all make sense together and actually complement each other
Representative quote: "American liberals have backed away from the argument that we should redistribute wealth because it is in the interest of the wealthy. They have ceded the battlefield and war. By beginning within the economic framework of utility for the poor they engage the right on questions of efficacy and comparison with private donations. But that is not the point. They should extol a society in which the rich did not have to spend their time calculating how to retain their wealth and instead enjoyed the free spirited virtues and civic contribution."
The McCain essay - it’s essentially impossible to separate marketing from leadership. Is the un-candidate a reaction to the mainstream or a marketed product that results from it? The answer may depend on what is in your heart. Leaders bring out the unselfish in their followers but in a shrewd, marketed world even the best leader can not escape the box of politics.
The best essay, though, by far is "The Host." profiles a conservative talk radio host in Southern California. His points are nuanced and deeply biographical to his subject, though a few generalities can be picked out. (1) Conservative talk radio emerged after the fair time act was repealed; (2) Once that act was repealed, conservative talk radio fulfilled a market need that many conservatives had - they did not like the media, but that few liberals had. (3) This market need meant it was profitable to be an outraged conservative and that profit motive fueled the rise of an entire political movement; (4) this is strange because these shows are self-evidently entertainment, they are not meant to be dispassionate news analysis and it was not clear when they started that folks would confuse the two; (5) however, news has only been dispassionate for a very short period of time (post war america) and the historical standard has been folks publish news to fulfill their agenda; (6) and moreover are we so sure that the media we all trust was truly dispassionate - would it appear so to an average person in Ohio (he does a great "view from this guy's" perspective that turns the whole argument on its head); (7) but the big issue is not the politicization of news, it is rather the world view from which this politicization originates. And this is why DFW's choice in this article - explain this movement from the actual lived biography of a host - is so important. The host, whatever his name is, I've forgotten, distrusts and to a certain extent hates the world. His life has been difficult, not because he is racist but because he is genuinely insensitive to the feelings of others and as a result struggles to play this game called society that we all want to be long to. But (8) rather than reforming himself and bringing himself somewhat within the norms of society he has radicalized which makes sense because (9) the liberal wing of the Democratic party has also - at the same time - made it genuinely harder and more confusing for folks to reform themselves and bring themselves within the norms of society. The very progress of critical race theory and other true but complicated developments in academia may have pushed acquiesence hopelessly beyond the reach of this host gentlemen; and so (10) his reaction to being somewhat banished from mainstream society has been to hate that society and - once his voice was amplified - he found a really decent chunk of the public that shares that experience and (11) a whole professionalized caste of media folks now exist to help grow this guy's audience and help focus him on things that audience wants to hear about and (12) that professional media caste couldn't care less about the politics involved, they want to get paid and they are ruthlessly efficient because that is what capitalism does which (13) leads to a truly unbelievable growth and stickiness in how conservative talk radio have blanketed the country.
And then DFW sticks the landing. He reflects that this host seems so certain that things are terrible and though he is not ignorant to where that certainty comes from, he remains amazed by it. And he chooses doubt. How about that for a wrap up to an essay that describes one of the fundamental social political changes still affecting us twenty years after the essay.
A note on the book, circling back to an idea I started in paragraph 1. This was different than his other book of essays, A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again. There the author took a thoughtful view of aspects of American society: a trip on a cruise ship, a trip to the county fair, how great some tennis player is.
This book is - I guess darker? He looks into things that characterize our every day lives and yet are dangerous or scary, not funny or lampoonable. He treats the sex industry and its mysogyny and slow drift toward violent snuff films. He disapprovingly analyzes the written work of John Updike and the selfish baby boomer generation that revered him (best line, "he spends a lot of the book plumbing the depths of why his character is unhappy. But it's sort of obvious from the first page why he's unhappy - he is an asshole." The potential to even be a genuine political candidate in the modern world (McCain, possibly his most hopeful essay, but also a real downer). He explains how liberals have ceded moral ground in a confusing and enjoyable essay about a dictionary of english usage and critical theory and it makes more sense than I'm making it sound like it does. And finally he traces the growth of the angry, violent, conservative talk ratio movement. And then he finished the book and shortly thereafter killed himself.
Other quotes that I liked:
"The grotesque struggle to create a self is ourselves. Our struggle to find a home is our home.
We have been pounding on a door for years and when it finally yields it opens outward. We were already inside.
The unconscious which I think is really the soul. "
"The attitude of a person who corrects other peoples grammar is - toward language - the same as the attitude of a conservative toward social issues. "
I'll briefly talk about a few of the essays.
The adult awards in Vegas. Sort of terrifying. But the author does his job well of convincing us this is a sort of market justified id. The sheer financial success of an industry that unironically acts in the exact way that it has become commercially successful. We are left realizing that this essay describes - in honest living color - a repressed and socially unexpressed portion of our friends and neighbors. It’s mysoginy, self-hatred, a desperate need to close off the actual interplay of feelings and the world and just be something else. It’s terrifying.
The Updike review. "Updike seems to really believe that sleeping with whoever you want is life’s only remedy to meaninglessness and oblivious. Whereas it’s obvious from the books first page that the subject is depressed because he is an asshole." I've never read Updike. I don't really read much fiction and I suppose I might never read the guy. If I did, it'd probably be just to confirm or deny whether this hilarious and really very damaging review is actually justified.
He writes about a manual of english usage as a means to (a) reflect on his own childhood; (b) contribute to an actual academic conversation about english usage; and (c) point out that American liberals have yielded the opportunity to take a truly positive stance on what they want to do in the world. And these things all make sense together and actually complement each other
Representative quote: "American liberals have backed away from the argument that we should redistribute wealth because it is in the interest of the wealthy. They have ceded the battlefield and war. By beginning within the economic framework of utility for the poor they engage the right on questions of efficacy and comparison with private donations. But that is not the point. They should extol a society in which the rich did not have to spend their time calculating how to retain their wealth and instead enjoyed the free spirited virtues and civic contribution."
The McCain essay - it’s essentially impossible to separate marketing from leadership. Is the un-candidate a reaction to the mainstream or a marketed product that results from it? The answer may depend on what is in your heart. Leaders bring out the unselfish in their followers but in a shrewd, marketed world even the best leader can not escape the box of politics.
The best essay, though, by far is "The Host." profiles a conservative talk radio host in Southern California. His points are nuanced and deeply biographical to his subject, though a few generalities can be picked out. (1) Conservative talk radio emerged after the fair time act was repealed; (2) Once that act was repealed, conservative talk radio fulfilled a market need that many conservatives had - they did not like the media, but that few liberals had. (3) This market need meant it was profitable to be an outraged conservative and that profit motive fueled the rise of an entire political movement; (4) this is strange because these shows are self-evidently entertainment, they are not meant to be dispassionate news analysis and it was not clear when they started that folks would confuse the two; (5) however, news has only been dispassionate for a very short period of time (post war america) and the historical standard has been folks publish news to fulfill their agenda; (6) and moreover are we so sure that the media we all trust was truly dispassionate - would it appear so to an average person in Ohio (he does a great "view from this guy's" perspective that turns the whole argument on its head); (7) but the big issue is not the politicization of news, it is rather the world view from which this politicization originates. And this is why DFW's choice in this article - explain this movement from the actual lived biography of a host - is so important. The host, whatever his name is, I've forgotten, distrusts and to a certain extent hates the world. His life has been difficult, not because he is racist but because he is genuinely insensitive to the feelings of others and as a result struggles to play this game called society that we all want to be long to. But (8) rather than reforming himself and bringing himself somewhat within the norms of society he has radicalized which makes sense because (9) the liberal wing of the Democratic party has also - at the same time - made it genuinely harder and more confusing for folks to reform themselves and bring themselves within the norms of society. The very progress of critical race theory and other true but complicated developments in academia may have pushed acquiesence hopelessly beyond the reach of this host gentlemen; and so (10) his reaction to being somewhat banished from mainstream society has been to hate that society and - once his voice was amplified - he found a really decent chunk of the public that shares that experience and (11) a whole professionalized caste of media folks now exist to help grow this guy's audience and help focus him on things that audience wants to hear about and (12) that professional media caste couldn't care less about the politics involved, they want to get paid and they are ruthlessly efficient because that is what capitalism does which (13) leads to a truly unbelievable growth and stickiness in how conservative talk radio have blanketed the country.
And then DFW sticks the landing. He reflects that this host seems so certain that things are terrible and though he is not ignorant to where that certainty comes from, he remains amazed by it. And he chooses doubt. How about that for a wrap up to an essay that describes one of the fundamental social political changes still affecting us twenty years after the essay.
A note on the book, circling back to an idea I started in paragraph 1. This was different than his other book of essays, A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again. There the author took a thoughtful view of aspects of American society: a trip on a cruise ship, a trip to the county fair, how great some tennis player is.
This book is - I guess darker? He looks into things that characterize our every day lives and yet are dangerous or scary, not funny or lampoonable. He treats the sex industry and its mysogyny and slow drift toward violent snuff films. He disapprovingly analyzes the written work of John Updike and the selfish baby boomer generation that revered him (best line, "he spends a lot of the book plumbing the depths of why his character is unhappy. But it's sort of obvious from the first page why he's unhappy - he is an asshole." The potential to even be a genuine political candidate in the modern world (McCain, possibly his most hopeful essay, but also a real downer). He explains how liberals have ceded moral ground in a confusing and enjoyable essay about a dictionary of english usage and critical theory and it makes more sense than I'm making it sound like it does. And finally he traces the growth of the angry, violent, conservative talk ratio movement. And then he finished the book and shortly thereafter killed himself.
Other quotes that I liked:
"The grotesque struggle to create a self is ourselves. Our struggle to find a home is our home.
We have been pounding on a door for years and when it finally yields it opens outward. We were already inside.
The unconscious which I think is really the soul. "
"The attitude of a person who corrects other peoples grammar is - toward language - the same as the attitude of a conservative toward social issues. "
I have never before read such a diverse read covering numerous topics. Every segment is something quite different to the previous one and each is as engaging as can be. There was not one chapter which was boring to me and all of the people (and lobsters) discussed here were in a way new to me.
This book made me want to read Dostoevsky or Joseph Frank's works on him or at the very least make an attempt at it. It also brought me to read more on McCain and Updike, to watch an AVNA and to think more about lobsters and their brains. I was even delighted to learn more about the English language and a few dictionaries as well as the battle Prescriptivists vs. Descriptivists which apparently is a thing. Furthermore it interested me to read the author's thoughts on biographies of athletes and specifically Tracy Austin's.
Throughout, the vocabulary used was quite vast and extensive and introduced me to a few new words I have to say, but I would not advise anyone to be discouraged by this as it was still readable and very nicely written. This book definitely created a David Foster Wallace fan out of me.
First 5-star-read for the year.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.