Andrew

__Karolina Swider's Peer Review of Andrew Cerami's Commentary__ Andrew provides through context for Hamlet's behavior and the events happening on throughout the scene. He discusses the aspects of Hamlet that allow for the play to occur. Furthermore, Andrew speaks about the context of the play, claiming that Shakespeare used Hamlet as a commentary on the court system and monarchies at the time. Furthermore, Andrew states that Shakespeare used Hamlet to comment on the "absurdities of life." Such a statement is vague and common for authors to discuss; in order to make a viable claim, Andrew should have analyzed this principle further. Overall, the context and purpose of the play as well as the scene specifically is strong, with minor room for improvement (ie: further development of the "absurdities of life"). Andrew uses a simple organizational pattern of going through the passage line by line. He does not organize his commentary through literary features or themes, but rather through a simple narrative of each line. To what extent do you think Shakespeare is attempting to comment on the absurdities of life, specifically in this passage? Can you elaborate on how the use of colons and semicolons provides emphasis as opposed to simple breaks in the speeches? Can you further explain how Shakespeare utilizes Hamlet as an existentialist character and how this can be seen throughout the rest of the play? Andrew connected the passage to authorial purpose very well. Whenever he discussed the text and literary features used in it, he concluded by connecting such literary features to the purpose and reasons for Shakespeare to include them. While connecting Hamlet to an existentialist character, Andrew provides textual support as well as analysis and utilization of authorial purpose to prove his point. Andrew utilizes many literary features to prove his points about the characters through the passage. Lastly, Andrew provides a conclusion that embodies the entire passage and provides a clear ending. However, he further provides many unsubstantiated claims about the overarching themes and reasons behind Hamlet that cannot be found within the text. Andrews does not seem to strictly follow the text but rather make broad, generalized claims that are not supported by the text; such as claiming that the text shows that "Hamlet is vastly different from his peers" as well as claiming that Ros and Guild are unable to connect with Hamlet along with the rest of the characters in the play. Furthermore Andrew often simply summarizes the lines in the play instead of providing textual analysis and using the text for support. Andrew needs to focus less on the text and its context and more on the analysis of what is being said. The discussion of the "hands of fortune" is one utilizing personification of fortune; Andrew does not address this. Andrew claims that Hamlet's discussion of Denmark and Elsinore, he uses a metaphor to compare Denmark to a prison. I am unsure of this claim, and believe it to be false. Furthermore, he states that the dialogue becomes an extended metaphor, something that I also disagree with. However, Andrew does not include Hamlet's hyperbole of "Denmark being one o' the worst." and Rosencrantz's "The in the world one?" Andrew does not address any of the repetitions of words throughout the passage such as "prison," "dreams," "ambitions," or "shadows" and their purpose and utilization by Shakespeare. Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 6 Presentation: 5 Use of Language: 4
 * 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?**

media type="file" key="July's People Oral Commentary.m4a" //Peer Reviewer: Jess Metlay// 1. Did the speaker address context? Purpose?** The speaker addresses content by describing how this scene leads up to Bam catching the pig and sleeping with Maureen. Purpose is also addressed early on by stating that the passage is addressing the difference in sex between blacks and whites and animalistic tendencies of Bam and Maureen. The passage appears to be structured in a linear organizational style. While this style works, it may have been more effective to have established the idea that Gordimer is critiquing white culture and the general idea of the differences between the cultures as seen by Maureen earlier so that it was more explicitly tied into the purpose of the passage. -**How does Bam's drop in power affect Maureen's understanding of white vs. black socioeconomic status? -What tone does the narrator take in this passage, especially when describing Maureen's thoughts? -How does the differing portrayal's of sex between the two cultures either positively or negatively affect the reader's opinion of the two cultures and their relations to one another? The speaker did a good job breaking down the passage on a higher level especially in regards to the "how". Gordimer's purpose as both a social commentator and as an author developing characters and conflicts is addressed. I especially liked how the idea of differing socioeconomic status was addressed as it relates to how the Gordimer views apartheid. See comments in next section as well. While the speaker did a nice job addressing what is going on in the passage there seemed to be several separate ideas developing: difference is sexual relations, white creation of oppression, and Gordimer's negative view of white behavior till towards the last two minutes or so. It would be more effective for these ideas to be better incorporate together through out the commentary, especially in the beginning thesis. The speaker needs to be more explicit when describing the "whys" of diction. Beyond just saying that diction is used or that a phrase is used it is important to address either the specific type of diction of phrase (adverb, absolute statement, rhetorical question, etc.) in order to take the appreciation of literary feature up to the next level. Also while themes are touched upon or implied (struggle between blacks and whites, power struggle, etc) they need to be more 'visibly' addressed. Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 4
 * //__I believe that John's commentary was accidentally posted here__//
 * 2. Was there an organization principle utilized?**
 * 3. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?
 * 4. What did the speaker do well?**
 * 5. What would you suggest for improvement?**
 * 6. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc)?**
 * What would you score them based on the rubric?**