Paula

media type="file" key="TInker Creek OC..m4a"__John G on Paula C Did the speaker address context? Purpose? -Context yes -Purpose no Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? -You seemed to group your analysis and comments around themes, which was very effective -Perhaps you could also have a stronger introduction/ conclusion to tie the themes you mentioned in the podcast together What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? -How does Shakespeare create imagery/ other literary devices? -Does Hamlet lack respect for Fortinbras, or does he empathize with him? (Fortinbras too is defending his own honor and Hamlet seems to show respect towards him and the dedication of the massive army to his cause) -How else does Shakspeare flesh out the theme of revenge? What did the speaker do well? -Has accurate context -Notices prevalent themes throughout passage (i.e. Hamlet as tragic hero/ revenge/ etc) -Analyzes effects of many literary features very well and how they contribute to the themes (i.e. effects of contrast created by bestial imagery/ “god like reason” – simile that supports view of Hamlet as cerebral/ philosophical tragic hero) What would you suggest for improvement? -Need more specificity throughout -When you mention something like, “Shakespeare uses descriptive diction,” it is vague and it would be helpful to specifically state the diction used. -In the end of the passage Hamlet decides to not turn back from that point forth; he really doesn’t seem apprehensive. -Must connect contents of passage to authorial purpose -Expound on theme of revenge -Include strong introduction/ conclusion linking contents of podcast What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) -Hamlet’s oxymoron of “dull revenge” also seems to depict inner turmoil and furthers theme of being a tragic hero. -Asyndeton used to highlight Hamlet’s need to act by emphasizing the wrongs against his family – “father kill’d, a mother stain’d, excitements of my reason and my blood” -Use of questioning furthers creation of Hamlet’s turmoil -Calling Fortinbras delicate compares him as being similar to himself- leads to feeling of empathy -Repetition of “great” emphasizes his admiration for Fortinbras and pushes him to take his lead What would you score them based on the rubric? -Knowledge and Understanding of Extract (4) -Interpretation and Personal Response (7) -Presentation (7) -Use of Language (4-5)

Kelsey Curtis Paula – Act IV, scene iv. • I feel that Paula did sufficiently address the context of the passage in terms of plot and purpose. She described the events surrounding the scene and therefore showed good knowledge and understanding of the text. Paula also described the significance of this scene to the overall play in that it portrays Hamlet’ indecision and thoughtful qualities that delay his revenge so much. • Paula did have an organizational principle for her commentary. It seemed that she conducted her analysis by addressing specific areas, such as the use of bestial and celestial imagery and the differences between Hamlet and Fortinbras. She related most every point back to these two areas of analysis and in her conclusion illustrated how they relate to Hamlet’s indecision. There were some other themes which were somewhat included in these larger ideas such as the contrasting illustrations of weakness versus strength and superiority versus inferiority. • I would like to ask Paula to include more about Shakespeare’s intent when writing this passage. What was his purpose in including this passage in Hamlet and what comments was he making on through Hamlet’s indecision? This would add to the component of authorial purpose. I would also ask I was a little confused about Paula’s organizational structure at times through, and I would ask her to list her specific reasons for Hamlet’s delay. • I feel that Paula analyzed the passage very well in that she correctly identified literary features, appropriately used literary terms, and addressed how they applied to the passage and therefore the play as a whole. She analyzed diction and imagery especially well and I most liked when she discussed the irony of Hamlet’s speech in that he is trying to gain confidence to commit revenge, yet he is doing it by degrading himself. • I feel that Paula could have better addressed Shakespeare’s intent in writing this passage: what makes this speech a key passage and why is it so vital to the play? I also felt that she could better describe how the bestial and celestial imagery applies to this passage and why Shakespeare would choose to use this form of imagery, rather than just stating that he used it. • I gave Paula an overall score of 19 out of 20 on the IB rubric. I feel that she demonstrated an excellent understanding of the extract, especially in that she was able to identify the appropriate context of the extract and related this relevantly to her analysis. I feel that she had an excellent interpretation of the extract in that she used many literary features and made many references to the extract. Paula had a focused and developed response in that there was a logical structure to her response, yet at times the structure was unclear. Paula’s use of language was clear and varied and she showed an understanding of how to effectively and coherently formulate arguments.

Peer-editor: Thomas Smith__ __Oral Commentator: Paula Choi__

Paula clearly set the scene of her passage, describing the events leading up to a speech given by Hamlet. She then goes on to discuss her main theme that she analyzed--the idea that Hamlet is characterized as cowardly and indecisive through comparisons and contrasts between Hamlet and Fortinbras, as well as through bestial and celestial imagery to show his "self-worth." At first I thought that Paula was using a line-by-line style of organization, however, she then skipped around, analyzing and mentioned scattered ideas and themes. This "jumping around" then led me to believe that she had organized it by theme and major ideas, which then made it a bit harder to follow along within the text. Explain what you meant, at the end of your conclusion, by "the effects of these techniques create understanding and more insight in the problems of Hamlet?" To what extent do you feel Fortinbras is used to characterize Hamlet? Paula had great understanding of themes within the text, she continually connected her ideas with her overall "thesis/theme," arguing that Hamlet is indecisive and cowardly through contrast of characters. I also thought Paula's diction was varied and for the most part very precise. I really think Paula did a great job introducing each line/words of text that she analyzed (rather than just saying "in the next line Shakespeare writes: ..." Paula needs to improve on her organization a bit, I felt a bit lost trying to follow along seeing as how she jumped around but did not mention the lines from which she was reading. However, I do feel that her style of organization left her able to to connect her analysis of contrast between Hamlet and Fortinbras, as well as characterization through imagery (created by diction) better than if she had done it line by line. Paula also needs to include more contextual evidence for some of her analysis and ideas, as well as more connections between her overall themes of characterization through contrast, and through imagery. I think Paula could have supported some of her claims with a bit more evidence from the text; there were several lines that were not mentioned at all in her commentary. Other than that I don't feel that Paula necessarily //forgot// to address anything, I just think of her claims should just be backed up a little more strongly. Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 7 Use of Language: 4
 * Did the speaker address context? Purpose?**
 * 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: Andrew Cerami Oral Commentator: Paula Choi

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, but in an indirect matter. Paula needs to come out and directly state the context of this passage as being at the end of the book. Additionally authorial purpose must be examined more deeply. Paula’s purpose sticks strictly to character development.

Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes. Paula when through the passage line by line / section by section. This type of organizational method seems to be the most widely used and can be done very effectively.

What questions would ask this person for clarification? What is Nadine Gordimer’s intent in ending the book this way. What is she trying to show? This is the most important part of the oral commentary and all analysis should point in this direction.

What did the speaker do well? Paula does a nice job of addressing symbols and imagery. She also does a nice of breaking down and interpreting the text and its meaning.

What would you suggest for improvement? Besides character development, what is the purpose of this passage? Also it would be good to incorporate more lit terms.

What did they forget to address? Paula could stand to use more lit. terms/features. She predominately focused on elements such as diction and symbolism, paying little attention

What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding of Extract: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 6 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 4

media type="file" key="Choi- Oral Commentary on July's People.m4a"