[ invalid file: TragicHero.mp3 ]
Revenge/Tragic Hero Act I scene ii lines 607-635
Comments by James Butler
Did the speaker address the context? Purpose?
I thought you did a wonderful job explaining the context of the passage addressing all of the relevant details one would need to analyze the passage effectively. While I did pick up on the purpose of the passage while listening, from what I could tell, their was no direct mentioning of purpose, nor was their any mention of how the structural pattern of the commentary helped convey the purpose. Their was also no mention of how the purpose helped develop the play as a whole.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an attempt to organize the passage chronologically at the beginning of the commentary. Unfortunately, this method of organization was completely abandoned. The commentary seemed like a slew of great ideas presented in random order, or as soon as they entered your mind. This is the key point here however, I thought that overall, your ideas were excellent. Perhaps a little more planning would have enabled you to elaborate on your ideas more effectively and succinctly. I also believe an organizational pattern could easily be established using ideas you presented in the commentary- Heaven and Hell imagery and how this plays into the organ or tissue imagery. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What literary techniques do you feel were present in this passage? Why do you think this passage lends itself to being analyzed chronologically rather than thematically? How do you feel Shakespeare created the organ imagery/ "heart felt" imagery along with the heaven and hell imagery you speak of? Do you feel that there is evidence within the passage that suggests or establishes Hamlet's feeling of guilt that recurs throughout the play? What did the speaker do well?
I thought that you expressed the two most important themes superbly and correctly addressed their relation to each other. I also had a sense that all the ideas were present even if you incorrectly identified or missed a lit term or two.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest a little more planning. From what I heard, it was evident that you understood all of the complex ideas necessary to create a wonderfully spoken oral commentary. However, it seemed as if you were seeing these themes and ideas on the spot and then attempting to place them in the general context of the passage with no regard to your previously assigned structure. I also think you need to review your lit terms a little as you incorrectly identified one (note I mention one, one of few mentioned at all) at the beginning of the commentary.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I felt that many literary devises were skipped over or not recognized. While the overarching themes or umbrella terms (imagery) were present, there was no evidence suggesting how these were created. I think this could easily be done with a little more exploration. I also felt that a little more elaboration on the purpose would have enhanced the presentation. Above all, this commentary lacked any form of structure and strayed even from a line by line reading of the passage.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A. 2- I felt that the lack of reference to specific literary devices made your wonderful ideas seem only superficial. Knowledge of the appropriate context was present, however I would embellish how you felt the purpose played into the rest of the play.
B.2-I felt that your response consisted mainly of narration and/or repetition of content and demonstrated little awareness of literary features. Again, your ideas were there, embellish and establish a structure.
3. 3- While it was hard to pick up on any form of structure, I thought you referenced the text consistently, although not always with critical analysis.
4. 2. I was constantly thrown off by the amount of "umms" present. I would not go so far as to say there were only a few lapses in grammer as most of the time I felt like you were coming up with some of your ideas on the spot. I believe with a little more planning, you would eliminate these drawbacks.
9/20- Do not be disheartened! Not only do I feel that with a little more planning you could achieve an even better score, I tend to grade a bit too harshly!
2nd review by Helen Gaynor:
Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You put the passage into context very well by mentioning the events that led to Hamlet's soliloquy and you made it clear that you understood what the passage was dealing with. I did not pick up on your purpose the first time I listened to your commentary. You may want to be more explicit by actually stating a purpose and organizing your 'intro'. You mention over arching themes in the end of your commentary and you mention the overall purpose then, but I think in order for a moderator to understand your analysis fully, you need to mention this clearly in the beginning.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You state in the beginning of the commentary that you will be going chronologically, which you did, so yes there was an organizational pattern. However, it seemed as if you were not connecting your ideas and that you were just kind of throwing things out there. To me, it looked as if you were identifying important themes and aspects of the passage, but not connecting them well and not organizing them properly.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Why is this passage analyzed better chronologically rather than thematically? Why do you think Shakespeare chose to have this information from Hamlet portrayed as a soliloquy? Does this highlight the idea that Hamlet is too cerebral? What do you make of the use of punctuation in regards to your purpose?
What did the speaker do well? You picked up on a lot of good themes and good aspects of the passage, I just do not think that you developed your arguments fully.
What would you suggest for improvement? I think you need to make connections and develop arguments. I had trouble following what you were say and I feel that a lot of the time you said 'This is important' in regards to a lit feature or some other aspect of the passage but never really explained WHY it was important. Your commentary has a good foundation for a better one and I think you would be able to improve a lot by making a few adjustments and just taking it further.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I heard no mention of the exclamatory sentences or the colons, which I do believe could have helped you in analysis. You also need to talk about how imagery is created in order to take your commentary to the next level.
What would you score them based on the rubric? A: 4 - I think you you knew what was going on and you understood the context of the passage. Relate the purpose of your passage to the rest of the play to step it up. B: 4 - There was some interpretation but you rarely explained why certain things were relevant and important. You also repeated a lot about the spirit and tried to re-word bits, making it seem as if you were simply trying to add length to your commentary. The interpretation was a bit shallow. C: 2 - I was so confused listening to you commentary and I couldn't really follow what you trying to say. After listening to it a couple of times I understood it, but a moderator is not going to do that. Try to create a structure and try to be clear. D: 3 - There were some 'umms' and you talked around a little bit. You could vary your language a bit, but overall it was decent.
13/20 - Isaac, if you take more time to prepare, this can be really good! You had good ideas, you just need to organize them better and put a little more time into preparation.
July's People Commentary
Peer Evaluation by Emily Brody-Bizar -Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did address context and purpose briefly, but there is so much more to add. You MUST say the author's name with the title of the book! You should add some background on Gordimer, her general writing style/genre, and you can be more specific as to which point in the book this passage occurs. You should also introduce the characters and give a general background on July's People because it's very possible that your grader has not read this book. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You don't use an organization pattern-you analyze this chronologically. However, in the beginning of the commentary you mention Maureen's disconnect as well as the comparisons between Bam and July. You could definitely use these areas to form an organizational pattern. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What is the mud hut a symbol of? What lit terms demonstrate the tension between Maureen and July? -What did the speaker do well?You did a good job comparing the back there and now mentality as well as the differences between the two periods. You also dissect the plot well. You were very easy to listen too. Nice pacing, Isaac! -What would you suggest for improvement? You should pay more attention to lit terms, because there are so many, rather than simply relaying the plot. Also, you should mention the poetic topography at the end of the passage. I think that throughout the passage you confuse fear with power (though you do touch on the importance of powder), so I think you should try to keep your message clear and be careful about repetition. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You don't pay much attention to lit terms, you only mention two symbols. Also, it's important to state the author's name. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Language-2 A-2; while you understand what is going on in the passage, you don't provide any context for the passage or the author B-2; you give very little interpretation and analysis is mainly plot based, your argument is not clear. C-4; you definitely make references to the text to support your argument, but your analysis is not clear at all times
D-3; you spoke at a good pace and there were only a few ums/pauses; you did not mention enough lit terms, though.
Your ideas were really good, you just need to follow through.
Peer Eval by J. Folds
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Both context and purpose were certainly addressed but neither was really fleshed out and it seemed as if context was mentioned only in passing. I would have liked to have seen a greater exploration of context because it sets up many of the themes which can be discussed. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an organizational principle (chronological) and i agree with your choice here however you do seem to take some things out of their chronological order such as the "you satisfy" at the end of the passage which was somewhat confusing -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What lit terms do you see being used in the passage to convey gordimer's meaning?
What do you think the significance is of Gordimer's use of pronouns throughout the passage? What did the speaker do well?
I thought that your exploration of the positioning of words and phrases throughout the text and in specific sentences was very well done especially your exploration of the "you satisfy" part of the passage. Also, the fact that you kept referring back to your purpose and thesis was great and helpful to me as a listener as was the tone and measured pace of your voice. What would you suggest for improvement?
Like Emily i have to say that one major area you have for improvement is in lit terms. You mention hardly any which isnt really a good thing. Instead of analyzing the passage in terms of literary features you tend to explore the plot and narrate the passage to us. A little bit of this isnt bad but the entire commentary is a little too much. If you had incorporated a few more lit terms in there you would have done much better. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Like i just said you need to put more lit terms in. These were mostly forgotten. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 3/5 You mention context and purpose but you really needed a more in depth exploration of them although your understanding was adequate.
B - 3/10 your interpretation of the text wasn't bad and you had some great ideas however these were mostly relayed through the exploration of plot rather than the use of lit terms
C - 4/10 Your organizational principle was fine if a bit confusing at times however i didn't see the references to the text as being so much integrated as constant
D - 3/5 I loved the way you presented however you didnt have enough lit terms for me to give you above a 3
[ invalid file: TragicHero.mp3 ]
Revenge/Tragic Hero Act I scene ii lines 607-635
Comments by James Butler
Did the speaker address the context? Purpose?
I thought you did a wonderful job explaining the context of the passage addressing all of the relevant details one would need to analyze the passage effectively. While I did pick up on the purpose of the passage while listening, from what I could tell, their was no direct mentioning of purpose, nor was their any mention of how the structural pattern of the commentary helped convey the purpose. Their was also no mention of how the purpose helped develop the play as a whole.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an attempt to organize the passage chronologically at the beginning of the commentary. Unfortunately, this method of organization was completely abandoned. The commentary seemed like a slew of great ideas presented in random order, or as soon as they entered your mind. This is the key point here however, I thought that overall, your ideas were excellent. Perhaps a little more planning would have enabled you to elaborate on your ideas more effectively and succinctly. I also believe an organizational pattern could easily be established using ideas you presented in the commentary- Heaven and Hell imagery and how this plays into the organ or tissue imagery.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What literary techniques do you feel were present in this passage? Why do you think this passage lends itself to being analyzed chronologically rather than thematically? How do you feel Shakespeare created the organ imagery/ "heart felt" imagery along with the heaven and hell imagery you speak of? Do you feel that there is evidence within the passage that suggests or establishes Hamlet's feeling of guilt that recurs throughout the play?
What did the speaker do well?
I thought that you expressed the two most important themes superbly and correctly addressed their relation to each other. I also had a sense that all the ideas were present even if you incorrectly identified or missed a lit term or two.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
I would suggest a little more planning. From what I heard, it was evident that you understood all of the complex ideas necessary to create a wonderfully spoken oral commentary. However, it seemed as if you were seeing these themes and ideas on the spot and then attempting to place them in the general context of the passage with no regard to your previously assigned structure. I also think you need to review your lit terms a little as you incorrectly identified one (note I mention one, one of few mentioned at all) at the beginning of the commentary.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
I felt that many literary devises were skipped over or not recognized. While the overarching themes or umbrella terms (imagery) were present, there was no evidence suggesting how these were created. I think this could easily be done with a little more exploration. I also felt that a little more elaboration on the purpose would have enhanced the presentation. Above all, this commentary lacked any form of structure and strayed even from a line by line reading of the passage.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A. 2- I felt that the lack of reference to specific literary devices made your wonderful ideas seem only superficial. Knowledge of the appropriate context was present, however I would embellish how you felt the purpose played into the rest of the play.
B.2-I felt that your response consisted mainly of narration and/or repetition of content and demonstrated little awareness of literary features. Again, your ideas were there, embellish and establish a structure.
3. 3- While it was hard to pick up on any form of structure, I thought you referenced the text consistently, although not always with critical analysis.
4. 2. I was constantly thrown off by the amount of "umms" present. I would not go so far as to say there were only a few lapses in grammer as most of the time I felt like you were coming up with some of your ideas on the spot. I believe with a little more planning, you would eliminate these drawbacks.
9/20- Do not be disheartened! Not only do I feel that with a little more planning you could achieve an even better score, I tend to grade a bit too harshly!
2nd review by Helen Gaynor:
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You put the passage into context very well by mentioning the events that led to Hamlet's soliloquy and you made it clear that you understood what the passage was dealing with. I did not pick up on your purpose the first time I listened to your commentary. You may want to be more explicit by actually stating a purpose and organizing your 'intro'. You mention over arching themes in the end of your commentary and you mention the overall purpose then, but I think in order for a moderator to understand your analysis fully, you need to mention this clearly in the beginning.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You state in the beginning of the commentary that you will be going chronologically, which you did, so yes there was an organizational pattern. However, it seemed as if you were not connecting your ideas and that you were just kind of throwing things out there. To me, it looked as if you were identifying important themes and aspects of the passage, but not connecting them well and not organizing them properly.
What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Why is this passage analyzed better chronologically rather than thematically?
Why do you think Shakespeare chose to have this information from Hamlet portrayed as a soliloquy? Does this highlight the idea that Hamlet is too cerebral?
What do you make of the use of punctuation in regards to your purpose?
What did the speaker do well?
You picked up on a lot of good themes and good aspects of the passage, I just do not think that you developed your arguments fully.
What would you suggest for improvement?
I think you need to make connections and develop arguments. I had trouble following what you were say and I feel that a lot of the time you said 'This is important' in regards to a lit feature or some other aspect of the passage but never really explained WHY it was important. Your commentary has a good foundation for a better one and I think you would be able to improve a lot by making a few adjustments and just taking it further.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)?
I heard no mention of the exclamatory sentences or the colons, which I do believe could have helped you in analysis. You also need to talk about how imagery is created in order to take your commentary to the next level.
What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 4 - I think you you knew what was going on and you understood the context of the passage. Relate the purpose of your passage to the rest of the play to step it up.
B: 4 - There was some interpretation but you rarely explained why certain things were relevant and important. You also repeated a lot about the spirit and tried to re-word bits, making it seem as if you were simply trying to add length to your commentary. The interpretation was a bit shallow.
C: 2 - I was so confused listening to you commentary and I couldn't really follow what you trying to say. After listening to it a couple of times I understood it, but a moderator is not going to do that. Try to create a structure and try to be clear.
D: 3 - There were some 'umms' and you talked around a little bit. You could vary your language a bit, but overall it was decent.
13/20 - Isaac, if you take more time to prepare, this can be really good! You had good ideas, you just need to organize them better and put a little more time into preparation.
July's People Commentary
Peer Evaluation by Emily Brody-Bizar
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did address context and purpose briefly, but there is so much more to add. You MUST say the author's name with the title of the book! You should add some background on Gordimer, her general writing style/genre, and you can be more specific as to which point in the book this passage occurs. You should also introduce the characters and give a general background on July's People because it's very possible that your grader has not read this book.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You don't use an organization pattern-you analyze this chronologically. However, in the beginning of the commentary you mention Maureen's disconnect as well as the comparisons between Bam and July. You could definitely use these areas to form an organizational pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What is the mud hut a symbol of? What lit terms demonstrate the tension between Maureen and July?
-What did the speaker do well?You did a good job comparing the back there and now mentality as well as the differences between the two periods. You also dissect the plot well. You were very easy to listen too. Nice pacing, Isaac!
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You should pay more attention to lit terms, because there are so many, rather than simply relaying the plot. Also, you should mention the poetic topography at the end of the passage. I think that throughout the passage you confuse fear with power (though you do touch on the importance of powder), so I think you should try to keep your message clear and be careful about repetition.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You don't pay much attention to lit terms, you only mention two symbols. Also, it's important to state the author's name.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Language-2
A-2; while you understand what is going on in the passage, you don't provide any context for the passage or the author
B-2; you give very little interpretation and analysis is mainly plot based, your argument is not clear.
C-4; you definitely make references to the text to support your argument, but your analysis is not clear at all times
D-3; you spoke at a good pace and there were only a few ums/pauses; you did not mention enough lit terms, though.
Your ideas were really good, you just need to follow through.
Peer Eval by J. Folds
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Both context and purpose were certainly addressed but neither was really fleshed out and it seemed as if context was mentioned only in passing. I would have liked to have seen a greater exploration of context because it sets up many of the themes which can be discussed.
Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
There was an organizational principle (chronological) and i agree with your choice here however you do seem to take some things out of their chronological order such as the "you satisfy" at the end of the passage which was somewhat confusing
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What lit terms do you see being used in the passage to convey gordimer's meaning?
What do you think the significance is of Gordimer's use of pronouns throughout the passage?
What did the speaker do well?
I thought that your exploration of the positioning of words and phrases throughout the text and in specific sentences was very well done especially your exploration of the "you satisfy" part of the passage. Also, the fact that you kept referring back to your purpose and thesis was great and helpful to me as a listener as was the tone and measured pace of your voice.
What would you suggest for improvement?
Like Emily i have to say that one major area you have for improvement is in lit terms. You mention hardly any which isnt really a good thing. Instead of analyzing the passage in terms of literary features you tend to explore the plot and narrate the passage to us. A little bit of this isnt bad but the entire commentary is a little too much. If you had incorporated a few more lit terms in there you would have done much better.
What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Like i just said you need to put more lit terms in. These were mostly forgotten.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A - 3/5 You mention context and purpose but you really needed a more in depth exploration of them although your understanding was adequate.
B - 3/10 your interpretation of the text wasn't bad and you had some great ideas however these were mostly relayed through the exploration of plot rather than the use of lit terms
C - 4/10 Your organizational principle was fine if a bit confusing at times however i didn't see the references to the text as being so much integrated as constant
D - 3/5 I loved the way you presented however you didnt have enough lit terms for me to give you above a 3
Total score: 16/30