Tom

Tom's commentary: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Tom does a good job of demonstrating his knowledge of the appropriate context of this passage by beginning with an explanation of what has occurred right before. Then, the purpose is addressed immediately after. He specifically states that Shakespeare is exploring the idea of death and the unknown. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, Tom organized his commentary by initially stating the overarching idea. He then goes through the soliloquy chronologically, supporting the theme by explaining the effect of literary features such as litotes, contrast, hyperbole and metaphors. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Why does Hamlet choose to live after listing all the horrors and disappointments in life? Does Hamlet come to any conclusions through this soliloquy? How does this passage propel the plot forward? -What did the speaker do well? Tom’s appreciation of the literary features in this passage is convincing and detailed. He references a variety of features and does not rely too heavily on any one. In addition, he explains well how each serves Shakespeare’s purpose. -What would you suggest for improvement? Tom should be more confident in his analysis. For example, he states that the word “air” has a royal diction to it and that it may be a reference to his father. If Tom is going to consider that possibility, he should make it a statement and leave no doubt. Furthermore, if he is going to include that idea he must explain how it ties into the main point and why it is significant. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Tom does not address the progression of this soliloquy. The recording also cuts off at the end so there is no final conclusion. -What would you score them based on the rubric? I would give him a 5 for knowledge and understanding, a 9 for interpretation, an 8 for presentation and a 5 for use of language.

media type="file" key="Gordimer Commentary.mp3"

Cate Butler's Peer Review for July's People:

Knowledge and Understanding-4 You clearly understand the book but you should go into more detail about the metaphors and connect them to the rest of the book. The bakke also shows a contrast between the past and future as it was bought as an austentatious ‘hunting vehicle’ (even though it was bright yellow) and ends up being the vehicle that helps save their lives. Ironically the yellow color Bam wanted becomes the factor that could blow their cover while they escape. Also, the pigs are a HUGE metaphor for the Smales family, so talk about it! When you were talking about possesivness you briefly mentioned how Maureen has to rethink her views, however you could have referenced the Smiel kids claiming possession over the village water, or the lack of possession over the kittens. You did a really good job discussing contrast between past and present and movement. Interpretation-7 Overall interpretation was good but again you could have elaborated more on the bakkie and pig metaphors. You addressed the major themes and showed their relevance throughout the passage. You did not address authorial purpose at all which is where you lost the majority of your points. Presentation- 10 The presentation flowed well and it was easy to follow where you were going with the oral. It was also very easy to identify your main themes as you stated them at the beginning of the presentation. Use of Language-10 Your vocabulary was varied and you used many literary terms.

media type="file" key="Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.mp3"