Rachel

media type="file" key="Rachel E.m4a"Pilgrim at Tinker Creek July's Peoplemedia type="file" key="rge.m4a" Did the speaker address context? Purpose?** Rachel does a great job of addressing the purpose of the passage: “to characterize the Smales family who were contemplating leaving South Africa”. After explaining the purpose of the passage, she talks about the general technique Gordimer uses to deliver her point. I think she should have mentioned the setting of the passage as an introduction to her commentary. This context would clarify her full understanding of what has happened before and after the scene in the passage. Overall, Rachel goes about analyzing the passage that supports the overarching theme and her argument. After introducing the passage by providing the purpose of the passage, Rachel goes through the passage line-by-line. She uses a simple organizational pattern that consists first with a brief introduction of the purpose of the passage, full analysis of the phrases and quotes line-by-line, and then a conclusion that sums up the overarching theme. Can you elaborate on the word choices Gordimer used when describing the “legendary warning hornbill of African folk-tales? Can you elaborate what kind of contrast Gordimer is trying to display through the juxtaposition of the white pariah dogs and black continent? Rachel not only points out the various literary terms used in the passage but also illustrates how their effects embody the general purpose of the passage. Rachel consistently makes connections to effects of literary term from other texts. Moreover, she does a good job in keeping a balance between textual evidence and analysis. Also, she does not use informal language but articulates formally very well. Hence, her organization is evident and allows the listeners to have an easy understanding of her points. Rachel should give a brief introduction to the context of the passage. This would clarify the listeners when the passage occurs in the book and support her understanding of the context. The discussion of the effects of the word choices- “safari-suits”, “washing round bodies in their Saturday-morning garb”. The reason behind the Saturday; connection to religion? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4**
 * Paula Choi’s Peer Review of Rachel Eisenstadt’s Commentary
 * 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?

Peer Editor: Ilya Kavalerov

Knowledge and Understanding of Extract: 4 Pretty thorough, though I wish there would have been more context given on the passage. Maybe some plot explained, just to make it easier to show that this was an important passage in the novel.

Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 The interpretation is plentiful. I think Rachel squeezed out all the literary features possible out of this passage, and a good variety of them too. I especially like how Rachel explains the effects that the literary features have. Good focus on purpose and overarching themes.

Presentation: 8 Good order, formal presentation, easy to understand, I think. I like how you progress down the passage, and have a conclusion at the end to sum up your thoughts.

Use of Language: 5 Like I said, formal, and well done.

Tad Komacek’s peer review of Rachel Eisenstadt’s commentary Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, the speaker addresses the context of the passage at the beginning. The speaker also speaks about the purpose with reference to the context. The speaker also mentions the purpose as provided by Shakespeare early in the commentary. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The commentary was organized by the argument of the speaker rather than by the organization of the passage. The speaker did not merely go through quote by quote but put her argument together through an introduction, supporting arguments and conclusion and therefore had a very strong organization for her commentary. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What is the meaning of Hamlet’s whining rather than simply to show that he is an indecisive teen? What is the importance of the “to be or not to be” speech with reference to this passage? What did the speaker do well? The speaker analyzed literary features well. The speaker also tied together the ideas provided by Shakespeare and referenced the themes in the passage while analyzing the quotes. The speaker did a good job of tying quotes into their argument and not just analyzing quote after quote in an unorganized manner. What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest that the speaker analyze more literary features with reference to Shakespare rather than simply analyzing the quote as a whole. I would also suggest that speaker use prettier language when speaking about Hamlet, not saying “whine” but rather “malefaction”, which is used later. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) They forgot to address some lit terms within the quotes, but besides seemed to get the main themes of the passage. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 1/2 Presentation: 9 1/2 Use of Language: 4

Rachel Your pod cast was very clear and cohesive and you were very well spoken. The organization through conflicts characterization and themes worked really well and your introduction served as a great outline for your commentary. You hit every concept in your thesis in your commentary and for most literary features you not only identified them but said their effects. The effects for Shakespeare's use of assonance in "remorseless, treacherous, lecherous" could also imitate snake which links to the idea of a villain (or you devil/ biblical examples). Besides this example I think you really were head on with all you lit features, conflict (internal w/in hamlet) and themes. In one of you examples for personification you used the phrase "quite interesting" you later explained you opinion but if possible I would avoid the phrase. I know you did not address this in your thesis, but as a suggestion you could also incorporate how the play metaphor is apparent in this passage and connect it to the play within a play that you talk about in your conclusion. I also loved how your personality shown through your commentary when you counted the "I" in the passage and addresses his madness in your conclusion. The one clarifying question I have for you is: What has happened in the play before this soliloquy is given by hamlet?

Score: 27.5 1.4 2.9 3.10 4. 4.5