Aisha

Paula Chois Peer Review of Aisha Ali’ Oral Commentary Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Aisha addresses the context of the passage; she introduces the passage by describing the circumstances in which the event in the passage occurs. However, she does not highlight the purpose of Shakespeare for addressing the overarching theme of appearance versus reality in this passage. For example, Aisha emphasizes the reality aspect of the scene in Hamlet’s dialogue, “a lot of guilty diction like ‘doomsday’ and ‘prison’, and that Shakespeare tries to build Hamlet’s character as one of education. Although Aisha points these literary techniques, she doesn’t explain why Shakespeare used them; to create what effect and to address what kind of commentary. Therefore, Aisha fully addresses the setting in which the scene takes place, but her analysis of the literary features lacks authorial purpose, which is a significant portion when addressing the full context of a passage. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Aisha utilizes an organizational principle throughout her oral commentary. Instead of simply going from line-by-line and commenting on the various literary devices by the order they are given, Aisha first introduces the overarching literary term and its effect and then branches off from topic by including small details with quotes and the literary devices that create such effect together. Although she does not provide an introduction, she concludes the commentary that briefly summarizes her points. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? - What do you think Shakespeare is trying to address to the general public through the contrast between appearance and reality portrayed in this scene? - Why do you think Shakespeare included the two characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? - Can you elaborate on Hamlet’s claim that Denmark is a “prison”, and how such remark could have been actually the cause of tragedy in the play? What did the speaker do well? Aisha stressed a variety of literary terms used in the passage, such as foreshadowing, metaphor, characterization, diction, etc, in order to support her arguments. She did a good job in interpreting these different literary techniques and including them in her commentary for evidence. She highlighted some unique aspects of the lines that do not blatantly show the author’s purpose, such as the colon and the questions used in Hamlet’s dialogue that demonstrate his intellect and higher understanding, compared to those of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. What would you suggest for improvement? Provide enough literary terms that support your overarching argument. Aisha attempts to group important quotes by themes but sometimes does not. For example, she states that Rosencrantz tries to convince Hamlet that Denmark is an honest place by through ‘sarcastic tone’. However, such assertion is not provided by evidence of other literary terms that create Rosencrantz’s ‘sarcastic tone’. Also, Aisha seems to use informal language during the commentary, using colloquial language, such as “kinda” and “and like”. Also, her points can be more convincing with a more in-depth analysis of authorial purpose. Because the purpose of Shakespeare in using the literary techniques is missing, the listeners do not understand why Shakespeare would use them- to create what effect on the play as a whole and to say what? What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Aisha misses the point of Shakespeare general message to the public through the theme of appearance versus reality. What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 3

John G on Aisha A Did the speaker address context? Purpose? -Context, yes. - Conclusion effectively concludes commentary Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? -Yes, you focused your analysis under the general theme of Appearance vs. Reality -Also you could organize under other general themes like the Corruption of Elsinore/ Denmark What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? -What theme makes Hamlet’s questioning/ analyzing significant? -Can you expound on Shakespeare’s uses themes such as corruption/ death and decay? What did the speaker do well? -Notices themes in passage and how they are created -Notices many literary devices and their effects -What is Shakespeare’s overall motive in defining Guildenstern and Rosencrantz as being corrupt (what is he trying to show about Elsinore?) What would you suggest for improvement? -Maybe make context somewhat more specific -Must mention dramatic irony prevalent in the passage -Be more explicit when mentioning themes such as death and decay/ corruption of Denmark/ expound on themes -Sometimes analysis seems more like summary -Don’t say “kind of” – use specifics -Link passage to authorial purpose more than just at the end of commentary -Clarify point about the differences between Hamlet/ Guildenstern and Rosencrantz – this shows theme of Denmark as site of corruption -Don’t use informal/ vague diction like “flakey” or “things” -Be more specific with analysis of points (i.e. “beggar’s shadow”) -Be specific in analyzing Shakespeare’s motives and how he portrays Rosencrantz and Guildenstern What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) -Dramatic irony that exists throughout passage -Hyperbole of “the worst” -Paradox of prison described as “goodly one” -Contrasted metaphors of “shadow” and “light” -Light/ dark imagery with “shadow/ light” What would you score them based on the rubric? -Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Work (3) -Interpretation and Personal Response (5) -Presentation (6-7) -Use of Language (3)

media type="file" key="Aisha Ali oral commentary- julys peeps.m4a"

Peer Editor: Effie Kong Commentary: Aisha Ali You do not need to focus as much on summarizing your passage as much as on the context of the passage in relation to the whole story. In presenting your passage, make sure to always note why this particular piece was chosen and why it is important when considering the entire concept of the book with its themes, motifs, and cultural commentaries. Although there was evident attempt at your focus towards a single conclusive theme – the conflict between the two races and the social anxiety, it was often times difficult to follow your train of thought and I did catch you wondering from your original point from time to time. Make sure to stick to your outline and make sure to, initially, make an outline. You did well with identifying the literary terms such as imagery and tone – this went well with your explanation of the underlying racial message of the book. However, I would find more context clues to support your assertions of why the author chose those literary techniques in presenting her points. Focus on the fact that the whole novel is written as a social commentary or more so a social prediction on what may happen in South Africa if the apartheid is not stopped.

Why do you think that this passage was chosen for a commentary? What does it do for the overall story line in terms of developing racial differences and the underlying racial tension in the book?

Knowledge-3 Interpretation-7 Presentation-6 Language-5

Peer Editor: Joanna Qian -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, Aisha gives the context in the very beginning by saying how the Smales are brought to the Chief’s village. But she does spend a little too much time on the context and gives some information that is not needed, such as when she said that the Smales are endangering July’s people and his village. Aisha tells us that the passage’s purpose is to show the irony between what used to be the white’s life and what it is now. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? She organized her commentary by going through it almost chronologically, from the top to the bottom. She would address a point and show how it is illustrated by the next sentence. However, she does not quote every sentence from top to bottom, which saves her time to provide supporting evidence. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Aisha says that the sentence concerning male chivalry and Bam’s lack of anyone to talk to shows that the female was equal to the male in the household. But what does this represent or give towards the theme of apartheid in the novel? Why would Gordimer want to illustrate this point? Aisha also says that the consort clients are unlike the usual white culture. This almost makes it seems as if she is saying that the consort clients are not white. What is the reason for Gordimer to portray the consort clients in a different manner? -What did the speaker do well? She emphasizes a good point near the beginning of her commentary by using the sentence about the white farmers telling the blacks to just “go” to illustrate the power exchange between whites and blacks. Also, she did well to address diction in her passage, such as when talking about the dark diction regarding the girl in leotards. And she does make several attempts at an overall theme to tie all her points together. Overall, Aisha does a good job of finding what is important and interpreting the important themes from the passage. -What would you suggest for improvement? Sometimes, Aisha gets a little off topic. For example, when she is talking about the line where the white owners would simply tell the blacks to leave the land, she spends a little too much time discussing this point. Aisha says that the example of the woman and the cup shows how ordinary life is after getting married. She should elaborate on this point and connect it back to the overarching theme. Also, there are several moments in the commentary where she does not quote directly, making it harder for the listener to find where she is in the text. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Aisha forgot to address a part of the passage between “His wife” and “The girl in leotards […]”. Also, though she does mention dark imagery and diction once for one sentence, she did not address many literary terms afterwards. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding of Extract: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 5 Presentation: 5 Use of Language: 4

media type="file" key="pilgrim at tinker creek oral.m4a"