-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Great job with the context, very well chosen. However one key thing that I was hoping you'd address but never did is the overall meaning of the passage. You did hint at it as possibly a characterization of Claudius? But without a general purpose it's like making a fancy list for an argument you don't have. Once again though I loved how you addressed the context in both the beginning and the end. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? I really did love how you organized your commentary, it just made sense to look at each literary term and address it chronologically throughout the passage since you picked them out so well. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What was the overall meaning of the passage and the purpose? Do we see this as something typical of Claudius or atypical? Why do you think that Shakespeare chose to create this soliloquy inside a soliloquy? Do you think that Claudius' repenting is genuine and truthful or rather a facade for himself? ...or maybe a Shakespearean twist! (not really) -What did the speaker do well?
Fantastic job picking out all of the literary terms and devices. I also, don't correct me if I'm wrong, was impressed as it sounded like you did this all in one take, I couldn't do that and I was really shooting for it. You had great flow and intonation, It wasn't too fast or slow and I could imagine the passage and the things that you were addressing without my own passage in front of me. -What would you suggest for improvement?
I thought that the last 30 seconds of your commentary were unnecessary and I was confused as to why it was there. I thought that you had a great conclusion and that those last thirty seconds almost ended up hurting you. If I took that extra time as your conclusion it left me with a feeling that you were unfinished and I was expecting more except that I knew you had a solid conclusion 30 seconds before. No worries I did this for probably longer than 30 seconds, a lot longer. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
As I mentioned before you left out the general purpose but don't worry, It's a real easy fix. -What would you score them based on the rubric? A - 4 B - 6 (the purpose!) C - 7 D - 3
Total: 20/30
Sweet job
Also Reviewed by Carlos Sisniega -Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I think that you addressed context very well, in that you talked about the fact that it is a soliloquy within a soliloquy and directly addressed the context and why it mattered. However, I definitely agree with the above comments in that you need to be more explicit as to why Shakespeare would do what he does within the passage. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I tend to want to agree with the person above in terms of your organizational principle, as I liked the way in which you systematically addressed points in the passage in an easy to follow way, and I like how you specifically talk about the fact that you will be addressing the literary terms in a linear way as you continue to -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why did Shakespeare choose to address Claudius’ troubles within a religious setting?
Do you think that any of this reflects on the overall corruption of the Danish court? -What did the speaker do well?
You spoke extremely clearly and it was very easy to understand your progression. There were also very few “ums” and “uhhs”, and the commentary generally flowed well in terms of how you spoke. I was also very fond of your organizational pattern, as I liked the way in which you addressed each literary technique in a chronological way, as it blended thematic and chronological organization in a way that I might imitate for my own oral commentary. J -What would you suggest for improvement?
I feel as though your analysis of words could have been stronger if you had associated them to a specific type of diction, in terms of them being specific, concrete, and such. You start doing it after a while, talking about the connotations of certain words, but I would like to see it used more consistently. Additionally, I would have liked to have seen the main literary techniques that you were going to be addressing in your thesis, as that would have given the reader an even better idea of the organization coming into your analysis of the passage. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Agreeing with the above critique, the only real thing that I thought you missed was a purpose in terms of why Shakespeare wrote what he wrote. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4
B- 7
C- 8
D- 4
Total: 23/30
Nice Job!
July's People Commentary:
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Great job with the context, very well chosen. However one key thing that I was hoping you'd address but never did is the overall meaning of the passage. You did hint at it as possibly a characterization of Claudius? But without a general purpose it's like making a fancy list for an argument you don't have. Once again though I loved how you addressed the context in both the beginning and the end.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I really did love how you organized your commentary, it just made sense to look at each literary term and address it chronologically throughout the passage since you picked them out so well.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What was the overall meaning of the passage and the purpose? Do we see this as something typical of Claudius or atypical? Why do you think that Shakespeare chose to create this soliloquy inside a soliloquy? Do you think that Claudius' repenting is genuine and truthful or rather a facade for himself? ...or maybe a Shakespearean twist! (not really)
-What did the speaker do well?
Fantastic job picking out all of the literary terms and devices. I also, don't correct me if I'm wrong, was impressed as it sounded like you did this all in one take, I couldn't do that and I was really shooting for it. You had great flow and intonation, It wasn't too fast or slow and I could imagine the passage and the things that you were addressing without my own passage in front of me.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I thought that the last 30 seconds of your commentary were unnecessary and I was confused as to why it was there. I thought that you had a great conclusion and that those last thirty seconds almost ended up hurting you. If I took that extra time as your conclusion it left me with a feeling that you were unfinished and I was expecting more except that I knew you had a solid conclusion 30 seconds before. No worries I did this for probably longer than 30 seconds, a lot longer.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
As I mentioned before you left out the general purpose but don't worry, It's a real easy fix.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 4
B - 6 (the purpose!)
C - 7
D - 3
Total: 20/30
Sweet job
Also Reviewed by Carlos Sisniega
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I think that you addressed context very well, in that you talked about the fact that it is a soliloquy within a soliloquy and directly addressed the context and why it mattered. However, I definitely agree with the above comments in that you need to be more explicit as to why Shakespeare would do what he does within the passage.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I tend to want to agree with the person above in terms of your organizational principle, as I liked the way in which you systematically addressed points in the passage in an easy to follow way, and I like how you specifically talk about the fact that you will be addressing the literary terms in a linear way as you continue to
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why did Shakespeare choose to address Claudius’ troubles within a religious setting?
Do you think that any of this reflects on the overall corruption of the Danish court?
-What did the speaker do well?
You spoke extremely clearly and it was very easy to understand your progression. There were also very few “ums” and “uhhs”, and the commentary generally flowed well in terms of how you spoke. I was also very fond of your organizational pattern, as I liked the way in which you addressed each literary technique in a chronological way, as it blended thematic and chronological organization in a way that I might imitate for my own oral commentary. J
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I feel as though your analysis of words could have been stronger if you had associated them to a specific type of diction, in terms of them being specific, concrete, and such. You start doing it after a while, talking about the connotations of certain words, but I would like to see it used more consistently. Additionally, I would have liked to have seen the main literary techniques that you were going to be addressing in your thesis, as that would have given the reader an even better idea of the organization coming into your analysis of the passage.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Agreeing with the above critique, the only real thing that I thought you missed was a purpose in terms of why Shakespeare wrote what he wrote.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4
B- 7
C- 8
D- 4
Total: 23/30
Nice Job!