During the semester in this course, I have been able to work on learning outcome #3 and now looking back, feel as though I have successfully completed it. This learning outcome includes the ability to annotate class readings and respond to them in our journals. I feel that even at the beginning of the semester, I showed that I could complete this learning outcome with my work on David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster.” When I first started reading this, my approach to active, critical reading was to take each paragraph at a time, read it through and then summarize it in my head. After I thought about it, I wrote down any questions I had, wrote notes on the side of what the paragraph was about and then underlined any important facts or quotes I might want to refer back to later. When deciding what I wanted to underline/highlight, I thought about if it had a bigger meaning and if it was important to the paper. To underline/highlight, I tried not to do the whole sentence so I wasn’t crowding the whole paragraph with too much underlining and highlighting. By being able to underline/highlight important parts and write notes on the side of the margins about what is going on in the paper, it shows that I am engaging in the text and trying to fully understand the paper and its deeper meanings. My ability to write down questions shows that I am thinking about what David Foster Wallace is writing and asking questions as if I could ask him in person as can be seen in my annotated reading below. There are also some questions below included in journal #1. Journal #1 was about if we could ask David Foster Wallace questions in class, what they would be and also about the limits to a written discussion. Also below is my annotated reading and looking at the pictures, my marginal comments can be seen in ways I write notes to help me understand and easily look back at the paper and remember key points I might want to be able to use in my own work without having to reread the whole paper. The ability to complete this learning outcome is beneficial in my other courses as well outside English to help me read and understand texts.
Journal #1:
Questions for David Foster Wallace:
- During the essay, you show both sides of the argument and include personal accounts but never share your opinion on if it is ethical or not to boil lobsters alive. What is your opinion?
- Was the purpose of the essay just to get people to think about the problem of boiling lobsters alive or to show a controversial topic?
- What are other ways to cook lobster that would be more ethical?
- Towards the end of the essay you get into the other ethical problems with eating any type of meat. Do you yourself eat lobster or other meats brought up in the essay?
- When eating lobster or other meats do you think about the moral conflicts or ignore them like many other people?
- Do you think the experience of attending the Maine Lobster Festival had any impact on your opinion on this issue and your purpose in writing this essay?
When having a written discussion, there are many limits. As an author when writing, they must think of questions the audience may have and anticipate them by including them in their writing. Another limit to a written discussion is to consider all sides of the story. This gives the reader the chance to make their own conclusions and beliefs. This is shown in “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, Wallace explains the side that it is not ethical to boil live lobsters and the other side that they do not have the same nervous system therefore do not feel pain like humans do. In a written discussion, it is limited because only the author is speaking to the reader, unlike in a conversation when both sides can share their views and opinions. This doesn’t allow for a real discussion to occur to reach a decision or exchange ideas as the discussion would be if it was done in person. While written discussions have their purpose and real conversations cannot always occur, they have their limits.
