Jess+R

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Jess addresses the context well but does not explain that she will be addressing the context; she just goes right into it. This section would be perfect if she just included the line “The context of my passage is…”. When it comes to purpose, Jess does an extremely good job relating most, if not all, of the literary features she points out to an authorial purpose or a theme. This is extremely insightful for the reader and is one of the strongest parts of her commentary. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Jess goes line by line, pointing out literary features and purpose as it comes up in each line. This proves very effective for her analysis of the passage. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Can you clarify your point that murder having no tongue is a metaphor for the play? Does Hamlet really hope to have Claudius come out and confess his sins once he sees the play or just perform and action that will confirm what the ghost has said to Hamlet? When Hamlet refers to the spirit, what other part of the play or character he has encountered is he alluding to? What did the speaker do well? Jess does a nice job relating the lines she analyzes back to a purpose, a theme, another part of the play or other characters in this play. This helps the listener see why this passage was chosen as one key to the play. Jess also does a very nice job pointing out a variety of literary features in the passage, and telling the listener what these different literary features create within the passage. What would you suggest for improvement? It seems there comes a point in the passage where there really is not much there, when Hamlet is describing what the players will do to catch the conscious of the king. Even though it is apparent that Jess sees that there is not much there, she tries to make something out of it and ends up just summarizing what Shakespeare has said instead of analyzing it. When it doesn’t seem like there is much there just skip to the next portion that does have things you can analyze. Also, try to use better rhetoric when you are doing an oral commentary. This will come with more practice but all the pauses you make between your comments interrupts the flow of the oral commentary.

What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Jess forgot to address the assonance in the second line of the passage which her point about authorial purpose shown through repetition stronger. Jess called “heaven and hell” a biblical reference which is correct though she should have used the correct term ‘allusion’. Jess also misses the series of exclamation points in the first half of the passage which would have helped her address tone. The biggest thing though, is that Jess misses the references Hamlet is making to the ghost when he talks about the spirit potentially being the devil. Jess would do better if she would relate this to the theme throughout the play of uncertainty, and the effect it has on Hamlet.

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 7 Use of Language: 3 ___ July's People Commentary: media type="file" key="*AJESS.mp3"

Jess R’s OC: Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, Jess began her Oral Commentary by addressing context and then summarizing the passage/ what is going on in it. She also speaks to the purpose of the author in writing this passage, such as how alliteration emphasizes the author’s point. Not only did she use a plethora of lit terms to illustrate Gordimer’s purpose, she also used things such as narrative structure and thematic approach. Also, in the last minute of the OC she clearly states what the author’s intention was when she wrote this passage. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, she went through the passage chronologically, going line by line and pointing out the important sentences. She summarized at times when clarification was needed. She also connected any literary devices she brought up to authorial purpose, which was very effective and insightful. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? - How does Bam thinking about personalities connect to the events occurring at the time of the passage? (Elaborate) - How do you see foreshadowing through this passage? What did the speaker do well? Jess was very eloquent in her presentation; her oral commentary was easy to understand. There was not much stuttering or hesitation, which contributed to a successful commentary. Also, she did a great job of picking out parts of the passage to support her claim (that Gordimer was making a social commentary on western civilization) with the use of lit devices such as juxtaposition. What would you suggest for improvement? At times, the quotes that you read from the passage were a bit long which broke the flow of the commentary. Maybe you could only read the part that you refer to and paraphrase the rest? What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Jess did, however at times, briefly mention a lit term and not elaborate on it or connect it back to the Gordimer’s intentions and beliefs (such as when she brought up the freight train structure several times, it would have been interesting to explain why Gordimer used this.) Also, although you may have lightly touched on this, you did not clearly state any prevalent themes in this passage. Besides this though, Jess addressed most of the most important lit terms that supported her claim. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4 -- Pilgrim at Tinker Creek media type="file" key="**AAAPTCJROTH.m4a"