Hamlet Oral Commentary (Death/Decay: IV.vii.190-217)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you explored Shakespeare's background (British playwright) as well the many versions of the play itself.
The work was mentioned within the movement of the revenge tragedy and also for its deviation from revenge tragedy.
More contextualization of the actual passage within the play would have been preferable to orient a listener of the commentary less familiar with the work.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organization pattern was modeled after a chronological order with associations between literary tools. It attempted to split the difference between the two possibilities and ended up being weaker for it. A purely chronological or literary tool patterned focus might have made the commentary easier to follow.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
You raise the question of the nature of madness. Which understanding is most supported by the passage?
You say Laertes feels more than he thinks: explore this idea more.
How is the reptition of “drowned” both clarifying and adding ambiguity?
-What did the speaker do well?
There was great, in-depth analysis of the characters. She really went deep into how each is and is portrayed. The passage is also well integrated within the text and its importance has been addressed thoroughly. You demonstrate that you understand the passage and can draw many inferences from it.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Explore each of your elements more deeply. Take positions, don’t just mention possibilities and large strings of qualifiers. You want to make a single argument supported by reasoning, rather than allowing all possibilities equal time. Maybe narrower and deeper rather than broader and shallower.
Use more varied diction – “interesting” in particular is overused, as well as qualifiers “found it”, “I believe” “may have”, “felt that”, “sort of”, “like”, etc.
Pick a single organizational structure; don't attempt to split the difference between two.
Slow down for important points, don’t speed up.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Thought they were present, more specific addressing of how elements of drama were used within the passage would have strengthened the commentary.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Score-
A. 4 - Great job, just take a position on the tragedy in Hamlet and integrate the passage more.
B. 8 - You hit all major and important points and used strong frames of analysis. Tying together your two or three frames more tightly was the only thing missing.
C. 6 - While your integration of quotations was great, I felt lost as I listened as to what you were trying to do as you were speaking. A clearer structure would make the listener aware of what you were trying to accomplish with each section.
D. 3 - I missed some words during the fast sections and thought your diction wasn't varied enough to merit a 4.
Peer-reviewed by: Zoe Kuenstler Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a really good job giving the listener background information on Shakespeare as well as an introduction to what the passage is about and how it fits into the context of the rest of the play. Although, your introduction was slightly on the long side and I felt like you added some information that wasn't necessarily needed for the context of this particular passage.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational principle your presented at the beginning of your commentary helped me to follow your train of thought within your commentary, however it was a very complex organizational patter and therefore at times it was hard to follow along. I think that a purely chronological organizational principle works best with these, and just discuss the various literary devices you see in the passage as you come along them in the passage.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
You pointed out a lot of the sexual language within the passage; why do you feel like Shakespeare used so much sexual language in this passage? What purpose do you feel it serves?
You also kept pointing out the question as to if Ophelia was really crazy, as in was this death a suicide or not? Did you find evidence in the text to support either claim, and which do you think it was-accidental or purposeful?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a phenomenal job of addressing the literary devices present in the passage, as well as the language and how it helped to characterize Ophelia. There were very few facets of the passage that you overlooked or ignored, and I was very impressed with how much information you were able to squeeze into 11 minutes. Overall, you presented a very good understanding of the passage and the characters within the passage that I personally made for an outstanding commentary.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
My biggest suggestion would be to slow down your speaking. I know that it's stressful when you're under a time constraint and have all this information that you want to say on top of the fact that you were probably nervous, but because you were talking so fast sometimes I lost some of what you were saying and would have to go back into the commentary to re-listen. Also, see above for my comment about your organizational principle and how you can improve upon that.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Elements of drama could be addressed a little bit more in depth. Besides that I honestly can't think of anything else you didn't address within the passage
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4-you had a great understanding of the passage
B: 7-you gave an impressive and very thorough analysis of the passage, however your own personal opinion of the passage failed to shine through.
C: 9-although your organizational structure was hard to follow at some times, you followed it perfectly and it made it very easy for the listener to follow along making for a very good overall presentation.
D: 4-use of language was not too varied and you spoke VERY fast. but you avoided "um" and "like" which was a plus!
Overall score:
24/30
Jaime-you did a great job! I'm very impressed, if you have any questions about anything I said please let me know :)
July's People Commentary (#51)
Peer-reviewed by: Sofie Seymour Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job addressing context within the book. I wish you had developed a bit more the context in which it was written, beyond saying the year and then jumping straight into Gordimer's views. From your commentary, if I were not already familiar with Gordimer and South Africa, I would not understand what apartheid was, whether Gordimer was white or black, or what the old/new cultures are that you talk about later in your commentary. Also, why is the criticism of white liberal culture particularly important (or not) to this passage? (since you say "among other things", you should maybe pick the ones that are most relevant, and mention why this is so). You pretty clearly stated the purpose for this passage (old is dying and the new cannot be born), which is definitely the obvious one to go with, although you maybe could explain right at the beginning what this quote means exactly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, definitely. Interestingly, although you stated you were going to go chronologically, you lumped it into more thematic sections, which I think was very effective. Perhaps you didn't even need to say chronologically, since I think the strength of your organizational pattern was the way it was divided into chunks, rather than the fact that it went in order. Beyond stating it though, very good job.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
-Do you think that the rain represents the old culture itself, or the means of change (something to figuratively 'wash away' the old culture)?
-What is the motif that you mentioned at the start that is seen throughout?
-Why do you think it is important to the passage that July and Maureen's relationship is further sexualized, and that Maureen can be seen to be a bad mother. How do these additional arguments support your point?
-What did the speaker do well?
-Very thorough analysis of the passage, which was great. I think treating it thematically (although you called it chronologically) was an excellent choice, and you definitely supported your arguments in the text.
-You didn't over-quote the passage or paraphrase too much, which was REALLY good (especially since you're tight on time anyway).
-You were pretty clear in connecting everything back to your purpose, although there were a couple of points that felt random, and maybe should be saved (in the actual presentation) for the "anything else that you see?" question.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
-In your conclusion, maybe tie it back to Gordimer. Although you summarized your argument again, it felt a little bit like you were just saying "ok, and so now my commentary is done" (although much more eloquently). Could you talk in the end, perhaps,about why you think she would WANT to show that the old is dying and the new cannot be born (aka, that she cannot create an image of a new South Africa).
-If possible, speak more slowly, but you spoke very clearly so this did not hurt my ability to understand what you were saying. However, if I had to grade it in one go, and not listen to things again, I think I might have missed some of your subtler points. You have a lot of points though, so if this is what you need to do to get through it then don't worry about it.
-Just be conscious of what you are saying so you don't make mistakes on stuff that you know (calling asyndenton, polysyndenton; calling it chronological order when it was thematic). This might actually be helped if you could speak a little slower.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You might want to address literary devices by name when possible, but I don't think this was a detriment to your commentary. I don't think that you missed anything major though.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3-Although you had an excellent understanding of context within the book, you might want to develop it a bit more in terms of when/by who it was written
B: 8-I think that this was a very strong analysis.
C:8 - only, because you said chronological instead of thematic, which then confused me (your listener) greatly. Honestly, if this hadn't happened, I would put this at a 9 for this category (you still had a place where you broke your theme, to talk about her role as a mother at the end).
D: 4- I think you succeeded in using a variety of grammatical structures and vocabulary, which made your presentation interesting to listen to, beyond just the content. It was a bit quick, but still possible to understand. I think using a few more literary terms by name, and correctly identifying those that you do talk about would bump you up to a 5 in this category.
Overall score:
23/30
ALI REVIEWED UR ORAL COMMENTARY!!!!!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I think that you addressed context very well. You presented good information about the book and Gordimer, as well as the passages context within the book. I like how you brought up the epithet in and focused it as your purpose in the beginning and continued to tie your arguments back to it.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You definitely had an organizational pattern. As I am sure you all ready know, you did say you would go through this passage chronologically even thought you ended up going thematically. I thought that going thematically allowed you to flush out the argument in a coherent fashion.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
-Did you see any other specific literary terms that you would like to point out?
-What does the comment on Maureen's inability to be the quintessential mother add to the argument about the old dying and the new never being born?
-Do you think that Maureen is intentionally looking for the light and allowing the old to die?
-What did the speaker do well?
You had a very in depth analysis of the passage. You were easy to understand and your points were very clear and concise. I thought the way you went through the passage and pointed out different themes and important pieces really helped make your commentary stronger. You also did not read to much of the text which allowed me to hear more of you ideas.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Although you were clear and easy to understand, you might want to try to slow down. Also, avoid colloquialisms and ums whenever you can. Maybe you could point out the names of more literary devices instead of just using negative connotation and imagery.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
LITERARY DEVICES :)
Hamlet Oral Commentary (Death/Decay: IV.vii.190-217)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you explored Shakespeare's background (British playwright) as well the many versions of the play itself.
The work was mentioned within the movement of the revenge tragedy and also for its deviation from revenge tragedy.
More contextualization of the actual passage within the play would have been preferable to orient a listener of the commentary less familiar with the work.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organization pattern was modeled after a chronological order with associations between literary tools. It attempted to split the difference between the two possibilities and ended up being weaker for it. A purely chronological or literary tool patterned focus might have made the commentary easier to follow.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
You raise the question of the nature of madness. Which understanding is most supported by the passage?
You say Laertes feels more than he thinks: explore this idea more.
How is the reptition of “drowned” both clarifying and adding ambiguity?
-What did the speaker do well?
There was great, in-depth analysis of the characters. She really went deep into how each is and is portrayed. The passage is also well integrated within the text and its importance has been addressed thoroughly. You demonstrate that you understand the passage and can draw many inferences from it.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Explore each of your elements more deeply. Take positions, don’t just mention possibilities and large strings of qualifiers. You want to make a single argument supported by reasoning, rather than allowing all possibilities equal time. Maybe narrower and deeper rather than broader and shallower.
Use more varied diction – “interesting” in particular is overused, as well as qualifiers “found it”, “I believe” “may have”, “felt that”, “sort of”, “like”, etc.
Pick a single organizational structure; don't attempt to split the difference between two.
Slow down for important points, don’t speed up.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Thought they were present, more specific addressing of how elements of drama were used within the passage would have strengthened the commentary.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Score-
A. 4 - Great job, just take a position on the tragedy in Hamlet and integrate the passage more.
B. 8 - You hit all major and important points and used strong frames of analysis. Tying together your two or three frames more tightly was the only thing missing.
C. 6 - While your integration of quotations was great, I felt lost as I listened as to what you were trying to do as you were speaking. A clearer structure would make the listener aware of what you were trying to accomplish with each section.
D. 3 - I missed some words during the fast sections and thought your diction wasn't varied enough to merit a 4.
Peer-reviewed by: Zoe Kuenstler
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a really good job giving the listener background information on Shakespeare as well as an introduction to what the passage is about and how it fits into the context of the rest of the play. Although, your introduction was slightly on the long side and I felt like you added some information that wasn't necessarily needed for the context of this particular passage.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational principle your presented at the beginning of your commentary helped me to follow your train of thought within your commentary, however it was a very complex organizational patter and therefore at times it was hard to follow along. I think that a purely chronological organizational principle works best with these, and just discuss the various literary devices you see in the passage as you come along them in the passage.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
You pointed out a lot of the sexual language within the passage; why do you feel like Shakespeare used so much sexual language in this passage? What purpose do you feel it serves?
You also kept pointing out the question as to if Ophelia was really crazy, as in was this death a suicide or not? Did you find evidence in the text to support either claim, and which do you think it was-accidental or purposeful?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a phenomenal job of addressing the literary devices present in the passage, as well as the language and how it helped to characterize Ophelia. There were very few facets of the passage that you overlooked or ignored, and I was very impressed with how much information you were able to squeeze into 11 minutes. Overall, you presented a very good understanding of the passage and the characters within the passage that I personally made for an outstanding commentary.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
My biggest suggestion would be to slow down your speaking. I know that it's stressful when you're under a time constraint and have all this information that you want to say on top of the fact that you were probably nervous, but because you were talking so fast sometimes I lost some of what you were saying and would have to go back into the commentary to re-listen. Also, see above for my comment about your organizational principle and how you can improve upon that.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Elements of drama could be addressed a little bit more in depth. Besides that I honestly can't think of anything else you didn't address within the passage
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4-you had a great understanding of the passage
B: 7-you gave an impressive and very thorough analysis of the passage, however your own personal opinion of the passage failed to shine through.
C: 9-although your organizational structure was hard to follow at some times, you followed it perfectly and it made it very easy for the listener to follow along making for a very good overall presentation.
D: 4-use of language was not too varied and you spoke VERY fast. but you avoided "um" and "like" which was a plus!
Overall score:
24/30
Jaime-you did a great job! I'm very impressed, if you have any questions about anything I said please let me know :)
July's People Commentary (#51)
Peer-reviewed by: Sofie Seymour
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job addressing context within the book. I wish you had developed a bit more the context in which it was written, beyond saying the year and then jumping straight into Gordimer's views. From your commentary, if I were not already familiar with Gordimer and South Africa, I would not understand what apartheid was, whether Gordimer was white or black, or what the old/new cultures are that you talk about later in your commentary. Also, why is the criticism of white liberal culture particularly important (or not) to this passage? (since you say "among other things", you should maybe pick the ones that are most relevant, and mention why this is so). You pretty clearly stated the purpose for this passage (old is dying and the new cannot be born), which is definitely the obvious one to go with, although you maybe could explain right at the beginning what this quote means exactly.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, definitely. Interestingly, although you stated you were going to go chronologically, you lumped it into more thematic sections, which I think was very effective. Perhaps you didn't even need to say chronologically, since I think the strength of your organizational pattern was the way it was divided into chunks, rather than the fact that it went in order. Beyond stating it though, very good job.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
-Do you think that the rain represents the old culture itself, or the means of change (something to figuratively 'wash away' the old culture)?
-What is the motif that you mentioned at the start that is seen throughout?
-Why do you think it is important to the passage that July and Maureen's relationship is further sexualized, and that Maureen can be seen to be a bad mother. How do these additional arguments support your point?
-What did the speaker do well?
-Very thorough analysis of the passage, which was great. I think treating it thematically (although you called it chronologically) was an excellent choice, and you definitely supported your arguments in the text.
-You didn't over-quote the passage or paraphrase too much, which was REALLY good (especially since you're tight on time anyway).
-You were pretty clear in connecting everything back to your purpose, although there were a couple of points that felt random, and maybe should be saved (in the actual presentation) for the "anything else that you see?" question.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
-In your conclusion, maybe tie it back to Gordimer. Although you summarized your argument again, it felt a little bit like you were just saying "ok, and so now my commentary is done" (although much more eloquently). Could you talk in the end, perhaps,about why you think she would WANT to show that the old is dying and the new cannot be born (aka, that she cannot create an image of a new South Africa).
-If possible, speak more slowly, but you spoke very clearly so this did not hurt my ability to understand what you were saying. However, if I had to grade it in one go, and not listen to things again, I think I might have missed some of your subtler points. You have a lot of points though, so if this is what you need to do to get through it then don't worry about it.
-Just be conscious of what you are saying so you don't make mistakes on stuff that you know (calling asyndenton, polysyndenton; calling it chronological order when it was thematic). This might actually be helped if you could speak a little slower.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You might want to address literary devices by name when possible, but I don't think this was a detriment to your commentary. I don't think that you missed anything major though.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 3-Although you had an excellent understanding of context within the book, you might want to develop it a bit more in terms of when/by who it was written
B: 8-I think that this was a very strong analysis.
C:8 - only, because you said chronological instead of thematic, which then confused me (your listener) greatly. Honestly, if this hadn't happened, I would put this at a 9 for this category (you still had a place where you broke your theme, to talk about her role as a mother at the end).
D: 4- I think you succeeded in using a variety of grammatical structures and vocabulary, which made your presentation interesting to listen to, beyond just the content. It was a bit quick, but still possible to understand. I think using a few more literary terms by name, and correctly identifying those that you do talk about would bump you up to a 5 in this category.
Overall score:
23/30
ALI REVIEWED UR ORAL COMMENTARY!!!!!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I think that you addressed context very well. You presented good information about the book and Gordimer, as well as the passages context within the book. I like how you brought up the epithet in and focused it as your purpose in the beginning and continued to tie your arguments back to it.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You definitely had an organizational pattern. As I am sure you all ready know, you did say you would go through this passage chronologically even thought you ended up going thematically. I thought that going thematically allowed you to flush out the argument in a coherent fashion.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
-Did you see any other specific literary terms that you would like to point out?
-What does the comment on Maureen's inability to be the quintessential mother add to the argument about the old dying and the new never being born?
-Do you think that Maureen is intentionally looking for the light and allowing the old to die?
-What did the speaker do well?
You had a very in depth analysis of the passage. You were easy to understand and your points were very clear and concise. I thought the way you went through the passage and pointed out different themes and important pieces really helped make your commentary stronger. You also did not read to much of the text which allowed me to hear more of you ideas.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Although you were clear and easy to understand, you might want to try to slow down. Also, avoid colloquialisms and ums whenever you can. Maybe you could point out the names of more literary devices instead of just using negative connotation and imagery.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
LITERARY DEVICES :)
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 5
B: 8
C:8
D: 4
Overall score:
25/30
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (passage #76)