WRD 110 – Reading Response

Almost immediately upon starting the assigned reading from Eating Animals, I found myself waiting for the inevitable payoff – the explosive thought bomb. It’s a common narrative device: begin with what seems like a non-sequitur, let the reader’s curiosity simmer, then deliver a sudden pivot meant to jolt the audience into a new frame of mind. The tactic worked. The opening tale circles around to a hard-hitting line – “If nothing matters, there’s nothing to save” – intended to anchor the reader emotionally. While I agree with the sentiment, I couldn’t help but feel it was also a pointed nudge – a soft coercion toward accepting the author’s moral authority.

That moral authority, while never overtly declared, is unmistakable: eating animals is wrong. Foer insists the work is not meant to convert or judge. Yet throughout the essay, the problems with eating meat are detailed with care, while the arguments in favor of it are barely addressed or brushed aside. What is presented as introspection often reads as confession. Foer’s tone is that of a man striving for an ideal he already accepts as correct – vegetarianism. His struggle is not about whether the ideal is valid, but about whether he can live up to it. What I find troubling is that the premise itself – that abstaining from animal consumption is morally superior – is never actually questioned. It is simply treated as a moral default, a virtue one must aspire to. This leaves little space for open dialogue.

Rather than challenge that ideal with personal narrative, I’ll instead lean into what matters most in effective communication: knowing your audience. Our class is diverse, and opinions about food – particularly ethical food choices – vary widely. Some students strongly support Foer’s conclusions. Others, myself included, are less convinced. This isn’t a simple discussion, and to unpack the full debate would go well beyond the scope of a single response. Instead, I would encourage a close and critical reading of the piece and invite you to consider the following:

• Did you find the work pragmatically informative, emotionally persuasive, or both?
• What types of evidence were offered to support the author’s point of view?
• If you were to communicate the same message, what changes – if any – would you make to improve its reception across a broader audience?

Thank you for taking the time to consider this response.