Soapstone: Film Version of Mark Zuckerberg Divides Generations

Felipe izquierdo
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/media/04carr.html?_r=1&hp

Speaker:
The speaker of this article is a writer for the New York Times undoubtedly one of
the words biggest and most famous new papers. Just by this article being published
is a given fact that its is credible and interesting. The writer David Carr is part of the
audience for the movie “the social network” and comments and replies to the price
of success, genius, and money.

Occasion:
Carr made this article in the eve of the movie “the social network” debuting to
comment on the great things everyone uses like Facebook. It’s his reaction and
opinion on how Facebook was invented, and how it will live on. The setting of
the movie was in the years on the massive Internet growth and as we use these
products day to day we knew nothing about the details of its creation of a personal
life basis of the people involved.

Audience:
The audience is the average human who is middle to upper class. Everyone who
uses technology and money benefit from this article. It directly connects with the
millions if not billions of Facebook users who need to know more of their “dollar
vote” in the economy.

Purpose:
The purpose is to explain the brilliance and morality behind big ideas. To show
that even though multimillion-dollar ideas like Facebook lack of moral surpass in
innovation and we must be careful in the economy with our choices and human
quality. He specifically states all the people he had to betray and disagree with to be
the millionaire Mark Zuckeberg is now.

Subject:
The subject of this article is to talk about how Facebook and Zuckeberg developed.
He wanted to explain all the dilemmas that money and success bring. The line that
needs to be crossed if you want to achieve is what we must all think about. The
author wonders and debates that if you want success there will always have to be
repercussions on a moral, physical, or financial way on someone

Tone:
The tone is quite passive; I consider it to be one of a peaceful debate of the price
of success. He continuously contradicts his ideas in an n argument of beading jerk
or baying “brilliant”. He argumentates both sides equally and is undetermined to
the balance of them. This is all just attached to his open conclusion that relies on its
audience to make a choice with his “arguments” as base.