The context presented is good. You did a good job addressing how this passage relates to the story on a larger scale. You talked about what happened before this passage and how it relates to the Soliloquy. You also did a good job talking about the important of the soliloquies in the play. You did miss talking about the revenge tragedy archetype and how Hamlet pokes fun at it.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You organized your passage in chronological order to highlight the character shift, good idea. Your first major idea is using the passage to high Hamlet’s cerebral qualities, later stating that Hamlet switches towards the end of the passage. You start with a quote and showing the alliteration and assonance – highlighting his rage and frustration, as well as it placement in the passage. Second quote is a telegraphic sentence that show his frustration. Third quote shows putting the blame on the ghost; Hamlet still does not trust him. Hamlet points out his tragic flaw of being too cerebral, he knows he possesses this trait. The fourth quote extends and shows Hamlet trying to get his thoughts together, moving to more developed thoughts. The general outline of your commentary is showing Hamlets character shift going from being angry, to being confused and blaming, to more developed thinking. This is a good order to support you claim of character shift and why you chose to make it chronological.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification
I would ask: Is this typical of the revenge tragedy archetype? You don’t mention this, so to show complete understanding of this passage, this needs to be covered. Is there anywhere else in the book where he is overly cerebral? Any other character shifts? You did a good job talking about his character shift here, but give examples of where this is present throughout the text or an example of where this soliloquy changing his thinking.
-What did the speaker do well?
You had a good outline of attacking the passage – pointed out important literary terms and showed quotes that supported your ideas. You presented your ideas well in the passage – I like the order you went in, it was easy to follow and spoke your strategy of outline. You also expressed good understanding of this passage with reference to the rest of the book – talking about what happens before and after, as well as the soliloquies.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you should take some more time before to organize your ideas, as there where all there, but sometimes you were pausing to get them out. Also be sure to address the revenge tragedy archetype, this is a crucial component of understanding this passage. Lastly, just work on intrepeting. All your ideas were good and accurate, but none really jumped out or strayed away from thinking in class.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
It was great! Just address the revenge tragedy archetype.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4 – good understanding, just left out archetype.
B-7- You had a good interpretation, strong ideas, just need to work out getting them across better.
C-6 – You did a nice job organizing. It flowed with you main argument of character shift. I would just supstaniate it better during your commentary, sometimes the quotes would interject instead and support. Overall nice pattern.
D-4- You had good language and you spoken well. You had some pauses when trying to get thoughts out and some use of informal language.
21/30
You Rock Drew! You Just Rock!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? I thought that the context was addressed for the preceding part of the passage, if you can next time however try to address the context as it pertains to the latter part of the text. I also agree with Elliot in that how this passage fits in with the tragic hero archetype. Also, the importance of the passage was addressed but it was only pertaining to the fact that it is a soliloquy, try to explain how the exact passage you are doing is important and if it were to be removed from the overall text, what would we lose as the reader. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I liked the way that you approached the passage and think that it logically makes sense. But explain your rationale behind why you wanted to organize in that specific manner. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What does this passage contribute to the play as a whole? If the passage were no part of the play what would we be missing from the play that it is gone?
-What did the speaker do well?
I was very impressed that you were able to do your whole commentary in one take. It was also very clear and understandable what you were trying to say, a mistake alot of people make. You didn't speak too fast or too slow. -What would you suggest for improvement? I would agree with Elliot, all of the ideas that you wanted to get across were stated, but they didn't have a feel to me that they were connected to each other or connected to the main point you were trying to make. I know you stated your main point a couple of times so it's not that you didn't have one, but your supporting argument for that point was seemingly separate.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) I would have tried to find some elements of drama within the text and what the reactions for the actual audience given this is a play would be at different points within your passage. Also of course the revenge tragedy archetype
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A -3 B -6 C -6 D -4
Total: 19/30
Catherine reviewed your commentary!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, she provided context within the book and passage. The purpose was was explicitly stated as Maureen demonstrating her power.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, she went chronologically.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What do you think is the main reason for this shift in power between Maureen and Bam?
Why do you think Bam felt so intimidated by Maureen's shift?
What instigated this shift for Maureen? Why did it influence her so much? How is that displayed in the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
You're very clear and your pace is appropriate and easy to understand! You tie it all together well in the end.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Sometimes you quote a line and just re-explain what it means, so just make sure you have intention and purpose in all of your points. You don't do it too often though, just something to look for!
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
A little dialogue that pertained to the passage, such as Bam saying "Oh my god" at Maureen could have been used to bolster your argument. Also, at the end it might have helped a bit to elaborate on the father's neck comment (why her father? etc.). You seemed to cover most things well, though!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-5
B-8
C-8
D-4
Peer Review by Emily Brody-Bizar -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You do a fantastic job addressing the context and purpose of the passage. Great job covering the plot of the book and the back story of the characters so clearly and concisely in such a short time. You could give a little bit of background information on Gordimer, and where July's People fits within the context of her work, though. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You went through the passage chronologically, but there are a few themes that you mention that you could definitely use to separate the passage into chunks. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What does Maureen's bluntness with Bam demonstrate? How do the ideas/themes that you mention fit within the greater context of the book? -What did the speaker do well? Your pacing was great-this was really easy to listen to and to follow. Your closing ideas were also really interesting and ended the commentary in a nice way. -What would you suggest for improvement? I would try to organize the commentary by theme, that way you are both more explicit with your themes and can focus more on literary features. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You addressed lit terms and themes, but there are more lit terms that you could have addressed. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4 B-7 C-7 D-4 Nice job Drew
EVALUATION BY ELLIOT LEVY
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you talked about the general outline of the story. You did a nice job talking about background information. One thing I would add would be to talk about what happens immediately after. You did mention the overall purpose of the passage, but I would mention it sooner.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
She used a chronological organization pattern
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Can you provide some direct context for this passage?
Did you see any purpose than a power shift?
What do you make of Maurine’s new masculinity?
-What did the speaker do well?
Yes you spoke clearly, formally, and convincingly.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I might divide the passage up into your three supporting examples of your purpose. This way you can draw upon all quotes that pertain to a specific argument. This makes you commentary stronger as you are jumping around as much.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I would talk about Maurine’s character shift more (towards a more masculine character). I know this wasn’t directly your main purpose, but I think you could relate it to your argument to strengthen it.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-5
B-7
C-7
D-4
Evaluation by Elliot Levy
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
The context presented is good. You did a good job addressing how this passage relates to the story on a larger scale. You talked about what happened before this passage and how it relates to the Soliloquy. You also did a good job talking about the important of the soliloquies in the play. You did miss talking about the revenge tragedy archetype and how Hamlet pokes fun at it.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You organized your passage in chronological order to highlight the character shift, good idea. Your first major idea is using the passage to high Hamlet’s cerebral qualities, later stating that Hamlet switches towards the end of the passage. You start with a quote and showing the alliteration and assonance – highlighting his rage and frustration, as well as it placement in the passage. Second quote is a telegraphic sentence that show his frustration. Third quote shows putting the blame on the ghost; Hamlet still does not trust him. Hamlet points out his tragic flaw of being too cerebral, he knows he possesses this trait. The fourth quote extends and shows Hamlet trying to get his thoughts together, moving to more developed thoughts. The general outline of your commentary is showing Hamlets character shift going from being angry, to being confused and blaming, to more developed thinking. This is a good order to support you claim of character shift and why you chose to make it chronological.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification
I would ask:
Is this typical of the revenge tragedy archetype?
You don’t mention this, so to show complete understanding of this passage, this needs to be covered.
Is there anywhere else in the book where he is overly cerebral? Any other character shifts?
You did a good job talking about his character shift here, but give examples of where this is present throughout the text or an example of where this soliloquy changing his thinking.
-What did the speaker do well?
You had a good outline of attacking the passage – pointed out important literary terms and showed quotes that supported your ideas. You presented your ideas well in the passage – I like the order you went in, it was easy to follow and spoke your strategy of outline. You also expressed good understanding of this passage with reference to the rest of the book – talking about what happens before and after, as well as the soliloquies.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you should take some more time before to organize your ideas, as there where all there, but sometimes you were pausing to get them out. Also be sure to address the revenge tragedy archetype, this is a crucial component of understanding this passage. Lastly, just work on intrepeting. All your ideas were good and accurate, but none really jumped out or strayed away from thinking in class.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
It was great! Just address the revenge tragedy archetype.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4 – good understanding, just left out archetype.
B-7- You had a good interpretation, strong ideas, just need to work out getting them across better.
C-6 – You did a nice job organizing. It flowed with you main argument of character shift. I would just supstaniate it better during your commentary, sometimes the quotes would interject instead and support. Overall nice pattern.
D-4- You had good language and you spoken well. You had some pauses when trying to get thoughts out and some use of informal language.
21/30
You Rock Drew! You Just Rock!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
I thought that the context was addressed for the preceding part of the passage, if you can next time however try to address the context as it pertains to the latter part of the text. I also agree with Elliot in that how this passage fits in with the tragic hero archetype. Also, the importance of the passage was addressed but it was only pertaining to the fact that it is a soliloquy, try to explain how the exact passage you are doing is important and if it were to be removed from the overall text, what would we lose as the reader.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
I liked the way that you approached the passage and think that it logically makes sense. But explain your rationale behind why you wanted to organize in that specific manner.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What does this passage contribute to the play as a whole? If the passage were no part of the play what would we be missing from the play that it is gone?
-What did the speaker do well?
I was very impressed that you were able to do your whole commentary in one take. It was also very clear and understandable what you were trying to say, a mistake alot of people make. You didn't speak too fast or too slow.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would agree with Elliot, all of the ideas that you wanted to get across were stated, but they didn't have a feel to me that they were connected to each other or connected to the main point you were trying to make. I know you stated your main point a couple of times so it's not that you didn't have one, but your supporting argument for that point was seemingly separate.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I would have tried to find some elements of drama within the text and what the reactions for the actual audience given this is a play would be at different points within your passage. Also of course the revenge tragedy archetype
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A -3
B -6
C -6
D -4
Total: 19/30
Catherine reviewed your commentary!
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, she provided context within the book and passage. The purpose was was explicitly stated as Maureen demonstrating her power.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, she went chronologically.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What do you think is the main reason for this shift in power between Maureen and Bam?
Why do you think Bam felt so intimidated by Maureen's shift?
What instigated this shift for Maureen? Why did it influence her so much? How is that displayed in the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
You're very clear and your pace is appropriate and easy to understand! You tie it all together well in the end.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Sometimes you quote a line and just re-explain what it means, so just make sure you have intention and purpose in all of your points. You don't do it too often though, just something to look for!
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
A little dialogue that pertained to the passage, such as Bam saying "Oh my god" at Maureen could have been used to bolster your argument. Also, at the end it might have helped a bit to elaborate on the father's neck comment (why her father? etc.). You seemed to cover most things well, though!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-5
B-8
C-8
D-4
Peer Review by Emily Brody-Bizar
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You do a fantastic job addressing the context and purpose of the passage. Great job covering the plot of the book and the back story of the characters so clearly and concisely in such a short time. You could give a little bit of background information on Gordimer, and where July's People fits within the context of her work, though.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You went through the passage chronologically, but there are a few themes that you mention that you could definitely use to separate the passage into chunks.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What does Maureen's bluntness with Bam demonstrate? How do the ideas/themes that you mention fit within the greater context of the book?
-What did the speaker do well?
Your pacing was great-this was really easy to listen to and to follow. Your closing ideas were also really interesting and ended the commentary in a nice way.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would try to organize the commentary by theme, that way you are both more explicit with your themes and can focus more on literary features.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You addressed lit terms and themes, but there are more lit terms that you could have addressed.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4
B-7
C-7
D-4
Nice job Drew
EVALUATION BY ELLIOT LEVY
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you talked about the general outline of the story. You did a nice job talking about background information. One thing I would add would be to talk about what happens immediately after. You did mention the overall purpose of the passage, but I would mention it sooner.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
She used a chronological organization pattern
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Can you provide some direct context for this passage?
Did you see any purpose than a power shift?
What do you make of Maurine’s new masculinity?
-What did the speaker do well?
Yes you spoke clearly, formally, and convincingly.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I might divide the passage up into your three supporting examples of your purpose. This way you can draw upon all quotes that pertain to a specific argument. This makes you commentary stronger as you are jumping around as much.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I would talk about Maurine’s character shift more (towards a more masculine character). I know this wasn’t directly your main purpose, but I think you could relate it to your argument to strengthen it.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-5
B-7
C-7
D-4