Manuel

July's People Oral COmmentary

media type="file" key="pilgrimcommentaryTEBASPUEYO.mp3"Peer Review: July’s People Manuel: last passage of text You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Manuel began his presentation with an examination of context and returned to it through out his commentary to highlight the importance of the passage: it is a culmination of many of Gordimer’s themes. As for purpose, Manuel returned all his literary terms to their specific purpose for establishing Maureen’s identity as a way to explore the problem of apartheid. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? At first I was worried, because Manuel went through the passage several times, each time exploring a different aspect of it. However, this repetition became a way of building his argument to the final conclusion, and I was impressed by this sophisticated approach to the commentary. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Why do you think Maureen becomes “wild” as she approaches civilization, what effect does this have? Do you believe this to be the climax of the book? Do you believe, apropos Maureen’s flight, that still, the “new cannot be born” as Gordimer says? -What did the speaker do well? Manuel continually address literary terms and related them back to the ideas of identity, apartheid and societal roles. Additional, his treatment of delusion and hysteria was very interesting and he fully developed the idea of Maureen’s lack of identity and how this affects her reactions aka why she runs. Manuel also spoke very clearly, slowly and confidently. It was a pleasure to listen to him. -What would you suggest for improvement? Manuel generally did very well. Small improvements include making sure the reader understand where you are in the passage. Sometimes he listed the line numbers, but did not directly tell us what he was referencing in his use of literary devices. It was slightly confusing at times. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Manuel did a very thorough analysis, both of his passage, and its further importance. I do not think he forgot anything of significance.

-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge/understanding – 5 Interpretation/ Response – 9 Presentation – 10 Use of Language - 5

=== = Cate Butler's Peer Review for Manuel Knowledge and Understanding- 5 You showed a deep understanding of the text and connected information in your passage to events that occurred earlier in the book. You picked up on the major themes of the passage and identified many literary elements (especially diction). Interpretation-10 You identified all the major literary elements in the passage and addressed authorial purpose. You talked about Maureen as an extended metaphor for apartheid and discussed why the two major themes that you chose to talk about were important in the ‘big picture’. You talked about how Nadine Gordimer used different writing styles to get the intended affect, however you might want to specify what kind of diction/imagery is being used or created. You talked about the river as a literal and metaphorical barrier, however you might want to address water as a general motif in the book. Presentation-10 Your presentation was very easy to follow and the important ideas were easily discernable. Use of Language-10 Your vocabulary was varied and you identified many literary terms.

Laura Jungreis Ms. Harper IB English 23 September 2008

Manuel's commentary: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, he explains what has occurred before this scene and he references events to come, which demonstrates his knowledge of the play. Purpose is discussed as well; he refers to Shakespeare, which shows his understanding of authorial intent. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? He begins by stating the overall theme of this particular passage and ties it in nicely to the rest of the text, discussing fate and revenge in particular. Then he breaks it down by addressing Shakespeare’s style, including syntax and other literary features. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What do the cruel references to women have to do with the theme? Do they have anything to do with his mother? Are these thoughts obvious during his interactions with Ophelia? -What did the speaker do well? Manuel’s presentation is well organized and easy to follow. He sounds confident, collected and calm. -What would you suggest for improvement? This commentary is not even six minutes long. For the IB exam, the length will be important so he should work on being more descriptive in order to reach the time limit. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Manuel neglects to explain the references to heaven and hell and consequently the motif of the allure but fear of death. It also would have been evidence that supports Manuel’s claim that Hamlet is a religious man.

-What would you score them based on the rubric? I would give him a 4 for knowledge and understanding, a 9 for interpretation, a 9 for presentation and a 5 for use of language.

Matt Lawrence Peer Review of Manuel

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Manuel addresses the context, in which the passage is presented, both what happened to lead up to the passage and what ramifications this passage has on the overall plot. He also references Shakespeare’s views on the theme of Revenge and relates that to direct quotations from the passage.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Goes through the passage linearly analyzing literary terms and the overall tone and meaning of the passage. Explores different tones and themes, as well as a couple of purposes Shakespeare may have had for writing some of the lines.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What is the overall authorial purpose of this passage? What evidence of the purpose do you see in quotations or themes portrayed in the passage?

-What did the speaker do well? Manuel links literary terms and direct quotations to overall purpose of the author and meaning on the plot of the book very well.

-What would you suggest for improvement? Instead of focusing on one authorial purpose and wrapping the whole analyzation up at the end, Manuel chooses to pursue multiple themes and purposes, without a good conclusion to tie all the loose ends.

-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) He covers all literary terms and themes very well.

-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 Edit of Manuel's Oral Presentation by Cate Butler Overall Manuel’s commentary was excellent; he seemed very calm and collected while he discussed the passage. He successfully mentioned the scenes and events that led up to his passage, and throughout his presentation he continually referred to future events in the play, showing his knowledge of the text. He identified the major themes that are prevalent in his passage, that of revenge and fate, and included why Shakespeare would want to include them in this play. He also identified Shakespeare’s writing structure, and why it was important. Manual identified the tone of the speech and found all of the literary features that were relevant to his topics of discussion. Manuel also did not read every line he was referring to, but instead only voiced the important words and phrases to emphasize them. The presentation was very well organized and very easy to follow. There are only a couple of changes I would make; identify the demeaning words Shakespeare used in reference to the women, and why they are important. He also did not mention the contrast Shakespeare uses when talking about heaven and hell in the same line. Also, the variation of vocabulary could be better, however it is by no means bad at all. The questions I would ask Manuel if I were the interviewer would be: “Why does Shakespeare mention women? Does it have any thing to do with Hamlet’s feminine characteristics?” If I were scoring this presentation I would give Manuel a 5 for Knowledge and Understanding of Extract of Works; a 9 for Interpretation and Personal Response; a 10 for presentation; and a 4 for use of language.