Britt

__Elliot's Review__ - Britt skillfully places her passage into context (though she could have been more explicit about addressing the issue of racial apartheid in South Africa). Nadine Gordimer's authorial purpose is discussed and referred to throughout the commentary.
 * Did the speaker address context? Purpose?**

- Britt provided context for the passage, mentioned Gordimer's intentions, proceeded to analyze the passage line-by-line, and concluded by restated Gordimer's authorial purpose. There were a few structural lapses, such as the clip tacked on at the end.
 * Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?**

- What does Nadine Gordimer's choice in syntax reveal about this passage and the novel? How Gordimer use the bakkie throughout the novel? You mentioned the theme of the reversal of power; what in this passage sheds light on this reversal?
 * What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?**

- Britt demonstated solid understanding of the text and interpreted the passage well. Her discussion of literary features repeatedly referred back to the previous discussion of Nadine Gordimer's purpose in writing //July's People//.
 * What did the speaker do well?**

- There were some instances where you were discussing the language in the passage (i.e. the wine and cigarettes part) in which Britt attempted to make a connection to the overarching theme but was unsuccessful. She should make sure that whatever she discusses can be unified under the theme of her commentary. In terms of literary analysis, Britt could have benefited from addressing syntax and its effects.
 * What would you suggest for improvement?**

- Britt discussed the Bakkie, but could have said "symbol." Again, she also could have addressed sentence structure.
 * What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)**

- I. Knowledge and Understanding: 5 - II. Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 - III. Presentation: 8 - IV. Use of Language: 4
 * What would you score them based on the rubric?**

Peer Editor: Pavel Speaker: Brittany

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? • Brittany gives some background info, but could talk more about the setting of the scene.

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?

• Brittany chooses to organize the commentary in a chronological order; by moving down the text line by line, which is easier to follow for the listener, but -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?

• What do you think is the purpose of this scene? • Why do you think the relationship between the characters is important at this point in the play?

-What did the speaker do well? • Authorial purpose was mentioned in the end. • All the points were supported by the quotes • The commentary sounded well prepared.

-What would you suggest for improvement? • I think that the summary of the quotes is not important and should not be included. • A brief thesis should be mentioned in the beginning • I don’t think that you should mention or comment on different passages (hamlet’s soliloquy) • More lit features should be mentioned • Authorial purpose is also not mentioned until the end of the commentary

-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) I think that Brittany did a fairly good job with addressing the themes. She, however, did not mention most of the lit terms.

-What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 7 Use of language: 3

Brittany addresses the context by first giving a brief introduction as to when this scene is taking place. She also provides the purpose of this passage early on: it serves in part to present two major themes, the theme of appearance versus reality and the contrast between relationships Hamlet experiences with the other characters, namely Claudius and Gertrude in this scene. Later on in the commentary, Brittany elaborates that the authorial purpose is to show these relationsips. Overall, she did a good job in highlighting the purpose and context of the passage. Also, Brittany’s organizational principle was to analyze line by line. She did not organize it by theme or by any other method but instead provides comments as each line appears. On the other hand, she did insert connections to the authorial purpose throughout the commentary instead of leaving it to be discussed at the end. Furthermore, she did not waste extra time quoting each line but instead achieved a balance between commenting and reading the lines.

As an accessor, I would like to know where in the passage does it show or hint at all that Gertrude suspects Claudius of killing Hamlet senior. You stated that the colon shows or emphasizes the abrupt statement that Hamlet is about to make. Could you elaborate on how and why Shakespeare uses the colon here? Furthermore, why did Shakespeare choose to insert two colons in this section? But besides these questions, Brittany was able to insert connections from context to authorial purpose in a smooth manner. She also made some very insightful comments such as noting the appearance vs. reality theme in Gertrude’s comment about Hamlet’s “noble father.” Overall, she was able to effectively highlight the theme of appearance versus reality between Hamlet, Claudius, and Gertrude.

There were several instances where Brittany commented that the purpose of a character’s speech was unclear. It might have been more helpful to further analyze the passage instead of commenting that the section was unclear. Furthermore, Brittany sometimes ended up summarizing a section without connecting back to the authorial purpose. But there were still definitely plenty of connections made to authorial purpose. Moreover, Brittany did not address the repetition of “father” in King Claudius’s final comment in the passage. Also, when commenting on Queen Gertrude’s role in the theme of appearance vs. reality, she did not fully emphasize the comment “look like a friend on Denmark”. This quote is important in that it shows the reality of Gertrude seeking Hamlet’s approval of her marriage.

Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Work(s): 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 6 Presentation: 5 Use of Language: 4

media type="file" key="July_OC_Britt.m4a"BRITT_GDmedia type="file" key="July People 2.m4a"BRITT_2

July's people Commentary Peer Review:

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Addresses context but should address the importance of the passage in the book. She discusses the purpose of the passage as being the Smales family becoming fully immersed in the village life and that their previous life was becoming more distant and discusses the authorial purpose at the end. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There is an organizational principle within the passage and she proceeds chronologically. She explains why she is proceeding chronologically because it fits with the theme of the Smales family integration in village life. However, she talks a lot about the theme of power struggle and here the chronological structure is not as effective because she repeats herself. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Are Maureen and Bam willing to integrate into the village? How does Maureen’s realization that money is futile contribute to her earlier discussing of love relating to economy? -What did the speaker do well? She spoke quite confidently and she brought up really interesting things I hadn’t thought about before. She used many literary devices which is great for that aspect of the rubric. Overall it was well done. -What would you suggest for improvement? The commentary was good but she doesn’t need to say, “quote” all the time and it saves time if she doesn’t. She should use the word ‘diction’ instead of “Gordimer uses words like” so that it contributes to the literary devices aspect of the rubric. She should also find an organizational principle that can accommodate all the themes that she will be discussing. For example, “Power struggle is shown through symbolism in lines…” and should discuss all the lines showing power struggle before she moves on to the next theme. She should address the importance of everything she addresses. For example she states that diction showed Julys clumsy manner in driving but she should say why Gordimer included it. There’s a lot of summary, which takes time so she should try to avoid too much summary. Furthermore there’s a lot of repetition so that should be avoided as well and it mostly occurred due to the organizational principle. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) When she says about money being futile in the village she could’ve referred back to Maureen connecting love to economy at the beginning of the book and her realization that money is futile takes her away from Bam who is the one that can provide the most money. Additionally she could talk about how Gordimer is commenting on white liberals who do not act upon what they condemn. Leitmotif. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Work(s): 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 7 Use of Language: 4

Tinker Creek:media type="file" key="Tinker_Britt.m4a"