Yes, you do a good job of addressing Gordimer and the context of her work. You do a good job of explaining the passage in the context of the text as a whole. Your purpose could be more explicit- it took you a couple minutes to get to the main purpose and then it isn’t completely clear. It would be more effective to explain the concept of dying/rebirth so that it is clear from the start the point you are trying to prove.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, chronologically, stated explicitly at the beginning of the commentary. It makes sense to me why you attempted this organization, but you still seemed to jump around a little bit through the passage (ex with “she runs”).
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE
ACCESSOR?
How does this passage add to the overall characterization of Maureen as a character?
Do you see this passage at all in a religious perspective?
What does the helicopter symbolize? How does this add to Gordimer’s overall purpose of the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of differentiating between old and new society, and showing the river she crosses in the passage as a barrier between the two. You were very thorough in addressing every line of the passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You talk about abandonment of family, and I think if you had mentioned other times when she had been characterized as only caring for herself (malaria pills, etc.) it would have made a stronger point. Also, there were times where you made points but did not support them with specific lit terms.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Your commentary was very thorough, but at points I couldn’t tie back to the initial purpose you had stated. In the beginning you had mentioned dying and rebirth, but then didn’t refer back to that quote for the majority of your commentary. You mention it at the beginning and end, but would have been more effective throughout the commentary.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4- you provide a good knowledge of Gordimer and the context of Apartheid
B- 6/7- you have a good interpretation of the passage, but lack some literary features and references to the rest of the book. Overall solid analysis
C- 6/7- generally focused, but was not always tied back to the overall purpose of your commentary
D- 4- you have no lapses in grammar, but you do have pauses and many “ums” in your commentary, which seemed to take away from some of your confidence in the passage.
Overall- good job!! Very thorough and interesting!!
Gordimer Review #2 by Jaime Toplin -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You definitely did address context and purpose. However, you said a lot of context that was probably not necessary. Also, check me on this, but I'm not positive July's People was Gordimer's vision of how apartheid would end; I think it may have just been a futuristic interpretation to show it's horrors. Despite that, your knowledge of context was great. You also did address purpose, and I think your purpose regarding the epithet, "the old is dying but the new cannot be born" is great. However, I'd state your purpose before organizational principle. I got a little lost not knowing what you were organizing. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? You stated that you were organizing chronologically. This worked, and I liked your justification for it. However, sometimes I feel like you launched into thematic organization. Your passage is definitely a progression, but I feel like you could have been stronger if you'd gone thematically and addressed the progression in the process. Both would work. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Do you see consistency with Gordimer's writing and the rest of the text in this passage? How? How does the repetition illustrate a return to her base instinct? Can you elaborate on Maureen's failure to act in the past? Does this passage aid in her overall characterization? -What did the speaker do well? I really liked your use of lit terms. You didn't just find them to decorate your commentary, and you used them really nicely. I also liked your sophisticated choices of lit terms, particularly synecdoche, which I don't hear a lot. I also liked your argument of the repetition, and of the family being identified as English-speaking. I also liked your discussion of ambiguous pronouns because these are key in reading/understanding Gordimer. Your discussion of punctuation was really nice as well--you could have developed the argument a bit more, but it made for a really interesting and unique point of view. The discussion of the suppression was great as well. You stayed very tied to your passage, which is good, but you could have branched out a bit more and developed your connections. Your analysis of this passage as the end of the book was also awesome. -What would you suggest for improvement? Your language is a bit muddled and your pauses and "ums" cause me to lose you sometimes. This did get better as your commentary went on. You also don't need to read the lines aloud. This takes up A LOT of time that you can save doing other things; instead, just address them through phrases. I also think you talked a bit too much about context and could skim down to what was necessary. This also improved as you went on, but you could definitely explicitly tie back to your thesis a bit more. I remembered your argument because I knew the book, but a moderator might not. You did do a nice tie-back and summary at the end.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) You didn't really talk about whether or not this was consistent with Gordimer, which could have been addressed in reference to the water, ambiguous pronouns, or Maureen's role as the anti-maternal. You also don't really address themes a lot as they exist outside of the passage, although you do a nice job IDing them within it. -What would you score them based on the rubric? A: 5 (you know a TON about Gordimer and the book, just watch for what is necessary to state and what isn't) B: 6 (you know a lot and make a lot of interesting points, but you could definitely develop your argument more and ensure that everything you say before the end ties back to your initial thesis) C: 7 (you jumped back and forth a bit between organizational patterns, but overall nice job) D: 3 (watch the ums and pauses, but your level of diction was sophisticated and you did a nice job with varying your tone) Nice job, Sof! If you have more questions, you know you can ask :)
Peer Reviewed by Zoe Kuenstler
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job of immediately addressing the context of the passage before you even began analyzing it, which made it a lot easier for the reader to understand the significance of what was taking place in the passage. You did address the purpose at the end but it would be a good idea in the future to explicitly state the purpose of your commentary when you state the organizational pattern and the context (both things you made sure to do which was great).
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, the listener was explicitly informed of the organizational principle that was going to be used at the beginning of the commentary. The organizational pattern was a chronological one that made it very easy for me to follow along in the passage. However, sometimes within the lines of a character you skipped around (for example in gertrude's first lines in the passage you skipped her first line talked about the second then went back to the first then back down to the third which was slightly confusing) and that was a little hard to follow because it didn't exactly keep with your chronological order, but overall there was a good organization to the pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Sofie, a large part of your commentary was centered around the wordplay present in this passage. Why do you think Shakespeare used so much wordplay in the passage and what do you feel it does for the passage?
How do you think this passage fits in with the overall Shakesperean style of writing? Can you think of any other works by Shakespeare that use the same style of wordplay, have the same themes, etc?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did an AMAZING job picking out the lit terms in this passage, and constructing a very thorough commentary that gave the listener great insight into the purpose of this passage. It was a very well thought out and well organized commentary and I think you're well on your way to mastering the oral commentary.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Perhaps on your next commentary you should state state exactly what themes you are going to be highlighting for the listener. For example, in this commentary you could have stated at the beginning "I will be addressing a theme of appearance vs reality and madness". By doing this it will just make it easier for the listener to understand why you are choosing to highlight certain aspects of the passage, and what they should be looking for as they follow along.
Another suggestion I have is that although this was a very well done and in-depth commentary it was definitely on the long side. I know you had a lot to say and it showed in your commentary that you were very passionate about this passage, but you need to work on getting your points out quicker as well as not beating your points to death because sometimes you spent too much time analyzing one piece of the passage and it go redundant and slightly boring for the listener. After about 15 minutes it is hard to keep the attention of your listener, so try to work on shaving off those last 4 minutes.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Although you talked a lot about the dark and light imagery in the passage, you didn't go into as much depth with the natural imagery which is another crucial aspect of the scene.
Also, you did not forget to talk about the themes in the passage, but you didn't really state the themes you were trying to highlight until the end of the commentary. (see above for suggestion on how to improve upon this) Perhaps next time you should just state "I will be addressing a theme of appearance vs reality and madness" or whatever your theme is at the beginning of the commentary just so the listener knows what they should be looking for in the passage as they are listening to your commentary, and to make sure you are proving the correct points.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A. Knowledge of Understanding of Extract of Work(s): 5
You expressed an excellent understanding of the passage including the context and the purpose
B. Interpretation and Personal Response: 8
Your interpretations were in-depth and precise, however I didn't see too much of your personality shine through your interpretation; I almost felt like you were just regurgitating what Mrs. O had said in class. A very convincing regurgitation that you supported very well and quite obviously had a great understanding of, but i couldn't tell if these were your own personal interpretations.
C. Presentation: 9
Very strong presentation with a good organizational pattern that you stuck with throughout the passage.
D. Use of Language: 3
Your use of language was varied, however towards the end of the commentary you ended a lot of your ideas with "um........ok" and then moved on to the next idea. You did a good job of avoiding too many "ums" or "likes" however, towards the end of the passage you began to use them more and more frequently and became slightly repetetive in your word choice. But that's only natural because you had been talking for so long-you must have been tired (anyone would have done the same)!
Overall score: 25/30
Sofie, overall this was a GREAT oral commentary and I think if you just work on getting your ideas out quicker in a more concise fashion and cut out some of the wordiness you will score very well on your actual commentary. If you have any questions about any of my comments feel free to ask, but overall you did an awesome job :)
peer review by: Rachel Marx
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a really good job of addressing both context and purpose right off the bat. I really liked how you clearly stated "the overall theme is..." because it made it easy for me to understand your overall point throughout the commentary. I believe you could have benefited from connecting it more to Shakespearean time and Shakespeare's life however because you didn't touch on that too much. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, you said outright that the organizational pattern was chronologically. You did a nice job of sticking with this organizational principle throughout the commentary which made it easy to follow. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage fit into the context of Shakespearean times?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a really nice job of staying focused and clear. You stated a clear context, purpose and organizational principle at the beginning which is essential to a good commentary. You also made a lot of interesting points that you'd probably receive good feedback from. You did a nice job at remaining interested (or at least sounding like it!) throughout, rather than speaking monotone which kept me more interested as well in what you had to say. You kept a good pace most of the time as well which also helped to follow along. You obviously had a very good knowledge of the play and literary terms based on how much you had to say for the entire passage. Overall, it was a GREAT analysis.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Though for the most part your pace was good, at times you would speed up a lot, making it hard to follow and tripping you up a little bit, causing you to studder and add unnecessary um's. If you just keep a nice calm pace at all times, you can easily avoid this. While you did a very nice job putting the passage into context of the play, you didn't really touch on the context of the play within Shakespearean times so be sure to mention that in the future. Also, you had a lot to say, which is great, but I think rather than staying focused on your original point, you tried to mention everything possible that you could find in the passage. Try to stay concise and relevant to your overall thesis.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
While you addressed a lot of different lit terms, you forgot to keep them all focused to your thesis. It is very important to remain concise.
You also forgot to address the context of the passage within Shakespearean times. -What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: Knowledge and Understanding: 4
You clearly had a good understanding of context within the play, but make sure to include the bigger, outside world context
B: Interpretation: 8
You had a lot of very good interpretations. It was clear you had a great grasp on how to analyze this passage. However, you did not have any interpretations that were incredibly original. If you had a couple more original interpretations, other than what we discussed in class, you probably could have received an even better score.
C: Presentation: 8
You had a very clear organizational structure that you did a good job following. However, as stated previously, you did stray away from your original point at times so it wasn't as concise that it could've been.
D: Use of Language: 4
You spoke very clearly for the most part. However, you sometimes sped up a little bit to the point where it became hard to understand. You also said "um" a lot which took away just the slightest bit from your presentation.
Overall, this was a VERY good commentary. You're on the right track, Sofie!!!!
Peer review by Molly Rothschild
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
Yes, you do a good job of addressing Gordimer and the context of her work. You do a good job of explaining the passage in the context of the text as a whole. Your purpose could be more explicit- it took you a couple minutes to get to the main purpose and then it isn’t completely clear. It would be more effective to explain the concept of dying/rebirth so that it is clear from the start the point you are trying to prove.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, chronologically, stated explicitly at the beginning of the commentary. It makes sense to me why you attempted this organization, but you still seemed to jump around a little bit through the passage (ex with “she runs”).
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE
ACCESSOR?
How does this passage add to the overall characterization of Maureen as a character?
Do you see this passage at all in a religious perspective?
What does the helicopter symbolize? How does this add to Gordimer’s overall purpose of the passage?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a good job of differentiating between old and new society, and showing the river she crosses in the passage as a barrier between the two. You were very thorough in addressing every line of the passage.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
You talk about abandonment of family, and I think if you had mentioned other times when she had been characterized as only caring for herself (malaria pills, etc.) it would have made a stronger point. Also, there were times where you made points but did not support them with specific lit terms.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Your commentary was very thorough, but at points I couldn’t tie back to the initial purpose you had stated. In the beginning you had mentioned dying and rebirth, but then didn’t refer back to that quote for the majority of your commentary. You mention it at the beginning and end, but would have been more effective throughout the commentary.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A- 4- you provide a good knowledge of Gordimer and the context of Apartheid
B- 6/7- you have a good interpretation of the passage, but lack some literary features and references to the rest of the book. Overall solid analysis
C- 6/7- generally focused, but was not always tied back to the overall purpose of your commentary
D- 4- you have no lapses in grammar, but you do have pauses and many “ums” in your commentary, which seemed to take away from some of your confidence in the passage.
Overall- good job!! Very thorough and interesting!!
Gordimer Review #2 by Jaime Toplin
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You definitely did address context and purpose. However, you said a lot of context that was probably not necessary. Also, check me on this, but I'm not positive July's People was Gordimer's vision of how apartheid would end; I think it may have just been a futuristic interpretation to show it's horrors. Despite that, your knowledge of context was great. You also did address purpose, and I think your purpose regarding the epithet, "the old is dying but the new cannot be born" is great. However, I'd state your purpose before organizational principle. I got a little lost not knowing what you were organizing.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
You stated that you were organizing chronologically. This worked, and I liked your justification for it. However, sometimes I feel like you launched into thematic organization. Your passage is definitely a progression, but I feel like you could have been stronger if you'd gone thematically and addressed the progression in the process. Both would work.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Do you see consistency with Gordimer's writing and the rest of the text in this passage? How?
How does the repetition illustrate a return to her base instinct?
Can you elaborate on Maureen's failure to act in the past? Does this passage aid in her overall characterization?
-What did the speaker do well?
I really liked your use of lit terms. You didn't just find them to decorate your commentary, and you used them really nicely. I also liked your sophisticated choices of lit terms, particularly synecdoche, which I don't hear a lot. I also liked your argument of the repetition, and of the family being identified as English-speaking. I also liked your discussion of ambiguous pronouns because these are key in reading/understanding Gordimer. Your discussion of punctuation was really nice as well--you could have developed the argument a bit more, but it made for a really interesting and unique point of view. The discussion of the suppression was great as well. You stayed very tied to your passage, which is good, but you could have branched out a bit more and developed your connections. Your analysis of this passage as the end of the book was also awesome.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Your language is a bit muddled and your pauses and "ums" cause me to lose you sometimes. This did get better as your commentary went on. You also don't need to read the lines aloud. This takes up A LOT of time that you can save doing other things; instead, just address them through phrases. I also think you talked a bit too much about context and could skim down to what was necessary. This also improved as you went on, but you could definitely explicitly tie back to your thesis a bit more. I remembered your argument because I knew the book, but a moderator might not. You did do a nice tie-back and summary at the end.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
You didn't really talk about whether or not this was consistent with Gordimer, which could have been addressed in reference to the water, ambiguous pronouns, or Maureen's role as the anti-maternal. You also don't really address themes a lot as they exist outside of the passage, although you do a nice job IDing them within it.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: 5 (you know a TON about Gordimer and the book, just watch for what is necessary to state and what isn't)
B: 6 (you know a lot and make a lot of interesting points, but you could definitely develop your argument more and ensure that everything you say before the end ties back to your initial thesis)
C: 7 (you jumped back and forth a bit between organizational patterns, but overall nice job)
D: 3 (watch the ums and pauses, but your level of diction was sophisticated and you did a nice job with varying your tone)
Nice job, Sof! If you have more questions, you know you can ask :)
Peer Reviewed by Zoe Kuenstler
Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a good job of immediately addressing the context of the passage before you even began analyzing it, which made it a lot easier for the reader to understand the significance of what was taking place in the passage. You did address the purpose at the end but it would be a good idea in the future to explicitly state the purpose of your commentary when you state the organizational pattern and the context (both things you made sure to do which was great).
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, the listener was explicitly informed of the organizational principle that was going to be used at the beginning of the commentary. The organizational pattern was a chronological one that made it very easy for me to follow along in the passage. However, sometimes within the lines of a character you skipped around (for example in gertrude's first lines in the passage you skipped her first line talked about the second then went back to the first then back down to the third which was slightly confusing) and that was a little hard to follow because it didn't exactly keep with your chronological order, but overall there was a good organization to the pattern.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
Sofie, a large part of your commentary was centered around the wordplay present in this passage. Why do you think Shakespeare used so much wordplay in the passage and what do you feel it does for the passage?
How do you think this passage fits in with the overall Shakesperean style of writing? Can you think of any other works by Shakespeare that use the same style of wordplay, have the same themes, etc?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did an AMAZING job picking out the lit terms in this passage, and constructing a very thorough commentary that gave the listener great insight into the purpose of this passage. It was a very well thought out and well organized commentary and I think you're well on your way to mastering the oral commentary.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Perhaps on your next commentary you should state state exactly what themes you are going to be highlighting for the listener. For example, in this commentary you could have stated at the beginning "I will be addressing a theme of appearance vs reality and madness". By doing this it will just make it easier for the listener to understand why you are choosing to highlight certain aspects of the passage, and what they should be looking for as they follow along.
Another suggestion I have is that although this was a very well done and in-depth commentary it was definitely on the long side. I know you had a lot to say and it showed in your commentary that you were very passionate about this passage, but you need to work on getting your points out quicker as well as not beating your points to death because sometimes you spent too much time analyzing one piece of the passage and it go redundant and slightly boring for the listener. After about 15 minutes it is hard to keep the attention of your listener, so try to work on shaving off those last 4 minutes.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
Although you talked a lot about the dark and light imagery in the passage, you didn't go into as much depth with the natural imagery which is another crucial aspect of the scene.
Also, you did not forget to talk about the themes in the passage, but you didn't really state the themes you were trying to highlight until the end of the commentary. (see above for suggestion on how to improve upon this) Perhaps next time you should just state "I will be addressing a theme of appearance vs reality and madness" or whatever your theme is at the beginning of the commentary just so the listener knows what they should be looking for in the passage as they are listening to your commentary, and to make sure you are proving the correct points.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A. Knowledge of Understanding of Extract of Work(s): 5
You expressed an excellent understanding of the passage including the context and the purpose
B. Interpretation and Personal Response: 8
Your interpretations were in-depth and precise, however I didn't see too much of your personality shine through your interpretation; I almost felt like you were just regurgitating what Mrs. O had said in class. A very convincing regurgitation that you supported very well and quite obviously had a great understanding of, but i couldn't tell if these were your own personal interpretations.
C. Presentation: 9
Very strong presentation with a good organizational pattern that you stuck with throughout the passage.
D. Use of Language: 3
Your use of language was varied, however towards the end of the commentary you ended a lot of your ideas with "um........ok" and then moved on to the next idea. You did a good job of avoiding too many "ums" or "likes" however, towards the end of the passage you began to use them more and more frequently and became slightly repetetive in your word choice. But that's only natural because you had been talking for so long-you must have been tired (anyone would have done the same)!
Overall score: 25/30
Sofie, overall this was a GREAT oral commentary and I think if you just work on getting your ideas out quicker in a more concise fashion and cut out some of the wordiness you will score very well on your actual commentary. If you have any questions about any of my comments feel free to ask, but overall you did an awesome job :)
peer review by: Rachel Marx
-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?
You did a really good job of addressing both context and purpose right off the bat. I really liked how you clearly stated "the overall theme is..." because it made it easy for me to understand your overall point throughout the commentary. I believe you could have benefited from connecting it more to Shakespearean time and Shakespeare's life however because you didn't touch on that too much.
-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?
Yes, you said outright that the organizational pattern was chronologically. You did a nice job of sticking with this organizational principle throughout the commentary which made it easy to follow.
-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
How does this passage fit into the context of Shakespearean times?
-What did the speaker do well?
You did a really nice job of staying focused and clear. You stated a clear context, purpose and organizational principle at the beginning which is essential to a good commentary. You also made a lot of interesting points that you'd probably receive good feedback from. You did a nice job at remaining interested (or at least sounding like it!) throughout, rather than speaking monotone which kept me more interested as well in what you had to say. You kept a good pace most of the time as well which also helped to follow along. You obviously had a very good knowledge of the play and literary terms based on how much you had to say for the entire passage. Overall, it was a GREAT analysis.
-What would you suggest for improvement?
Though for the most part your pace was good, at times you would speed up a lot, making it hard to follow and tripping you up a little bit, causing you to studder and add unnecessary um's. If you just keep a nice calm pace at all times, you can easily avoid this. While you did a very nice job putting the passage into context of the play, you didn't really touch on the context of the play within Shakespearean times so be sure to mention that in the future. Also, you had a lot to say, which is great, but I think rather than staying focused on your original point, you tried to mention everything possible that you could find in the passage. Try to stay concise and relevant to your overall thesis.
-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)
While you addressed a lot of different lit terms, you forgot to keep them all focused to your thesis. It is very important to remain concise.
You also forgot to address the context of the passage within Shakespearean times.
-What would you score them based on the rubric?
A: Knowledge and Understanding: 4
You clearly had a good understanding of context within the play, but make sure to include the bigger, outside world context
B: Interpretation: 8
You had a lot of very good interpretations. It was clear you had a great grasp on how to analyze this passage. However, you did not have any interpretations that were incredibly original. If you had a couple more original interpretations, other than what we discussed in class, you probably could have received an even better score.
C: Presentation: 8
You had a very clear organizational structure that you did a good job following. However, as stated previously, you did stray away from your original point at times so it wasn't as concise that it could've been.
D: Use of Language: 4
You spoke very clearly for the most part. However, you sometimes sped up a little bit to the point where it became hard to understand. You also said "um" a lot which took away just the slightest bit from your presentation.
Overall, this was a VERY good commentary. You're on the right track, Sofie!!!!