Midterm Commentary: Stalking (76)
III.ii 17-47--Theater
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Ali addressed the context through Shakepeare's background in theater in depth. Led nicely into her passage. Then goes into the context in the play in reference to the preceding passage and then her passage. However, the context overshadowed the purpose and therefore led me to get off track.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Speaker utilized the literary terms to go through the commentary but referencing specific lines or starting in different whole sections would have made it easier to follow (without looking at the passage directly).
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
To focus more on the purpose, what does this passage, and the literary terms signify to the play as a whole?
What did the speaker do well?
Ali was thoughtful with her word choice and spoke very clearly and slowly. She really utilized all the literary terms and their range of effects.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest for the speaker to use more transitional or indicating words to be able to indicate to the listener the point of topic when losing their spot.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
A continuous reference to the purpose through the literary terms could help tie the passage together overall.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 5/5
B- 8/10
C- 8/10
D- 4/5
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
The authorial context and context within the play were both addressed. But to a degree the context overshadowed the purpose of the passage, which was a bit rushed.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Lacked a clear organizational principle, could have been helped by clearly detailing it at the outset.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why do you think Shakespeare included this within the plot of Hamlet?
Are Hamlet’s actions uncharacteristic when the passage compared to the rest of the play?
How does this passage progress the plot of the play?
-What did the speaker do well?
Great use of high level lit terms. Clear diction and cadence in speech, if a bit slow.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Link together your commentary more strongly. Transitions should be strengthened. A clear organizational principle outlined at the beginning would probably be helpful.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Linking the lit terms back to the overarching argument in a clear framework was the only thing I noticed missing.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A – 4
B – 6
C – 6
D – 5
Alex Mechanick
#52
Jaime Toplin reviewed your commentary!! :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You defintely addressed both context and purpose very nicely. You did a great job at the beginning both discussing Gordimer and her beliefs as well as the context of passage within the text. Your knowledge of the overall book was impressive, especially leading up to the scene. The only thing you could have improved upon was a discussion of what happened after the scene and how this power sift came to fruition. In discussing purpose, the only thing I can suggest is to specifically state "the overall purpose is..." I knew what you were getting at because I was familiar with the book, but a moderator might not be. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You went chronologically, which I think was a good choice. Although you do need to tie back to the beginning of the passage at the end, I feel like this passage is entirely a progression and therefore needs to be organized chronologically and not thematically. Nice job :) -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Do you think in any way this passage reflects the epithet at the start of the text (the old is dying but the new cannot be born?) How? How do you see Gordimer's own anti-Apartheid views that you mentioned in discussing context reflected in this passage? Is this consistent with the rest of the text? -What did the speaker do well? Ali, you did A LOT really well. You mentioned a ton of specific lit terms and how Gordimer used them. I also really liked your mention of leit motif since it's so important to the understanding of this text, and I liked that you defined it since it's a less common lit term and described what it achieved in the overall book. I also liked that you mentioned the major motifs discussed in this passage (bakkie, master bedroom). You could have talked a little more about what they achieve throughout the text and how their use here is consistent, but nice job. I also loved how you talked about the use of architect; I thought that was a really unique point that aided your argument really well. The same goes for the discussion of "left behind," and how the white society was crumbling in this new place. You also did a good job of addressing the Maureen/July understanding juxtaposition an what it achieved, and mentioning the sexual connotation throughout the passage. I thought you addressed the major points really well and introduced some original ideas. -What would you suggest for improvement? The most major place you could improve is in your use of language. You quoted very often, particularly when you seemed to get lost/distracted, and that added a lot of time to your commentary that could be chopped off. Also, at times, you seemed to lose your place and get lost. Your pauses detracted a little bit from the overall understanding of your commentary and I got lost with you. You also left out a few names of lit terms, which isnt' a big deal .To get really nit-picky, several things you said (like connotated) were not words, but that's not a huge deal. Overall, nice job; you just need to watch explaining your points. At times, your structure was confusing, particularly when you named a bunch of ideas and ab unhc of lit terms, and then just addressed them all again one by one--another way you could save time would be by combining those. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)? You addressed pretty much everything. You could have talked abotu some more points of view and the how the language barrier affected the situation, but other than that, you did a really nice job. The only thing you could have done more of would be to talk about Gordimer's consistency throughout the text--you touched on that but could have gone into more detail. -What would you score them based on the rubric? A: 4 (great understanding of what happened in the text and what Gordimer's ideas were, you just could have addressed her ideas a bit more) B: 9 (I thought you missed very few minor points, overall amazing job) C: 7 (your organizational principle was great, I just got lost with the way you laid out big ideas at times) D: 3 (pauses and "ums" were a little detracting and you quoted a lot. You did speak slowly though--impressive!)
22/30. Really good job Ali! If you have any questions, feel free to ask :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Context was quite through and sufficient Purpose was
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The commentary went in chronological order, which worked well, though I should remind you that Miss O. says to be careful when deciding to go in chronological order because it CAN be seen as simple
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What would be lost from the novel if this passage were to be removed?
-What did the speaker do well? Was focused and organized, went into detail without much hesitation
-What would you suggest for improvement? Occasionally your sentences become too simple and you sort of drift off. Also, as said earlier, be careful when going in chronological order, though it was implemented well here
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) None
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5. You sound like you know this passage quite well Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10. This was done quite well. Presentation: 8/10 While focused and developed, sometimes your sentences get jumbled up Use of Language: 4/5 Some minor errors, but overall you spoke well. Total: 26/30
III.ii 17-47--Theater
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Ali addressed the context through Shakepeare's background in theater in depth. Led nicely into her passage. Then goes into the context in the play in reference to the preceding passage and then her passage. However, the context overshadowed the purpose and therefore led me to get off track.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Speaker utilized the literary terms to go through the commentary but referencing specific lines or starting in different whole sections would have made it easier to follow (without looking at the passage directly).
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
To focus more on the purpose, what does this passage, and the literary terms signify to the play as a whole?
What did the speaker do well?
Ali was thoughtful with her word choice and spoke very clearly and slowly. She really utilized all the literary terms and their range of effects.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest for the speaker to use more transitional or indicating words to be able to indicate to the listener the point of topic when losing their spot.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
A continuous reference to the purpose through the literary terms could help tie the passage together overall.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 5/5
B- 8/10
C- 8/10
D- 4/5
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
The authorial context and context within the play were both addressed. But to a degree the context overshadowed the purpose of the passage, which was a bit rushed.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Lacked a clear organizational principle, could have been helped by clearly detailing it at the outset.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why do you think Shakespeare included this within the plot of Hamlet?
Are Hamlet’s actions uncharacteristic when the passage compared to the rest of the play?
How does this passage progress the plot of the play?
-What did the speaker do well?
Great use of high level lit terms. Clear diction and cadence in speech, if a bit slow.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Link together your commentary more strongly. Transitions should be strengthened. A clear organizational principle outlined at the beginning would probably be helpful.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Linking the lit terms back to the overarching argument in a clear framework was the only thing I noticed missing.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A – 4
B – 6
C – 6
D – 5
Alex Mechanick
#52
Jaime Toplin reviewed your commentary!! :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You defintely addressed both context and purpose very nicely. You did a great job at the beginning both discussing Gordimer and her beliefs as well as the context of passage within the text. Your knowledge of the overall book was impressive, especially leading up to the scene. The only thing you could have improved upon was a discussion of what happened after the scene and how this power sift came to fruition. In discussing purpose, the only thing I can suggest is to specifically state "the overall purpose is..." I knew what you were getting at because I was familiar with the book, but a moderator might not be.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You went chronologically, which I think was a good choice. Although you do need to tie back to the beginning of the passage at the end, I feel like this passage is entirely a progression and therefore needs to be organized chronologically and not thematically. Nice job :)
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Do you think in any way this passage reflects the epithet at the start of the text (the old is dying but the new cannot be born?) How?
How do you see Gordimer's own anti-Apartheid views that you mentioned in discussing context reflected in this passage?
Is this consistent with the rest of the text?
-What did the speaker do well?
Ali, you did A LOT really well. You mentioned a ton of specific lit terms and how Gordimer used them. I also really liked your mention of leit motif since it's so important to the understanding of this text, and I liked that you defined it since it's a less common lit term and described what it achieved in the overall book. I also liked that you mentioned the major motifs discussed in this passage (bakkie, master bedroom). You could have talked a little more about what they achieve throughout the text and how their use here is consistent, but nice job. I also loved how you talked about the use of architect; I thought that was a really unique point that aided your argument really well. The same goes for the discussion of "left behind," and how the white society was crumbling in this new place. You also did a good job of addressing the Maureen/July understanding juxtaposition an what it achieved, and mentioning the sexual connotation throughout the passage. I thought you addressed the major points really well and introduced some original ideas.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
The most major place you could improve is in your use of language. You quoted very often, particularly when you seemed to get lost/distracted, and that added a lot of time to your commentary that could be chopped off. Also, at times, you seemed to lose your place and get lost. Your pauses detracted a little bit from the overall understanding of your commentary and I got lost with you. You also left out a few names of lit terms, which isnt' a big deal .To get really nit-picky, several things you said (like connotated) were not words, but that's not a huge deal. Overall, nice job; you just need to watch explaining your points. At times, your structure was confusing, particularly when you named a bunch of ideas and ab unhc of lit terms, and then just addressed them all again one by one--another way you could save time would be by combining those.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
You addressed pretty much everything. You could have talked abotu some more points of view and the how the language barrier affected the situation, but other than that, you did a really nice job. The only thing you could have done more of would be to talk about Gordimer's consistency throughout the text--you touched on that but could have gone into more detail.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 (great understanding of what happened in the text and what Gordimer's ideas were, you just could have addressed her ideas a bit more)
B: 9 (I thought you missed very few minor points, overall amazing job)
C: 7 (your organizational principle was great, I just got lost with the way you laid out big ideas at times)
D: 3 (pauses and "ums" were a little detracting and you quoted a lot. You did speak slowly though--impressive!)
22/30. Really good job Ali! If you have any questions, feel free to ask :)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was quite through and sufficient
Purpose was
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The commentary went in chronological order, which worked well, though I should remind you that Miss O. says to be careful when deciding to go in chronological order because it CAN be seen as simple
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What would be lost from the novel if this passage were to be removed?
-What did the speaker do well?
Was focused and organized, went into detail without much hesitation
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Occasionally your sentences become too simple and you sort of drift off. Also, as said earlier, be careful when going in chronological order, though it was implemented well here
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
None
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Knowledge and Understanding: 5/5. You sound like you know this passage quite well
Interpretation and Personal Response: 9/10. This was done quite well.
Presentation: 8/10 While focused and developed, sometimes your sentences get jumbled up
Use of Language: 4/5 Some minor errors, but overall you spoke well.
Total: 26/30
Sincerely,
Tony Muhplaah
Aka Ben Wax