Melissa

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Oral Commentary:

media type="file" key="P@TC.mp3"

July's People Oral Commentary: media type="file" key="Melissa Langer JP.mp3" Josh Levin -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes the speaker addresses context very thoroughly, she relates the passage to the book up to that point and makes reference to the context of the overall story and the passage’s relationship it. Additionally the speaker relates the passage to the contemporary historical, political and social problems, which gave inspiration to Gordimer such as apartheid and the future of Black-White relations. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, the speaker first summarized the passage and then analyzed at first literary features as related to key themes and then went on to analyze the passage line for line. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Does Gordimer write herself into this book through the character of Maureen? -What did the speaker do well? The speaker made fantastic connections of literary features, themes and Gordimers intentions that seemed very hard to pick up on given the cryptic nature of the text. In addition she kept her podcast interesting by breaking up and thus allowing the listener to digest the ideas before moving on to the next ones. -What would you suggest for improvement? More tone changes and also cut out the Ums. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) - How Maureen is the opposite of Gordimer, and how that influences the passage. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and understanding: 5 Interpretation and personal response: 9.5 Presentation: 7.5 Use of language: 3.5

Commentary for Melissa Langer – Act III, Scene III lines 77 – 110 -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, Melissa addressed the context of the scene in relation to its part in the play. While she explained the plot of the passage, she did not address its purpose in answering why this passage is crucial to the development of the play – can this passage be eliminated from Hamlet and not affect the overall structure of the play? If not, why does it need to exist? -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, the organization of this commentary was very easy to follow – she explained the passage briefly in the beginning then specified by reading though and highlighting the techniques used in each line in order and ended with a summary of the theme and tone of the overall passage. This broad opening, specific middle, and broad closing is a very good technique to follow. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? After Hamlet says “to heaven”, there is a line break which signifies a pause and thinking. Then, Hamlet picks up his train of thought with “O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.” You touched on this point a little in your commentary, but why do you think that Hamlet has concluded on that point even though his previous characterization dictates that he is an inconclusive type of person. What does Hamlet say either before or after that statement can you use to defend your point? -What did the speaker do well? Good job on identifying literary terms and their effects on the overall tone of the passage (aka how and why) and also the identification of his sarcastic tone in this passage. That was a very crucial point to realize as that I would imagine if a reader took Hamlet non-sarcastically, it would result in a very inaccurate commentary. I especially liked your reference of biblical allusions. -What would you suggest for improvement? It would be structurally clearer if you set up a system on how you go about dissecting every sentence in the passage. I suggest that, first, you read though it, second, identify any literary terms, and then relate those literary terms to a why in the sense that you need to talk about that specific segment you have just analyzed in terms of the whole play. As in, what does this do to the overall tone of the passage? Is this line crucial in developing the passage’s propose of Hamlet characterization, plot development though more delayed action? This last piece would be easier to accomplish if you first identify the purpose of the passage in relation to the whole play, then that become your thesis and each line within the passage becomes your supporting examples. I hope this makes sense. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) There were a few minute details I noticed, but you did touch on all the major ones in the passage. But for the sake of writing something here, I’ll list some ones I noted that were not brought up. While you talked about the overall tone of the passage as bleak with a shift from rash decision to philosophical indecision, I think there is a singular and pivotal point, a key component that pushed him through that transition. And that is when he says: “O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.” -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding of Extract of Work = 3 Interpretation and Personal Response = 5 Presentation = 7 Use of Language = 3 Total = 18

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? You got the context down. Purpose not so much, and if you did, you didn’t stress it or make it a substantial point in your discussion. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organization seemed mostly to be the order that the lines appear in the text, rather than an order based on an organization of points that you wanted to get across. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? There’s a really interesting noise in the background which grows in pitch as the podcast progresses, I’m really curious as to what it is. What did the speaker do well? You stressed the literary terms well, as well as explaining each line. The pace was nice and relaxed. I like the occasional stutters as well, breaks up the pace from being continuous. What would you suggest for improvement? I’d somehow like to feel more involved, maybe added enthusiasm or special voices when quoting would get me excited. I don’t feel enough overall theme and overarching author’s purpose in your commentary. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 4 Use of Language: 3.5

Melissa’s Commentary: You did well to give the concise context of the passage, and the authorial purpose was insightful, when addressed. However, authorial purpose could have been addressed more often. Whenever you discuss the text in terms of the readers/audience, make sure it is in terms of Shakespeare’s intent, not Hamlet’s. Your linear pattern of organization allowed you to address every part of this passage, but try to avoid simply translating lines – assume your audience understands. You do a good job of applying broad-spectrum literary terms, but could use more specific ones as well. A few places when you used the word “repetition”, “anaphora” or “polysyndeton” could have also applied. Your diction and pace was good, but try to avoid using the same word too many times, or repeating an idea from the beginning of your sentence at the end of it. Also, you introduced each line reading as “Hamlet goes on to say…”; try to change up your word choice. I would also recommend addressing the irony in the passage; Hamlet does not want to kill Claudius at a time when the King is close to heaven, yet Claudius does not feel the closeness that Hamlet perceives. Also, make sure you look at the overall themes of this passage and how its meaning fits into the play. Questions I would have asked: Had Hamlet heard the King’s last two lines of the scene (“My words fly up, my thoughts remain below; / words without thoughts never to heaven go”), how might that have changed Hamlet’s choice not to kill the king at this moment? What theme in this passage can be seen in the play as a whole? My Rubric Grade: Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8/10 Presentation: 8/10 Use of Language: 4/5

Peer Editor: Joanna Qian -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, Melissa starts off by telling us where the passage is located. She also tells us that the passage is a flashback to describe Maureen’s relationship with a childhood servant, Lydia. Melissa states that the purpose of the passage is to establish Maureen’s character and give us a history of her situation and her philosophy regarding apartheid as she was growing up. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Melissa goes through her passage chronologically. She first explains the context and then goes sentence by sentence, reading a quote and then explaining it with supporting evidence. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Melissa tells us towards the beginning that Maureen had a revelation about her naivety towards how she thought she was a liberal white and treated blacks well. But she should elaborate on this point. Why did Gordimer include this revelation in the flashback? -What did the speaker do well? Melissa addresses literary terms right from the beginning. For example, she shows how the sweet diction of Lydia’s dialogue contrasts with the phrase “chastising critical mood” to show the extremes of Lydia’s character and show how much the two races contrast. Melissa also does a good job when she tells us, with strong supporting evidence, how Maureen does not really know Lydia outside of her servant roles very well at all. This further helps Melissa establish the contrast between the two races. She also does a good job addressing imagery in the passage, such as the part about Lydia’s plump neck and sweaty smell, to further establish the difference between the two races. Overall, Melissa does a very good job highlighting the contrasts between Maureen and Lydia, and thus the contrasts between the whites and blacks. Melissa does this by utilizing many good quotes for evidence and contrasting them side by side to reveal the true nature of Maureen’s dialogue. -What would you suggest for improvement? Melissa makes many very good points and analyzes each individual part well. But in some cases, though she analyzes the sentence well, she does not really connect it back into context and back into her overarching theme. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Melissa addresses literary terms throughout the entire commentary. But she does not always address the overarching theme. So she should keep in mind when she addresses the literary terms how it ties back into the overarching themes. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding of Extract: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 9 Use of Language: 5