Yes, Connor stated that during this passage, Hamlet is planning to kill Claudius for the first time and it is Hamlet’s stream of consciousness right after Cladius’ stream of consciousness—they are both having internal struggles.
Connor also mentions Hamlet’s inability to act, seen through the character triangle. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, Connor said explicitly that he was going to comment on the passage in a chronologically
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
-You mention the character triangle—does Fortinbras’ place on the triangle play a larger role in contrasting Hamlet’s inability to act than Laertes’ place on the triangle does?
-Did you see anything important in the fact that Hamlet mentions his mother in the end of the passage?
-You say that Hamlet’s cerebral qualities are typical of Hamlet’s character. What are some other situations where Hamlet presents an inability to act?
What did the speaker do well?
Connor mentions the rhyming couplet (a key literary feature in the passage) and also ties what he is talking about back into his argument that Hamlet's tragic flaw is his inability to act very nicely throughout his commentary.
What would you suggest for improvement?
-To make his commentary better, Connor should state a stronger ‘why’ in the beginning of his commentary.
-Also, don’t mention literary terms JUST to mention literary terms—they should have more of a purpose in the passage and should contribute to Connor’s overall ‘why.’
-When Connor mentions religious imagery, he should point out the exact lines that he is referring to.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
-Connor may want to mention more specific literary terms, especially in the beginning when he mentions the reputation of the words ‘now’ as well as ‘and.’
-There is important sleep imagery towards the end of the passage—“When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed.”
--Sleeping and the bed become very violent here
-Connor may want to mention some of the show that Hamlet put on to catch Cladius’ reaction and the fact that is happened not long before this passage and that this is why Cladius was in confession.
What would you score them based on the rubric? A- 4/5 B- 6/10 C- 7/10 D- 4/5
Catherine also edited your oral commentary!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, he fully addressed the context and mentioned the negative impacts the story would be faced with if the passage were removed.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, Connor noted that he will organize it linearly, and followed through on this.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How do you think the fact that it is a soliloquy played an important role in the passage? How does Hamlet's mindset in this soliloquy differ from his in other soliloquies? Why might it? Why do you think he references his mother in working logically through his problem at the end?
What did the speaker do well? Connor spoke very clearly, making it easier for the listener to understand where Connor is going on his points. He addressed the religious aspect of the passage and Shakespeare's audience, which enhanced his point and brought it into historical context.
What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest addressing the major lit terms he would be covering to make his thesis and commentary more focused. Much of it seemed like a translation of lines while pointing out every lit term, relating to the thesis and not. Again, just try to focus it more in the beginning, and that should help.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Sometimes he would mention a juxtaposition, for instance, but not follow through with why that is important to the passage. (ex. juxtaposition of "black" and "heaven") He also forgot to mention the importance of it being a play, and how that factors into the passage.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 5 B: 6^ C: 7 D: 4
ORAL COMMENTARY TWO YEAAAAAAHHHH - July's People Can't upload file size too big, gonna keep trying
Carlos is editing your commentary!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, the speaker addressed context, and did so well in terms of placing the book in a certain era, but could have elaborated more on the passage's position in terms of plot development. As for purpose, the speaker addressed the importance of the passage within the book and mentioned what it would have been like without the passage, but failed to mention the overall purpose outside the context of the book (e.g. Social Commentary) -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? At first, there seemed to be a clear thematic organizational pattern- although this was not explicitly stated- although, as the passage continued, it shifted back and forth between chronological organization and thematic organization, which confused me and made me doubt that there was a clear organizational pattern. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Why is it important that the passage ends in a telegraphic sentence? How is Gordimer's use of punctuation important? What does this say about Gordimer's own views? -What did the speaker do well? What the speaker did well was isolate parts of the passage that addressed different themes within the book- water, running, animals- as well as provided a good purpose and context in reference to the book itself. -What would you suggest for improvement? Although he did this at first, I would suggest following up on a clear thematic organizational pattern as well as never forgetting to address specific lit terms. I would also develop the purpose of the passage and the book a little bit further. Additionally, I would attempt to not pause as much as in this commentary, especially towards the end, as in the actual oral commentary one is not allowed to stop the recording at any time. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Even though he mentioned it, he forgot to address the importance of punctuation and the last sentence in the passage and what it did specifically in terms of the book. Additionally, towards the end of the passage he forgot to address specific lit terms the way he was doing earlier on in the passage. -What would you score them based on the rubric? A-3/5 B-6/10 C-5/10 D-3/5 Total: 17/30
Drew edited your oral commentary!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, Connor stated that during this passage, Hamlet is planning to kill Claudius for the first time and it is Hamlet’s stream of consciousness right after Cladius’ stream of consciousness—they are both having internal struggles.
Connor also mentions Hamlet’s inability to act, seen through the character triangle. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, Connor said explicitly that he was going to comment on the passage in a chronologically
What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
-You mention the character triangle—does Fortinbras’ place on the triangle play a larger role in contrasting Hamlet’s inability to act than Laertes’ place on the triangle does?
-Did you see anything important in the fact that Hamlet mentions his mother in the end of the passage?
-You say that Hamlet’s cerebral qualities are typical of Hamlet’s character. What are some other situations where Hamlet presents an inability to act?
What did the speaker do well?
Connor mentions the rhyming couplet (a key literary feature in the passage) and also ties what he is talking about back into his argument that Hamlet's tragic flaw is his inability to act very nicely throughout his commentary.
What would you suggest for improvement?
-To make his commentary better, Connor should state a stronger ‘why’ in the beginning of his commentary.
-Also, don’t mention literary terms JUST to mention literary terms—they should have more of a purpose in the passage and should contribute to Connor’s overall ‘why.’
-When Connor mentions religious imagery, he should point out the exact lines that he is referring to.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
-Connor may want to mention more specific literary terms, especially in the beginning when he mentions the reputation of the words ‘now’ as well as ‘and.’
-There is important sleep imagery towards the end of the passage—“When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed.”
--Sleeping and the bed become very violent here
-Connor may want to mention some of the show that Hamlet put on to catch Cladius’ reaction and the fact that is happened not long before this passage and that this is why Cladius was in confession.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4/5
B- 6/10
C- 7/10
D- 4/5
Catherine also edited your oral commentary!
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, he fully addressed the context and mentioned the negative impacts the story would be faced with if the passage were removed.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, Connor noted that he will organize it linearly, and followed through on this.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How do you think the fact that it is a soliloquy played an important role in the passage?
How does Hamlet's mindset in this soliloquy differ from his in other soliloquies? Why might it?
Why do you think he references his mother in working logically through his problem at the end?
What did the speaker do well?
Connor spoke very clearly, making it easier for the listener to understand where Connor is going on his points.
He addressed the religious aspect of the passage and Shakespeare's audience, which enhanced his point and brought it into historical context.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest addressing the major lit terms he would be covering to make his thesis and commentary more focused.
Much of it seemed like a translation of lines while pointing out every lit term, relating to the thesis and not. Again, just try to focus it more in the beginning, and that should help.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Sometimes he would mention a juxtaposition, for instance, but not follow through with why that is important to the passage. (ex. juxtaposition of "black" and "heaven")
He also forgot to mention the importance of it being a play, and how that factors into the passage.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 5
B: 6^
C: 7
D: 4
ORAL COMMENTARY TWO YEAAAAAAHHHH - July's People
Can't upload file size too big, gonna keep trying
Carlos is editing your commentary!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, the speaker addressed context, and did so well in terms of placing the book in a certain era, but could have elaborated more on the passage's position in terms of plot development. As for purpose, the speaker addressed the importance of the passage within the book and mentioned what it would have been like without the passage, but failed to mention the overall purpose outside the context of the book (e.g. Social Commentary)
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
At first, there seemed to be a clear thematic organizational pattern- although this was not explicitly stated- although, as the passage continued, it shifted back and forth between chronological organization and thematic organization, which confused me and made me doubt that there was a clear organizational pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why is it important that the passage ends in a telegraphic sentence?
How is Gordimer's use of punctuation important?
What does this say about Gordimer's own views?
-What did the speaker do well?
What the speaker did well was isolate parts of the passage that addressed different themes within the book- water, running, animals- as well as provided a good purpose and context in reference to the book itself.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Although he did this at first, I would suggest following up on a clear thematic organizational pattern as well as never forgetting to address specific lit terms. I would also develop the purpose of the passage and the book a little bit further. Additionally, I would attempt to not pause as much as in this commentary, especially towards the end, as in the actual oral commentary one is not allowed to stop the recording at any time.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Even though he mentioned it, he forgot to address the importance of punctuation and the last sentence in the passage and what it did specifically in terms of the book. Additionally, towards the end of the passage he forgot to address specific lit terms the way he was doing earlier on in the passage.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-3/5
B-6/10
C-5/10
D-3/5
Total: 17/30
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Commentary!