appearance vs. reality/madness act II scene ii starts at lines 257
Evaluation by Emily Brody-Bizar Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context is present and good, especially the reference to the revenge tragedy archetype, but how does Shakespeare poke fun of the archetype? You need to finish this thought more, rather than let it just die off-be explicit. You do a good job addressing the role of this theme throughout Hamlet. You forgot to address elements of drama though.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There is an organizational pattern, overarching them is Appearance vs. Reality and you examine this through Hamlet, Denmarkk, and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. I think you need to develop the specific ideas of the organizational pattern more, rather than just basing them off of a character or a place and what characteristics within their lines/when Denmark is mentioned that address appearance vs. reality. You set up the pattern but still look at this somewhat chronologically, rather than actually following the pattern you set up, so if you go with the idea that Hamlet knows the true intentions, and Dernmark as a prison, and R&G's hidden intentions: you can talk about every instance that Shakespeare shows this (you did this really well with Denmark as a prison).
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification I would ask: how does Hamlet's cerebral nature play into appearance vs. reality? You focus a lot on the shadows and how they represent hiding, but what about dreams? Are they more related to appearance or reality? Why is this conversation between Hamlet and R&G important?
-What did the speaker do well?
You do a really good job explaining the function of the lit terms, particularly the irony of Rosencrantz talking about how the world has grown honest. You also did a very good job catching and interpreting each instance of appearance vs. reality :) Finally, you kept everything focused on appearance vs. reality and used it as a back-board for your analysis.
-What would you suggest for improvement? Address a few more lit terms, which I think will help make your commentary more analysis rather than just a translation of the scene. Also, you really address the first half of the passage thoroughly and spend less time on the second half, only addressing the dreams; try and spend more time addressing all parts of the passage. Also, your conclusion can be a little stronger; you tend to start a sentence and then move on before finishing the thought. If you completely work through the thought, your conclusion will be so much stronger.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You addressed everything! -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4-you just needed to talk a little more about how Hamlet fit into Shakespeare's other workers
B-6-you did a really good job analyzing the literary terms that you mentioned, but there were a few ideas that you brought up and only glossed over
C-6-you organized your commentary, but the way it was organized ended up being somewhat chronologically
D-4-there were a few pauses and ums and some stumbling, but overall you did a really good job working your way through this, especially since it's the first oral commentary!
20/30
Good job Elliot!
2. EVALUATED BY DREW ACKERMAN FOR THE SECOND TIME!
1. Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you state what happened previously with Cladius and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and you talk how the passage makes fun of revenge tragedy archetype, which adds in elements of theater. You also did a very good job when it comes to highlighting the purpose of the passage and the three things that it helps to develop--Hamlet lying, Denmark as a prison full of corruption, and R&G's not-so-hidden intentions--you are very straightforward here! You may want to expand on what making fun of the revenge tragedy archetype actually does for the play and the passage specifically, because you state it as your why statement, but we don't get very much explicit elaboration on this in the rest of the intro, or even the rest of the commentary.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
-At the end of the commentary, you state that you would have gone about analyzing the passage in a non-linear way, because all of you ideas intertwine. The problem is that this is not explicitly stated at the beginning of the commentary, so without knowing this, it seemed as if you were a bit chronological, which goes against what you intended for the organizational pattern to be.
You first focus on the many references to honesty and go into situational irony and how Hamlet knows R&G's intentions but he wants it to seem like he doesn't. You also move into Prison imagery, and there is a lot of repetition involving the prison, because Denmark is essentially a prison even if most of the citizens don't see it in the same way Hamlet does (again, contributing to the appearance versus reality conflict.
You then move into the way Hamlet perceives things and how this speaks to the varying perception among different people. You then highlight Hamlet's cerebral qualities and show how these came about from the way Hamlet perceives the world, which is different form how everyone else perceives the world an therefore causes one of the appearance versus reality problems. I thought this was a very good point and was definitely well explained when discussing the character triangle. You could have gone more in depth with the character triangle though. For example, it was a bit confusing that you mentioned Fortinbras and Laertes because they didn't have a place in any other part of your commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
I would ask:
-You mention that conflicts between appearance versus reality are present in other parts of Hamlet. What are they?
-Did you see any other lit terms that added to your overall agruement?
-What did the speaker do well?
You summed up the commentary really well at then end and nicely explained why the passage was important by saying that Hamlet was acting as if he doesn't know R&G's true intentions as he is hiding his own, that people think that Denmark is a great kingdom when it is actually a prison, and R&G act like they are on Hamlet's side, but in actuality, they are traitors. You brought up ideas that I had never thought about before, in how each specific situation in the text represented some conflict between appearance versus reality. Also, the fact that you mentioned the character triangle and Hamlet's cerebral qualities was important in recognizing parts of this passage that connect to the rest of the book.
-Shakespeare uses analogy, metaphors, irony, repetition, symbolism to provide and overall commentary on appearance and people lying and hiding things
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest stating explicitly the lit terms and the overall 'why' argument at the beginning so that the reader can follow the passage more effectively. Also, you seemed bit scattered sometimes and therefore addressed many idea that, although they may have been legitimate, did not add anything to your overall commentary,but actually took away from it by not being focused thoughts. Also, if you are going to mention the revenge tragedy archetype so often in the beginning, it makes it seem as if you are going to talk about this more throughout your commentary, but you did not do this. I also think that your conclusion may have even been good at the beginning of your commentary, because you really make your points clear and your 'why' argument very evident.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You did not forget to address anything, but make sure to tie you lit terms into your overall argument next time!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4
B: 6
C: 7
D: 4
Evaluation by Emily Brody-Bizar
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context is present and good, especially the reference to the revenge tragedy archetype, but how does Shakespeare poke fun of the archetype? You need to finish this thought more, rather than let it just die off-be explicit. You do a good job addressing the role of this theme throughout Hamlet. You forgot to address elements of drama though.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There is an organizational pattern, overarching them is Appearance vs. Reality and you examine this through Hamlet, Denmarkk, and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. I think you need to develop the specific ideas of the organizational pattern more, rather than just basing them off of a character or a place and what characteristics within their lines/when Denmark is mentioned that address appearance vs. reality. You set up the pattern but still look at this somewhat chronologically, rather than actually following the pattern you set up, so if you go with the idea that Hamlet knows the true intentions, and Dernmark as a prison, and R&G's hidden intentions: you can talk about every instance that Shakespeare shows this (you did this really well with Denmark as a prison).
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification
I would ask: how does Hamlet's cerebral nature play into appearance vs. reality? You focus a lot on the shadows and how they represent hiding, but what about dreams? Are they more related to appearance or reality? Why is this conversation between Hamlet and R&G important?
-What did the speaker do well?
You do a really good job explaining the function of the lit terms, particularly the irony of Rosencrantz talking about how the world has grown honest. You also did a very good job catching and interpreting each instance of appearance vs. reality :) Finally, you kept everything focused on appearance vs. reality and used it as a back-board for your analysis.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Address a few more lit terms, which I think will help make your commentary more analysis rather than just a translation of the scene. Also, you really address the first half of the passage thoroughly and spend less time on the second half, only addressing the dreams; try and spend more time addressing all parts of the passage. Also, your conclusion can be a little stronger; you tend to start a sentence and then move on before finishing the thought. If you completely work through the thought, your conclusion will be so much stronger.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You addressed everything!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A-4-you just needed to talk a little more about how Hamlet fit into Shakespeare's other workers
B-6-you did a really good job analyzing the literary terms that you mentioned, but there were a few ideas that you brought up and only glossed over
C-6-you organized your commentary, but the way it was organized ended up being somewhat chronologically
D-4-there were a few pauses and ums and some stumbling, but overall you did a really good job working your way through this, especially since it's the first oral commentary!
20/30
Good job Elliot!
2. EVALUATED BY DREW ACKERMAN FOR THE SECOND TIME!
1. Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you state what happened previously with Cladius and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and you talk how the passage makes fun of revenge tragedy archetype, which adds in elements of theater. You also did a very good job when it comes to highlighting the purpose of the passage and the three things that it helps to develop--Hamlet lying, Denmark as a prison full of corruption, and R&G's not-so-hidden intentions--you are very straightforward here! You may want to expand on what making fun of the revenge tragedy archetype actually does for the play and the passage specifically, because you state it as your why statement, but we don't get very much explicit elaboration on this in the rest of the intro, or even the rest of the commentary.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
-At the end of the commentary, you state that you would have gone about analyzing the passage in a non-linear way, because all of you ideas intertwine. The problem is that this is not explicitly stated at the beginning of the commentary, so without knowing this, it seemed as if you were a bit chronological, which goes against what you intended for the organizational pattern to be.
You first focus on the many references to honesty and go into situational irony and how Hamlet knows R&G's intentions but he wants it to seem like he doesn't. You also move into Prison imagery, and there is a lot of repetition involving the prison, because Denmark is essentially a prison even if most of the citizens don't see it in the same way Hamlet does (again, contributing to the appearance versus reality conflict.
You then move into the way Hamlet perceives things and how this speaks to the varying perception among different people. You then highlight Hamlet's cerebral qualities and show how these came about from the way Hamlet perceives the world, which is different form how everyone else perceives the world an therefore causes one of the appearance versus reality problems. I thought this was a very good point and was definitely well explained when discussing the character triangle. You could have gone more in depth with the character triangle though. For example, it was a bit confusing that you mentioned Fortinbras and Laertes because they didn't have a place in any other part of your commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification?
I would ask:
-You mention that conflicts between appearance versus reality are present in other parts of Hamlet. What are they?
-Did you see any other lit terms that added to your overall agruement?
-What did the speaker do well?
You summed up the commentary really well at then end and nicely explained why the passage was important by saying that Hamlet was acting as if he doesn't know R&G's true intentions as he is hiding his own, that people think that Denmark is a great kingdom when it is actually a prison, and R&G act like they are on Hamlet's side, but in actuality, they are traitors. You brought up ideas that I had never thought about before, in how each specific situation in the text represented some conflict between appearance versus reality. Also, the fact that you mentioned the character triangle and Hamlet's cerebral qualities was important in recognizing parts of this passage that connect to the rest of the book.
-Shakespeare uses analogy, metaphors, irony, repetition, symbolism to provide and overall commentary on appearance and people lying and hiding things
What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest stating explicitly the lit terms and the overall 'why' argument at the beginning so that the reader can follow the passage more effectively. Also, you seemed bit scattered sometimes and therefore addressed many idea that, although they may have been legitimate, did not add anything to your overall commentary,but actually took away from it by not being focused thoughts. Also, if you are going to mention the revenge tragedy archetype so often in the beginning, it makes it seem as if you are going to talk about this more throughout your commentary, but you did not do this. I also think that your conclusion may have even been good at the beginning of your commentary, because you really make your points clear and your 'why' argument very evident.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You did not forget to address anything, but make sure to tie you lit terms into your overall argument next time!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4
B: 6
C: 7
D: 4
You rock Elliot! You just rock!
Here is my English Midterm Commentary: