Ryan

media type="file" key="Oral Commentary July's People.mp3"Peer Editor: Melissa Langer Commentary: Ryan -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Ryan does address the context of the passage explaining that the passage is where Hamlet confronts Gertrude about Claudius’s crimes. He also states that this passage follows Hamlet’s murder of Polonius with the belief that he was killing the King. Ryan describes the emotions of Hamlet, stating that he is only slightly affected by the murder has committed, whereas Gertrude is afraid of Hamlet. However, Ryan does not address Shakespeare’s purpose for including this passage. He mentions that it relates to the theme of Appearance vs. reality, but does not state the significance of this particular passage. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? The organizational principle used in his commentary was simply following the order of the lines in the passage, reading line by line and analyzing the language. However, he does do a good job of using this chronological order to explain the shift in the tone of the passage when Hamlet says, “I must to England” when Hamlet changes from accusing Gertrude to reminding her that he has to go to England. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Expound upon the incestuous relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. What is its significance in the passage? How does is Hamlet’s madness in this passage similar or different to Hamlet’s madness at other points in the book? -What did the speaker do well? Overall, this was a very good first commentary. Ryan generally uses a professional and varied vocabulary that makes his ideas more convincing. He also does a good job of establishing the context, especially in explaining the opinions of the main characters at the time of the passage. Additionally, Ryan identifies a shift in the tone and relates the passage to the theme of appearance vs. reality. He also mentions and explains the significance of several literary terms. -What would you suggest for improvement? However, I think Ryan focused to heavily on literary terms such as modifiers and asyndeton. If he had included more literary terms that were used in the passage, he would have provided a more comprehensive analysis of the passage. I would also suggest that he does not mention a subject that he will not explain in full, such as Gertrude’s incestuous relationship. Additionally, I would advise him to watch the focus of his commentary, because at times he got caught up in explanations and traveled too far from the central point of his argument. I would also suggest that he make a more formal conclusion, because the commentary ends abruptly and it almost seems like he has not yet finished. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Ryan did not forget any main element of the commentary, but he should have elaborated on the theme, tone, and shift within the passage because he mentions each briefly. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge & Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 7 Use of Language: 4

Rachel Eisenstadt on //July's People// Oral Commentary Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Ryan briefly addressed context and stated that the Smales needed to see the Chief. He displays Bam’s need to find reason in telling Maureen, but also their relationship and how it began. However, he never stated fully the situation they were in, in July’s village. This would add for additional clarification. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? He went fairly chronologically, however he also went somewhat thematically by means of role reversal. He speaks of role reversals of race, relationship, and family relations. This works quite well within the chronological structure. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How has Bam’s feelings towards Maureen changed since they have been in the village?—has their marriage become stronger or weaker? How does this dance-class setup display Maureen’s feelings of liberalism? How is Bam’s role in the village different to Maureen’s?—how does this relate to this passage? What did the speaker do well? Ryan spoke very well about several themes that were present throughout the passage, such as role reversals, chivalry. One especially peritent point I believe he made was about the role reversals not only from black and white, or in their marriage, but within the family between adulthood and adolescence. Additionally, he had a wealth of understanding about ideas such as chivalry which helped to explain what Gordimer had meant by it within the passage. He quoted well, and went farther into each quote. Additionally he spoke clearly and at a good rate. Lit terms: rhetorical question; freight-train syntax; loose sentence; paradox What would you suggest for improvement? He could consider using more lit terms; such as in the following example which he skipped over, even though he used the quote. “as a cup on a kitchen shelf” = simile Also, when he uses lit terms it would help if they added to the argument rather than just stating that they exist. Furthermore, his argument would be stronger if he referenced other areas of the novel contextually. He did not speak of how Maureen and Bam’s relationship had failed, or how he had become repulsed by her, or how she seemed to use those who had power. I believe this could have added to his argument. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 4 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Ryan addressed both context and purpose in his commentary, however I think it would be more effective if the context set a setting in relation to other scenes in the book along with the progression of the characters in their new society. Ryan hits on purpose at the end of the commentary and a few parts in the middle, yet it might be more effective if a thesis statement is used to state the purpose and then connect each point while mentioning it to the purpose instead of using it as a conclusion. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Ryan analyzed the passage chronologically -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Why and how have Bam and Maureen’s relation change? Ho does the reversal of child and adult along with male and female roles relate to the apartheid? -What did the speaker do well? Ryan had a great speaking voice that was very clear. He flushed out the points he made very well and related them to Gordimer’s purpose. -What would you suggest for improvement? One suggestion would be to use smaller quotes instead of repeating quotes you used in large quotes. Also instead of paraphrasing go strait into analysis and use your lit terms – especially diction. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) I think lit terms are a part of the rubric you should focus on more along with connecting the section to the apartheid and how the passage/the purpose fits in to the apartheid and reversal of roles. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 6 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4 ~Marissa

ORAL COMMENTARY ON A PILGRIM AT TINKER CREEK media type="file" key="OC 2nd Quarter.mp3"