Joanna

Commentary: Joanna -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? No, Joanna addresses neither the context nor purpose of this passage. She provides a thorough analysis to the theme of the passage, but she does not mention the authorial purpose or significance of this theme. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Joanna organized the commentary by reading the lines in the order they appear in the passage and then analyzing each one. She related each analysis to the overarching theme of death and decay in the passage symbolized by the sun. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? She mentions that Hamlet realizes that he cannot escape from the corruption and decay, how is this significant in the rest of the play? Is this metaphor of the sun symbolizing decay and corruption seen in any other instances throughout the play? -What did the speaker do well? The commentary was very good for our first commentary. Joanna used an extremely varied and professional vocabulary that enhanced the presentation of the commentary. She also did a good job of thoroughly explaining the metaphor of the sun and relating the entire passage to this metaphor. She also describes how the theme is prevalent in each character through their characterization. It is interesting how she mentions that light is used to contrast its typical interpretation of instilling life since it refers to destruction in this passage. Overall, it was a very cohesive commentary since the theme of corruption and decay was mentioned throughout. -What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest that Joanna did not solely focus on the metaphor of the sun as a symbol for death and decay. The commentary would be better if she included a wider range of literary terms, instead of just symbolism. At times she stretched the symbol a bit too far, such as mentioning, “sunburn” from being exposed to the light of corruption. Additionally, Joanna says, “Hamlet is commenting on the fact…”, she should be cautious when saying that Hamlet is commenting on something because they are actually Shakespeare’s words, not Hamlet’s. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Joanna forgets to address the context of the passage completely. She does not explain the setting of the scene or why it is happening. She also does not explain the authorial purpose of the passage, such as why this symbol of the sun and decay are significant to the rest of the story or Shakespeare’s message, in general. Additionally, Joanna’s commentary is lacking a proper conclusion to summarize her main points and add closure to the commentary. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge & Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 7 Use of Language: 5

media type="file" key="English_Commentary_July's_People.mp3"

Peer review by Kelsey Curtis:

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Joanna did not address context in her commentary. She jumped right into analysis of the passage without stating page numbers, what happened in the scene, preceding or following scenes, nor did she state the name or author of the novel. This made it difficult for the listener to understand what Joanna was discussing at first and distracts the listener from Joanna’s opening comments as they try to figure out what is going on in the passage.

Was there an organizational principle used for their commentary? Joanna went through the passage in chronological order, analyzing each sentence as it came up. Joanna seemed to tie everything back to the power struggle between the whites and the blacks during apartheid, yet this overall theme could have been made more obvious by a small introduction at the beginning of the commentary. This would have helped Joanna establish a more definitive structure.

What questions would you ask this person for clarification? I would ask Joanna to address the context of the passage. What happened before or after this scene? Why is this passage so significant to the novel as a whole and to Gordimer’s message through her novel?

What did the speaker do well? Joanna certainly analyzed each quote she chose well. I especially liked her comparison of the mosquitoes to the whites and her discussion of the contrast between Bam’s hunting for pleasure and Bam’s hunting for survival. Joanna did tie everything back to the central theme of power struggle and included a bit of the epigraph at the beginning of the novel, “the old is dying and the new cannot be born”. Joanna did speak for at least thirteen minutes. There were no long pauses, nor rambling; the time that she used was filled with meaningful discussion of the passage.

What would you suggest for improvement? Joanna should include context of this passage so that the listener is better able to understand what she is talking about. It will also aid her in the analysis of the passage, as it will allow her to discuss why her quotes are significant to the novel and Gordimer’s message as a whole. Joanna could also develop a more concrete structure. Instead of analyzing the passage chronologically, she could address certain themes, such as power struggle, contrast between the Africans and the Smales, and contrast between the blacks and the whites. Although Joanna provided in-depth analysis of each quote she chose, she did not use many literary terms; these would greatly improve her commentary. Joanna also read every quote that she chose. This was perhaps time consuming, and the time could have been better used instead to address context.

What did they forget to address? Joanna did not include context of the passage, nor did she use lit terms in her analysis.

What would you score them based on the rubric? For criterion A, I would give Joanna a 3 out of 5. Joanna clearly understood the context of the passage because she was able to effectively analyze it. Yet she did not discuss the context of the passage in her commentary, and so I cannot give her full marks. For criterion B, I would give Joanna an 8 out of 10. Joanna evaluated the passage well, yet she did not include literary terms. For criterion C, I would give Joanna an 8 out of 10. She had a clear structure, and she presented her argument in a clear and coherent manner, I just feel that had she chosen to evaluate the passage in a different way than chronological order, her structure would have been more effective. I would give Joanna a 4 out of 5 for criterion D. Joanna used clear, varied, and precise language, yet she did not include many literary terms.

Joanna’s OC by Julia Elliott Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Joanna did not address context at all in her commentary, she simply started right off with the first line of the passage (be sure to do that next time it is useful to the listener!) Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Joanna followed a chronological approach to the passage, commenting on literary features and symbols as they came up line by line. Although this worked okay for her commentary, perhaps she could have used a thematic approach to the passage, so as to ensure that she stayed focus on her main point. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?  -  Where do you see evidence that the warthogs are the Smales? Elaborate on this point.  -  You said that the second piglet symbolizes apartheid, how else do you see this? The connection you made in your OC was not very clear.  - What did the speaker do well? Joanna spoke very clearly and did not seem nervous at all, which was good and helped me focus on what she was saying. Also, clearly explained the parallel between the piglet and the Smales attempting to escape their fate, which contributed to your overall point made in this commentary. She also explained Gordimer’s purpose in writing this passage constantly throughout her analysis, although lit features could have supported this. What would you suggest for improvement? Although Joanna mentioned several literary terms/devices, she did not effectively connect all of them back to authorial purpose. There was definitely evidence of thought put into this passage, now just take the next step and tie it all together. Also, I felt as if there were more literary features you could have addressed to support your ideas. Perhaps you could paraphrase some of the longer quotes, only quoting the crucial parts of the text. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 3

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: Oral Commentary: media type="file" key="PaTC_Ch15.mp3"