o'brien carmel_ rhe

8/7/2019 O'Brien Carmel_ RHE

1/8

OBrien1

Carmel OBrien

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

First-Year Composition

21 February 2011

The Social Network: Hit or a Miss?

The Social Network, a David Fincher story, was released in October of 2010. It is

a story of success, betrayal, friendship, and hardship. At the beginning we see a young

Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Einsenberg) dismissed by his girlfriend angry, dejected, and

intoxicated he proceeds to crash the Harvard network with his degrading website,

Facemash.com. Later after being approached by the Winklevoss twins, born into a

stereotypical upper class Caucasian family, Zukerberg gets his idea for an exclusive,

online social network. His initial reaction was partnering up with his roommate and best

friend, Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield), to create what would soon be

called, thefacebook.com. As the website grew more and more popular, their friendship

was pushed closer and closer to the breaking point. With the addition of Sean Parker,

founder of Napster (played by Justin Timberlake), the friendship between Saverin and

Zukerberg nearly came to a close, due to the fact Parker continued to upstage Saverin

(CFO). It wasnt until the site became international and Saverins share was cut to a near

.03 %, that the lawsuit between the friends ensued. Throughout the movie we watch the

litigation unwind and the story unfold.

With the release of this movie came much praise along with much controversy. It

has won many awards but has also received much criticism. In the first article, titled

Reaction to "Social Network Shaped by views on Facebook, we are struck with the


2/8

OBrien2

criticism the movie received. From the filming itself to the subject matter, John

Seidenberg, the author of the article, manages to put this movie in a poor light. John

Seidenberg is a well-known, professional writer and reporter famous for his work in the

Federal Employees News Digestand has been cited

in The New York Times. This article is found on a

website called Suite101.com. This is a site catered to

the informed reader from the insightful writer. The

goal of the article is to provide a concise review

while simultaneously averting people away from the

movie. This text is significant because it brings

attention to the controversies and flaws of the movie.

These are important for the audience to

understand.So they can create a clear and concise

claim on the movie.

On the other hand, in Ryan Flemings article The Social Network Review, the

movie is portrayed as, one of the best movies I have seen all year (Fleming).This article

was displayed on a site titled digitaltrend.com. This site is aimed towards people who

embrace the best of what technology has to offer. It provides everything you need to

know for a hi-tech lifestyle (i.e.one-of-a-kind reviews and consumer technology

products). The goal of this particular article is to highlight the best qualities of the movie.

In result, the readers of the article are persuaded to go see the movie.

In the case of Seidenberg vs. Fleming, both authors produce a very persuasive

article. By use of the rhetorical tools of ethos (how the author establishes credibility),

Figure 1


3/8

OBrien3

logos (the logic and reasoning), and pathos (emotion and human element), their

arguments are strengthened and, therefore, appeal to the audience as a whole. Although,

both arguments are very strong, one author is more effective. John Seidenbergs

Reaction to The Social Network Shaped by Views on Facebook succeeds at being

clearer and stronger. While Flemings use of pathos and ethos aid to his claims, his lack

of logos is detrimental to the effectiveness of his paper. On the other hand, Seidenbergs

concise argument maintains all of the three of Aristotles rhetorical tools: ethos, logos,

and pathos. Therefore, his argument gains superiority.

In Seidenbergs article, he maintains many of the qualities of a well-written

argument. His bevy of information, buttressed by the three tools of rhetoric, creates an

agreeable and effective review. One of Seidenbergs strongest tools is pathos, the appeal

to emotion. The most notable instance of pathos is seen when he reiterates an excerpt

form the San Francisco Chronicle, its portrait of Zuckerberg is a hatchet job of epic and

perhaps lasting proportionsImplicit in the tone is the idea that what is being created

here is of no benefit to humanity but that rather this is something useless, catering to dark

or at least trivial aspects of human nature, like narcissism and the desire to be cool

(Lasalle). With this quote, Seidenberg successfully achieves his objective of turning the

readers against the movie. Along with his claim this claim, he also informs the reader of

many other flaws. One for example is how many of the explanations in the plot fail to

square up to one another. The anachronistic view bestowed upon Harvard is seen as a

disadvantage for the antagonistic Zuckerberg. However, there seems to be an Indian in

the most elite finals club. His repeated negativity towards the portrait and the movie as a

whole, constantly re-establishes the main objective of his article.


4/8

OBrien4

In addition to the use of pathos, Seidenberg utilizes an ethos, an authors

credibility, to gain a competitive edge in the argument. In order to do this, he brings

attention to the counter arguments present in the subject matter. For example, Seidenberg

attests that regardless of the movie, some of the longstanding sentiments about

Facebook remain. Many praise it for connecting family and friends, providing links to job

leads or charity fundraising and other areas of interest or even in-person social

interaction. Meanwhile, still: some see it as facilitating a faade(Seidenberg).

Others believe it is a representation of societies loss of privacy. In other words, even

though the movie has many flaws and the plot is disagreeable, many people were not

discouraged from the actual product. In response, Seidenberg agrees with these

statements in a way that does not hurt his argument.

Lastly, Seidenbergs use of logos, the appeal to logic, is the key element that

separates him from Flemings article in a more effective way. Seidenberg, a well-known

professional writer, uses many statistics and outside sources (other than just his view on

the movie, like Fleming) to prove his point. He has quotes from newspapers and journals

commentating on Finchers portrayal of Zuckerberg, Commenting in the Washington

PostOctober 5, 2010 in Zuckerberg rightly focuses on his inside game, In addition,

West Point Cadet David Geib wrote: Mark Zuckerberg is a clear example of a leader

who is able to maintain a culture within a company that is not dependent on outside

perceptions.(Seidenberg). Furthermore, his evidence for his claims stems form the

various lawsuits and controversies that emerged with the release of the movie.

While analyzing Flemings perspective, it is seen that his argument is well-versed

in the pathos of rhetorical writing. Pathos, again, being the human element of persuasive


5/8

OBrien5

writing, is vital to a movie analysis. In this case, Fleming opens up his article with a plot

of the movie, The Social Network. In this summary, Fleming appeals to the reader by

feeding them an interesting plot line at the beginning. This attracts the readers and sets

them up for a review about a great movie. In addition, Fleming appeals to the readers by

using captions they can relate to. For example, Flemings second paragraph is subtitled,

I Like the Story. This type of Facebook referencing makes the reader feel

comfortable. Lastly, the language Fleming uses in his review is very uplifting and

exaggerated. His dialect leaves the reader felling excited bout the movie and very

agreeable towards Flemings point-of-view.

Along with pathos, The Social Network Review was written with a very strong

ethos. As stated above, ethos is the character of the article. It defines the way the author

continues to establish their credibility. In Flemings article, he establishes ethos by

continuing to express his awareness for counterarguments. For example, many assert that

the plot contains inaccuracies. Fleming reassureshis readers of this fact and states, There

are a few moments where the needs of the film outweigh the truth of the real story the

events depicted in the film are based on true events (even if they are slightly

fictionalized). Fleming responds to this counterargument by compensating the writers

of the movie. It is his belief that the embellishment of the story is understandable in

relation to the general message. Had Fleming not paid attention to and responded to the

counterarguments pressed against the movie, his assertion would lack credibility.

However, his ethos enhances the strength of his argument.

The combination of pathos and ethos, however, are not enough to create a truly

rhetorical effect. The logic and reasoning embodied in logos is essential to the


6/8

OBrien6

Aristotelian triad and to enhance a point. This is where Flemings article is lacking. With

all of the information he uses to support his claim, the evidence is faulty and there are no

quotes or sources for his statements. The text reads, I have long been a fan of [the

director] Fincher (Fleming) prior to explaining why the director should win an

Academy Award. This is an example of a logical fallacy. Just because Fleming admired

Fincher in the past for his movies, does not constitute whether The Social Network is

good enough for an Oscar. This could also be considered a hasty generalization. In

addition, Fleming does not have strong support for his claims. He does not have cited

sources or statistics to reinforce his claims. Lastly, his speech is very indefinite. For

example, Fleming states, There really are no flaws in the movie (Fleming). This

sentence depletes his reasoning, for it counter argues his claim. Flemings lack of

logos,results in a flawed argument between the two perspectives of the movie.

The Social Network has recently become a subject of controversy and much

heated dispute. Whether debating the inaccuracies of the plot line, criticizing the cast or

the misinterpretation of the motives behind the entrepreneurism of Facebook. This is very

similar to the lawsuits that Facebook itself is submerged in, regarding societys loss of

privacy and the influential change in the social experience as a whole. Seidenberg and

Fleming, two experts in writing and online reporting, have opposing viewpoints on the

matter. While the later is proclaiming that The Social Network is one of the greatest

movies of the year and, despite fictions in the true story, should be seen by all,

Seidenberg emphasizes the negative aspects of the movie. In a way, he is warning the

readers against the falsities and adverse qualities of the movie (even the filming).

Although both Seidenberg and Fleming exhibit pathos, ethos, and logos successfully,


7/8

OBrien7

Seidenbergs article reins supreme. His pathos is expressed through a fluid, consistent

negativity and his establishment of his credibility. His ethos, though threatened by the

counterarguments, remains strong and continues to support his key pieces of evidence.

Lastly, the logos is one of the most effective elements of his article. Seidenberg, unlike

Fleming, references many other prestigious newspapers and articles in his argument.

When all of these aspects are implemented together, the end result is very persuasive.

One can learn a great deal after analyzing and comparing the strategies of these two

writers.


8/8

OBrien8

Works Cited

Seidenberg, John. Reaction to the Social Network by Views on Facebook.

Suite101.com. 6 October 2010. Web. 3 February 2010.

Fleming, Ryan. The Social Network Review.Digitaltrends.com. 1 October 2010.

Web. 3 February 2010.

Lasalle, Mick.San Francisco Chronicle. 1 October 2010. Print.

o'brien carmel_ rhe

Documents