Kelsey

media type="file" key="dillard podcast kelsey.m4a" -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes the speaker addresses context very thoroughly, she shows why the passage is unique by showing its differences to the other passages, mainly that this passage shows Bam’s perspective. In addition she shows how this relates back to Nadine Gordimers Liberal Activist views and juxsstaposes it against the non-action of the book. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, the speaker went from theme to theme and based most literary discussion on the discussion of the themes. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? We know about Bam’s perspective, what does this really show us and why is it necessary to know his perspective if he is such a minor character? What speaker did well? The speaker connected themes well which allowed for a well-flowed commentary which was easy to follow. -What would you suggest for improvement? Direct mention of the literary features, not just staring them down by naming what makes them. In addition, the outside noises were a distraction from your commentary but you probably cannot control that factor. However one thing you can control is the “ums” which detract a little from your presentation.
 * Josh Levin

-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) - Bam’s relevance to overall themes, and she forgot to mention literary features head on. Knowledge and understanding: 5 Interpretation and personal response: 8 Presentation: 7 Use of language: 4

Kelsey July’s People – Reviewed by Jessi Milestone

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?** You provide a basic synopsis of the part of the plot in which your passage takes place. You do a good job of summarizing the background of the Smales’ lives and their personal viewpoints.

Your passage seems to be organized by themes; it works well, but try to make the separation and grouping of various themes more explicit. Also, tie your various themes together.
 * -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?**

What does this passage reveal about the Smales? What impact does this passage have on the development of the plot of the novel?
 * -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?**

You meticulously dissected the structure of Nadine Gordimer’s writing, and found the meaning in the placement of each word. You also do a very good job of connecting the Smales’ ideology with the thoughts and ideas expressed in the passage.
 * -What did the speaker do well?**

I would suggest that you discuss how the events of the rest of the novel led to this moment, and how it is representative of the discrepancy of roles between the blacks and the whites.
 * -What would you suggest for improvement?**

In the beginning, you discuss the effects of literary devices, but you do not explicitly name them. You mention lit terms in the middle, but sort of leave them behind again towards the end. Also, don’t forget to address the placement of your passage in the novel.
 * -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)**

Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8/10 Presentation: 8/10 Use of Language: 4/5
 * -What would you score them based on the rubric?**

__Peer-editor: Thomas Smith__ __Oral Commentator: Kelsey Curtis__

Kelsey clearly stated the context of the passage and the purpose for her oral commentary. She began by giving a brief synopsis of Hamlet's qualities and characters from a fairly objective standpoint. Kelsey followed this contextual description by smoothly intertwining her own interpretation and analysis of what Shakespeare had intended--to show that Hamlet is a tragic hero, whose pensiveness eventually leads to his own demise. After her contextual/authorial purpose introduction Kelsey began her in-text analysis. Kelsey used a standard line-by-line style of organization, however, it did not appear dull or tiring to follow. It appeared as though she only included the necessary lines/words to support her ideas and points. Kelsey provided both a concise introduction and conclusion along with her line-by-line analysis. Her conclusion summed up her ideas thoroughly, while adding supplementary analysis to tie together her ideas. Can you elaborate a bit more on the way and reason for why Shakespeare creates contrast between Hamlet and some of the other characters mentioned? Can you explain further what you mean by the "the triangle of contrasting sons," and how it supports the idea that Shakespeare is criticizing the idea of revenge? Can you describe in more detail why you believe Shakespeare created Hamlet as a tragic hero? Kelsey overall did a very excellent job. Throughout the commentary, Kelsey included a balance of literary features, analysis, and "line reading," which all came together to create a very nice flow. Kelsey also used a wide variety of sophisticated and precise vocabulary, which showed a high level of knowledge and understanding, especially when describing the purpose for literary features Shakespeare used (mentioning ways Shakespeare creates certain tones, characterization, etc.). Kelsey also stated thoroughly Shakespeare's authorial purpose, connecting it to her own ideas and analysis of the text throughout her commentary. She also clearly stated what I feel that there is not a great deal of improvement necessary for Kelsey's oral commentary. I feel that she presented the text and her analysis very well, with a more than adequate vocabulary. The only thing I can think of is maybe connecting the idea of Hamlet as a tragic hero a little more clearly to the idea that Shakespeare is criticizing the idea of revenge (especially through Hamlet's pensiveness). I don't feel that Kelsey forgot anything major, nor do I believe she had any unfinished ideas or interpretations, other than the aforementioned question about "the triangle" of characters. I feel that the lines/words she chose to include were enough to support her overarching theme/idea, and that no other contextual evidence is necessary. Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 9 Use of Language: 5
 * Did the speaker address context? Purpose?**
 * Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?**
 * What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?**
 * What did the speaker do well?**
 * What would you suggest for improvement?**
 * What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)**
 * What would you score them based on the rubric?**

Kelsey Curtis: Evaluated by Britt Glassman Kelsey, you did a very nice job of stating the context of the passage at the beginning of your commentary. You also gave a simple and concise introduction to the passage that helped guide my listening. Throughout your entire commentary, you mentioned Shakespeare’s intention multiple times. However, I wish that you had delved deeper into your statement that Shakespeare is “criticizing revenge” through this passage. In regard to your organization, you started off with what seemed like a thematic organization. I was under the impression that you were going to go chronological through the passage, and comment on the comparison between Hamlet and Fortinbras then, I thought that you were going to proceed and analyze the theme of death in the passage. Although you had a good start, your first comparison of Fortinbras and Hamlet was a bit confusing because you went back to previous lines after having commented on lines that followed those quotes. If you had gone chronologically through the passage, I believe that your commentary would have been much more successful. In addition, although you did do a good job of considering the theme of death in the passage through commenting on the use of “grim diction” among other devices, I feel as though you could have expanded on this theme more. Perhaps you could have considered giving each theme an equal amount of time, especially considering that you seemed to be lost for words toward the end of your passage. If I were the accessor, I would ask you to clarify what the tone of the passage is. Does the tone have anything to do with certainty vs. uncertainty in Hamlet’s character? In addition I would ask you how Hamlet has developed and changed since the beginning of the play, considering the textual evidence presented in this passage. Finally, I would ask you to comment on the very beginning of the passage. Orally, I thought that you were very well spoken. Also, you did a very nice job of introducing the passage. In terms of analysis, you used the appropriate literary terms in order to illustrate your point. I was especially impressed with how well you explained what the literary features were accomplishing. For example, the metaphor of the eggshell being representative of the motives of Fortinbra’s army. As I previous stated, I would work to improve your organization, such an improvement would allow the listener to follow your commentary more easily. Also, when you start a commentary, try to find something in the first few lines. In your commentary, you jumped to line 40 but never commented on lines 33-39. Although you definitely considered all the main aspects of the passage in your commentary, I believe it would be better in your final draft, to consider what is happening in lines 33-39. Whey does he ask a rhetorical question in the 35? Also, I would elaborate on the tone of the passage. This soliloquy marks a major shift in Hamlet’s certainty about his father’s death. You could also consider including a few sentences in regard to the punctuation of the passage (exclamation marks, question marks, colons, etc.). If I were scoring you with the rubric I would give you the following scores: Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Work(s): 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 5

Peer-editor: Pavel Aprelev Oral Commentator: Kelsey Curtis

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? • The speaker introduces the context of the play, while keeping the focus and staying • I think that a little bit more detailed explanation of the scene is needed ( where is Hamlet? Why is he talking about the army? Etc.) •

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?

• The quotes were not brought up in order, but rather in a way that helped the speaker prove her points. • This organizational pattern was a bit harder to follow, but helped the speaker to bring up useful quotes when needed. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?

• Why do you think Shakespeare chooses to include this passage in his play?

-What did the speaker do well? • A clear thesis in the beginning • All the points were supported by the quotes • The speaker constantly referenced the authorial purpose instead of simply summarizing the lines. • The flow of the commentary seemed very smooth up until the last two minutes

-What would you suggest for improvement? • The name and the number of the passage should be introduced in the beginning • Reading the quotes before talking about them would help the listener to understand right away what the speaker is talking about. • The last two minutes seem to be forced and unnecessary.

-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)

• Even through the theme ‘the perfect prince’ was addressed, I think it would be helpful to also address the cowardness of the prince. -What would you score them based on the rubric?

Knowledge and understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 8 Use of language: 5

__Peer Editor: Susu Harmache Oral Commentator: Kelsey Curtis__

-//Did the speaker address context? Purpose?// Yes Kelsey went into comprehensive and relevant detail about the context and further stated that the commentary was significant because it was a rare time in the novel where the perspective is that of Bam’s. Kelsey stated that the purpose of the passage was to show how Bam, the white man, was now afraid that the chief, the new powerful black man, was going to force him and his family to leave.

-//Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?// Thus her organization was dictated by the thesis that she set herself up with. She gave supporting information as to why Bam was worried that he was going to be evicted from this make-shift housing arrangement. Then Kelsey was set up to create a comparison between Bam as a powerful white man and Bam as a disgraced white man. She also compared the action vs. inaction between the white and black cultures. It was an overall extremely clear presentation

-//What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?// I would ask Kelsey what the overall tone of the passage was in her opinion.

-//What did the speaker do well?// I was impressed at how composed Kelsey was. She was able to clearly convey her thoughts without seeming disturbed or go too far off track. What I was most impressed by was the fact that she was able to identify what Nadine Gordemier meant with clear evidence from the text and then demonstrate her superior knowledge and understanding of the text by commenting for example on the hypocrisy Bam displays in one part.

-//What would you suggest for improvement?// I would suggest that during the real commentary Kelsey refrains from playing with whatever she was playing with in her hands because there was an awful lot of background noise.

Peer-evaluation:

1. Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Works: 5 2. Interpretation and Personal Response: 10 3. Presentation: 8 4. Use of Language: 5

media type="file" key="kelsey july oral commentary.m4a" width="108" height="108"