Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Commentary (To whom it may concern...please don't judge me...again)
-July's people commentary (To whom it may concern...please don't judge me)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Context was definitely addressed, both the historical context of the novel as well as the context of the passage being analyzed within the novel. However, like Michael said, make sure that you take a moment to explain the recurring themes within Gordimer's literary works as well as how they are seen in this novel, that will provide for a stronger commentary because it will highlight your knowledge of not only the literary themes within the work but why they are present in the work.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organizational patter was a chronological one. Although this is a fine organizational patter, try to pick a different type of organizational patter for your next commentary because chronological organizational principles are overdone, and to spice it up would probably impress the commentator :)
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Aside from juxtaposition, what other literary terms did you find important in this passage? Also, why does Gordimer present Maureen in the light she does--how does this reflect Gordimer's political philosophy?
-What did the speaker do well? You did a good job of sticking to your organizational pattern, and addressing only the things that were crucial to your commentary. It was consistent and fluent, a pleasure to listen to!
-What would you suggest for improvement? My number one suggestion would be to try out a different organizational pattern, because I find that organizational patterns based on specific themes or literary elements provide for a tighter and stronger overall commentary. Also, remember to talk about the author to enhance your context section!
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You mentioned most of the most important aspects of the passage, name-dropping a couple more literary terms would have made you sound slightly more legitimate, but you didn't leave out any big points so there's not much room for improvement!
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Context: 4- Missing context of author Interpretation/Personal Response: 7- Nice interpretation rooted in textual evidence Presentation: 8- stuck to the organizational pattern like white on rice Language: 3- remember to name-drop those lit terms!!!
Stay fabulous, Zoe
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes. You had a good summary of what apartheid was. But you said that the book is about a “fake” apartheid, which is not completely true. It is more a fictionalized portrayal of the end of apartheid. You also had a good summary of the context of passage to set the passage in the book. The only thing you were missing here was the context of who Gordimer is. You accurately identified the purpose of the passage as the shift in Maureen’s sexuality representing the shift from the old way of life to the new way of life.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, you identified your organizational pattern as going in chronological order. You also mentioned that you might skip around a little because of the juxtaposition in the passage. You also definitely stuck to this organizational pattern throughout the commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What other literary terms did you identify in the passage?
-What did the speaker do well? You did a good job of keeping your commentary focused. Yours would be a good example of Ms. O’s analogy of not wearing all of the make up you have, but just wearing some of it. Your reference to master bedroom was very good. You correctly explained the symbol and related it back to the purpose. You also did a good job of showing Marueen’s shift through sexual diction and the symbol of the killing of the kitten. You also did a good job of connecting the end of the passage to the beginning, thus summarizing Maureen’s shift.
-What would you suggest for improvement? You said full lines and could have instead said line numbers or the first and last word of the line. I did this in my commentary too, but it will keep your commentary more focused if you say line numbers and the assessor also has the commentary in front of them. I would have also liked you to go more in depth in your conclusion. You could also have chosen a different organizational pattern that might have made your commentary stronger.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You did address a lot of lit terms and had a lot of different points, but you could have addressed more by name, which would have given you a stronger commentary. You mentioned all the big things though!
-What would you score them based on the rubric? Context: 4- Missing context of Gordimer Interpretation/Personal Response: 7- good job sticking to one theme and analyzing it Presentation: 7- focused and developed response Language: 3 Sincerely, Michael Witkes
-Hamlet
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You did a good job of immediately discussing context in terms of context within the text of Hamlet, but did not mention any larger Shakespearian context outside the bounds of the text. Perhaps try and explain how this could relate to his style of writing overall? If you remembered it, you could mention that the lines “Why then, tis none to you [….] to me it is a prison” did not appear until the 1623 version. Also, you introduced theme of appearance vs. reality while starting to talk about your organizational pattern, but never explicitly stated a purpose. If this is your purpose for the passage, try to discuss why this is the purpose, and what this passage adds to the text as a whole. I was also confused later, since you ended by stating that all of the elements in the passage illustrated the corruption in Denmark. I think this could be used as evidence for appearance vs. reality or vice versa, but try to pick one as an overarching principle. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, identified (chronological) and gave a justification (different planes develops). Might describe how it develops (from what to what?), but did identify a pattern. Throughout the commentary, maybe try to show how this development occurs. Overall though, good job sticking to your organizational pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What elements of drama did you see in the passage? What do you think was the purpose of this passage? What do you think was the most important literary term used to create this purpose? You mention that acting might be more important than thinking; how do you think that this helps the reader/viewer understand the passage as a whole?
-What did the speaker do well? Good job wrapping your topics back together. You do a very good job of taking multiple threads of analysis (doomsday=honesty, corruption, different planes between r/g and Hamlet all being used to illustrate the discrepancy in appearance vs. reality) and pulling them together. I think that if you had an overarching purpose to tie back to, you would be able to construct a VERY strong commentary. Really good job sticking to your organizational pattern; it was really easy to follow where you were in the passage!
-What would you suggest for improvement? State a purpose initially, and constantly pull each point back to that overall theme. It was difficult to discern what your overall point was that you were trying to support with your analysis. Your themes included: corruption, Hamlet as overly cerebral, madness, and appearance vs. reality; if you had picked one and explained why each of the others supported it, I think you would have had a stronger and more cohesive presentation. Try to describe what these “different planes” are at the start. You discuss it at the end, but it’s difficult to understand exactly what you are talking about as we are going through the passage. Try and have a stronger conclusion. When you ended, I wasn’t sure what your main point was, or what you were trying to prove.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Try to address lit terms by name a bit more. Though the text was analyzed, it was largely by interpreting and rephrasing the text, and less through literary devices. I feel like you knew and identified the literary terms when you were analyzing the text, because you really develop themes such as corruption, but you never identify the literary devices used to create it by name (verbal/dramatic irony, repetition, juxtaposition, pun/wordplay --> you discussed all of these without really identifying them by name!)
-What would you score them based on the rubric? A – 4 I think the only thing that you were missing here was a mention of who Shakespeare was, or where/when the text came from. It’s clear that you really know your Hamlet though! B – 5 I feel like you could easily earn a much higher grade than this if you picked one theme. You analyzed the text really thoroughly, but I didn’t feel like it built towards a larger purpose. Also, reference the literary terms that you discuss by name. C – 7 I thought that your organizational pattern was strong. I think what kept you out of the higher score brackets here is that you didn’t discuss HOW these different planes develop, but otherwise very strong! D - 3 I didn't notice any problems grammatically. At times, you lapsed into elementary word-choice (“throughout the thing”), and sometimes used “um”, but I think that this is completely understandable as this is your first oral commentary! Also, good job on not stopping the recording frequently; it kept your commentary fluid. What you really need to develop to move up into the 4-5 point range is to discuss literary terms more explicitly. 20/30 Rachel, I thought that you did a really great job picking apart the details of this passage. Now that you have all of the pieces, just be sure to show how they all work together to make something! Overall, good job, and congratulations on surviving your first oral commentary! If you have any questions about my comments, feel free to ask :) :D sofie
Molly Rothschild
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Addressed context in terms of the text, but not in context of Shakespeare. Gives good but brief background on characters. Gives good theme of appearance vs. reality and how Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are operating on two different planes, but doesn’t say why.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, the commentary was organized chronologically.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage exemplify the idea of Hamlet as an “other” in contrast to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?
Are there any dramatic features of this passage? How would the audience react?
What are the origins of this play?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of showing the different planes that Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are operating on, and this was good in tying it back to your initial themes.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
The commentary skipped between corruption and appearance vs. reality as themes, it would be clearer if you addressed one of them as the main purpose. The purpose overall was not clear, the themes were addressed but did not always answer why they were important.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Features of drama were not addressed. I think you could have done a lot with dramatic irony and the emotions of the audience with this passage.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
3- you knew your Hamlet very well, but didn’t address Shakespeare.
6- you had some very good analysis and made some good references to the rest of the text, but could have done more with lit terms.
8- I was able to follow your organizational pattern throughout the commentary; it was a good and effective structure.
4- there were a few awkward pauses, but you were mostly clear in your speech.
Good job Rachel!!!
-July's people commentary (To whom it may concern...please don't judge me)
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Context was definitely addressed, both the historical context of the novel as well as the context of the passage being analyzed within the novel. However, like Michael said, make sure that you take a moment to explain the recurring themes within Gordimer's literary works as well as how they are seen in this novel, that will provide for a stronger commentary because it will highlight your knowledge of not only the literary themes within the work but why they are present in the work.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
The organizational patter was a chronological one. Although this is a fine organizational patter, try to pick a different type of organizational patter for your next commentary because chronological organizational principles are overdone, and to spice it up would probably impress the commentator :)
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Aside from juxtaposition, what other literary terms did you find important in this passage? Also, why does Gordimer present Maureen in the light she does--how does this reflect Gordimer's political philosophy?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of sticking to your organizational pattern, and addressing only the things that were crucial to your commentary. It was consistent and fluent, a pleasure to listen to!
-What would you suggest for improvement?
My number one suggestion would be to try out a different organizational pattern, because I find that organizational patterns based on specific themes or literary elements provide for a tighter and stronger overall commentary. Also, remember to talk about the author to enhance your context section!
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You mentioned most of the most important aspects of the passage, name-dropping a couple more literary terms would have made you sound slightly more legitimate, but you didn't leave out any big points so there's not much room for improvement!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Context: 4- Missing context of author
Interpretation/Personal Response: 7- Nice interpretation rooted in textual evidence
Presentation: 8- stuck to the organizational pattern like white on rice
Language: 3- remember to name-drop those lit terms!!!
Stay fabulous,
Zoe
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes. You had a good summary of what apartheid was. But you said that the book is about a “fake” apartheid, which is not completely true. It is more a fictionalized portrayal of the end of apartheid. You also had a good summary of the context of passage to set the passage in the book. The only thing you were missing here was the context of who Gordimer is. You accurately identified the purpose of the passage as the shift in Maureen’s sexuality representing the shift from the old way of life to the new way of life.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, you identified your organizational pattern as going in chronological order. You also mentioned that you might skip around a little because of the juxtaposition in the passage. You also definitely stuck to this organizational pattern throughout the commentary.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What other literary terms did you identify in the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of keeping your commentary focused. Yours would be a good example of Ms. O’s analogy of not wearing all of the make up you have, but just wearing some of it. Your reference to master bedroom was very good. You correctly explained the symbol and related it back to the purpose. You also did a good job of showing Marueen’s shift through sexual diction and the symbol of the killing of the kitten. You also did a good job of connecting the end of the passage to the beginning, thus summarizing Maureen’s shift.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You said full lines and could have instead said line numbers or the first and last word of the line. I did this in my commentary too, but it will keep your commentary more focused if you say line numbers and the assessor also has the commentary in front of them. I would have also liked you to go more in depth in your conclusion. You could also have chosen a different organizational pattern that might have made your commentary stronger.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You did address a lot of lit terms and had a lot of different points, but you could have addressed more by name, which would have given you a stronger commentary. You mentioned all the big things though!
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
Context: 4- Missing context of Gordimer
Interpretation/Personal Response: 7- good job sticking to one theme and analyzing it
Presentation: 7- focused and developed response
Language: 3
Sincerely, Michael Witkes
-Hamlet
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job of immediately discussing context in terms of context within the text of Hamlet, but did not mention any larger Shakespearian context outside the bounds of the text. Perhaps try and explain how this could relate to his style of writing overall? If you remembered it, you could mention that the lines “Why then, tis none to you [….] to me it is a prison” did not appear until the 1623 version.
Also, you introduced theme of appearance vs. reality while starting to talk about your organizational pattern, but never explicitly stated a purpose. If this is your purpose for the passage, try to discuss why this is the purpose, and what this passage adds to the text as a whole. I was also confused later, since you ended by stating that all of the elements in the passage illustrated the corruption in Denmark. I think this could be used as evidence for appearance vs. reality or vice versa, but try to pick one as an overarching principle.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, identified (chronological) and gave a justification (different planes develops). Might describe how it develops (from what to what?), but did identify a pattern. Throughout the commentary, maybe try to show how this development occurs. Overall though, good job sticking to your organizational pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
What elements of drama did you see in the passage?
What do you think was the purpose of this passage?
What do you think was the most important literary term used to create this purpose?
You mention that acting might be more important than thinking; how do you think that this helps the reader/viewer understand the passage as a whole?
-What did the speaker do well?
Good job wrapping your topics back together. You do a very good job of taking multiple threads of analysis (doomsday=honesty, corruption, different planes between r/g and Hamlet all being used to illustrate the discrepancy in appearance vs. reality) and pulling them together. I think that if you had an overarching purpose to tie back to, you would be able to construct a VERY strong commentary.
Really good job sticking to your organizational pattern; it was really easy to follow where you were in the passage!
-What would you suggest for improvement?
State a purpose initially, and constantly pull each point back to that overall theme. It was difficult to discern what your overall point was that you were trying to support with your analysis. Your themes included: corruption, Hamlet as overly cerebral, madness, and appearance vs. reality; if you had picked one and explained why each of the others supported it, I think you would have had a stronger and more cohesive presentation.
Try to describe what these “different planes” are at the start. You discuss it at the end, but it’s difficult to understand exactly what you are talking about as we are going through the passage.
Try and have a stronger conclusion. When you ended, I wasn’t sure what your main point was, or what you were trying to prove.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Try to address lit terms by name a bit more. Though the text was analyzed, it was largely by interpreting and rephrasing the text, and less through literary devices. I feel like you knew and identified the literary terms when you were analyzing the text, because you really develop themes such as corruption, but you never identify the literary devices used to create it by name (verbal/dramatic irony, repetition, juxtaposition, pun/wordplay --> you discussed all of these without really identifying them by name!)
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A – 4 I think the only thing that you were missing here was a mention of who Shakespeare was, or where/when the text came from. It’s clear that you really know your Hamlet though!
B – 5 I feel like you could easily earn a much higher grade than this if you picked one theme. You analyzed the text really thoroughly, but I didn’t feel like it built towards a larger purpose. Also, reference the literary terms that you discuss by name.
C – 7 I thought that your organizational pattern was strong. I think what kept you out of the higher score brackets here is that you didn’t discuss HOW these different planes develop, but otherwise very strong!
D - 3 I didn't notice any problems grammatically. At times, you lapsed into elementary word-choice (“throughout the thing”), and sometimes used “um”, but I think that this is completely understandable as this is your first oral commentary! Also, good job on not stopping the recording frequently; it kept your commentary fluid. What you really need to develop to move up into the 4-5 point range is to discuss literary terms more explicitly.
20/30
Rachel, I thought that you did a really great job picking apart the details of this passage. Now that you have all of the pieces, just be sure to show how they all work together to make something! Overall, good job, and congratulations on surviving your first oral commentary! If you have any questions about my comments, feel free to ask :)
:D sofie
Molly Rothschild
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Addressed context in terms of the text, but not in context of Shakespeare. Gives good but brief background on characters. Gives good theme of appearance vs. reality and how Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are operating on two different planes, but doesn’t say why.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, the commentary was organized chronologically.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage exemplify the idea of Hamlet as an “other” in contrast to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?
Are there any dramatic features of this passage? How would the audience react?
What are the origins of this play?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of showing the different planes that Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are operating on, and this was good in tying it back to your initial themes.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
The commentary skipped between corruption and appearance vs. reality as themes, it would be clearer if you addressed one of them as the main purpose. The purpose overall was not clear, the themes were addressed but did not always answer why they were important.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Features of drama were not addressed. I think you could have done a lot with dramatic irony and the emotions of the audience with this passage.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
3- you knew your Hamlet very well, but didn’t address Shakespeare.
6- you had some very good analysis and made some good references to the rest of the text, but could have done more with lit terms.
8- I was able to follow your organizational pattern throughout the commentary; it was a good and effective structure.
4- there were a few awkward pauses, but you were mostly clear in your speech.
Good job Rachel!!!