Connor

media type="file" key="Johnson_Connor_TinkerCreekCommentary.mp3"__Karolina Swider's Peer Review of Connor Johnson's Oral Commentary__ Connor addresses the context of the passage; he places Hamlet's soliloquy into the story line and provides a brief synopsis of what has occurred before. However, Connor does not address the purpose of Hamlet nor of Shakespeare in this scene. Authorial purpose is an important aspect of analysis of a text and Connor does not provide it. Furthermore, the introduction to the soliloquy is brief and the described context is very broad. Just like Andrew above him, Connor does not utilize any organizational principle throughout his commentary. Instead, Connor simply goes through the provided passage line-by-line and comments on each aspect of the line. He reads the passage, summarizes it and then provides his analysis of the quote. While this is an easy way of organizing the oral commentary, it is one of the weaker ones. What do you think Shakespeare is trying to show or prove by including this soliloquy by Hamlet into the play, Hamlet? You seem to focus a lot on the irony present in this passage, why do you think Shakespeare uses so much irony? Can you elaborate on how the line "Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;'" can possibly foreshadow Hamlet's suicide, or even his death? Connor seems to have a good grasp of the literary terms present in the passage, and is able to analyze them well. He can utilize such literary features to provide support for a certain claim or point he is trying to make. For example: using the line "A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom / And every three part coward..." Connor extrapolates to the entire play about Hamlet behavior. His claims are founded in the text and are supported by what is provided for the reader. Connor seems to read large chunks of the passage at a time, which he later continues to analyze. There seems to be a lack of cohesion throughout and the continual reading of text does not better the situation. Instead of reading each line and each chunk of the passage which proves itself to be ineffective, Connor can group important quotes and phrases by themes, ie irony, or through literary terms. Connor seems to phase in and out of different styles of language (informal vs. formal). It is important to provide varied and strong diction during oral commentaries, and more practice will provide Connor with such abilities. Connor does not provide a conclusion for his commentary at all. This acts as a very weak point in his commentary and without such a conclusion, the comments are weakened. Had Connor provided a conclusion, the commentary would have been much stronger. Connor does not discuss the extended metaphor (or the conceit) of the beast. Throughout the beginning of the soliloquy, Hamlet assimilates himself to a beast. Furthermore, Connor does not discuss the apostrophe in the first two lines, nor the rhetorical question that follows. Connor does not address the enjambment present throughout lines 46 to 48, starting with "A thought which" and ending with "Earth exhort me." Had Connor addressed this enjambment, his discussion of that chunk would have been much stronger. Throughout lines 49 to 55, starting with "Witness this army" and ending with "Even for an egg-shell" Connor does not discuss the asyndeton presented in the lines. Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 5 Presentation: 4 Use of Language:
 * 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="Johnson_Connor_Commentary.mp3" _ July's People media type="file" key="Johnson_Connor_Commentary.mp3" Commentator: Connor Johnson Peer Editor: Laura Jungreis

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Connor demonstrates a good knowledge of the contents of the passage. His comprehension of the content is clear. He has a precise knowledge of the context that surrounds this exert, providing such information when appropriate. The extract was nicely placed within the context of the larger work from which it was taken.

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Connor’s response is very well structured. It is easy to follow as it proceeds chronologically through the extract. Supporting references, where relevant, are smoothly and effectively integrated into his response. Connor’s speech is clear and coherent, and his arguments are convincing.

What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How do the literary terms you mentioned contribute to an overall theme of the passage? What is your final conclusion?

What did the speaker do well? Connor has a good interpretation of the extract. Each point he makes is supported by evidence from the text. He analyses the effect that literary features have the on the text, and captures the feeling expressed in the passage, particularly when discussing July’s mother’s reaction to the Smales living in her village.

What would you suggest for improvement? Connor says, “you know” fairly frequently, his own version of “um.” Next time he should be more confident in his analysis and stifle his nerves. Also, he should be more explicit with his pronouns; once or twice I was unsure who the subject was.

What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) No specific theme is pinpointed and explained. Oppression, racism and power struggles are all addressed but no one theme is focused on in detail.

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 4.5 Interpretation and personal response: 7 Presentation: 8 Use of language: 4

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Oral Commentary


 * || media type="file" key="Johnson_Connor_TinkerCreekCommentary.mp3"___ ||