Jessi

media type="file" key="Intricacy.m4a"media type="file" key="JulysPeople.mp3"Peer Review: July’s People Monika Zaleska Jessi: p. 8-9 You are required to address: -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Jessi did a great job with both. She identified both the placement and importance of the passage in the novel; the context became important as she related it to the larger themes of the work. Purpose was address through a large variety of literary terms including juxtaposition, ambiguity, syntax and more. She showed both the importance of the passage to revealing the Smales’ hypocrisy and how thing hypocrisy later becomes relevant through foreshadowing the role reversal of July and the Smales. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Jessi first explained context and the importance of the first passage before she jumped into her analysis, I thought this was effective because she set up all her points in advance, and then backed them up wit the literary devices. This was repeated again for the second section. At the end of each passage she drew a conclusion about its importance, and at the end she tied the two conclusions together to show the greater importance of the passage. I believe she added to, and extended her analysis by tying the events of this passage into the progression of the novel. For example, she did this by relating the mention of the bakki in the passage to the later role the bakki plays in the Smales’ and July’s power struggle. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? I would ask Jessi to clarify her use of “mundane” to describe the part about July at the end of the passage. I understand Gordimer describes his role at the Smales’ in plain terms, but what purpose does this serve specifically? I want to know more specifics about the description. It seemed to me that it was neglected and could have offered further evidence of the Smales’ hypocrisy. -What did the speaker do well? Jessi spoke very well about Gordimer’s use of juxtaposition and used a variety of literary devices that truly showed her ability to look at literature critically. I was impressed by her analysis of the Smales’ role in their own society versus their perception of themselves. Her treatment of context and purpose was thoroughly addressed.

-What would you suggest for improvement? Jessi, speaking to you directly here, whatever you were doing with the computer or the papers or whatever you were doing or holding drove me crazy while I was listening. It was very distracting and it took away from your presentation. Also, I know it’s hard, but you used a lot of “um” which also created unnecessary pauses and distracted me from the continuity of the presentation (but that’s really minutia). -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) I would say the only thing left out was a true analysis of that last description of July, which I felt was critical, but one cannot included everything in 12 minutes. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge/understanding – 5 Interpretation/ Response – 9 Presentation – 9 Use of Language - 5

Commentator: Jessi M. 1. Did the speaker address context? Purpose? a. The speaker address’s context in brief. Jessi makes it clear that it is Shakespeare’s soliloquy and immediately address’s the implications of the portion on the play. It is obvious to a reader where this takes place, however, it is unclear what events have taken place prior to this scene. The purpose is also defined, especially early on when Denmark is depicted as a prison and the fact that Shakespeare is hinting that he is open to ideas about what happens after life. 2. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? a. Yes, there is clearly an organized principle in this commentary. Jessi begins by giving an introduction of the soliloquy, then ties this into the first line and goes on from there. The transition between points is prevalent, and overall smooth which enhances the commentary. The transition between going line by line and moving to the purpose is excellent, as Jessi provides us with the information that Hamlet is no longer considering suicide after he thinks about everything he has said in this scene. The analysis of themes that could be tied to the passage comes at the end, which enhances the organization very well. 3. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? a. Are there any other concepts other than heaven and hell that is being contradicted by Hamlet in the soliloquy? b. Are there any specific references of foreshadowing within this particular text? 4. What did the speaker do well? a. This speaker was very good in address the literary terms, and then going even further and addressing “why” they were included. The mention of religion diction and what that implies is excellent and overall a great point by the speaker. Also, mentions of important metaphors and personification by Shakespeare were very nicely done. There was also a plethora of intelligent vocabulary used by the speaker, which enhanced the presentation greatly. 5. What would you suggest for improvement? a. I would suggest clearly outlining when quoting and when analyzing. Although it is evident, it could possibly get a bit confusing. 6. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) a. The speaker could have gone into the their themes a little bit more. Although all the themes are mentioned very well, the speaker does not relate them to specific lines. This is not imperitive, however, would help. 7. What would you score them based on the rubric? a. Knowledge- 4 b. Interpretation-9 c. Presentation-9 d. Language-5

Rachel Eisenstadt Ms. O IB English set 8 21 September 2008 Peer Reviews Peer Review 2: Jesi Milestone -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? The speaker gives limited plot review, yet it is adequate if one is familiar with Hamlet’s plot. Additionally, she references future plot turns, such as Hamlet’s comments with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This displays greater understanding of the text than simply listing factual events. Additionally, she gives context to Shakespeare’s time, such as the importance of fortune, which enriched the listener’s understanding. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes, although somewhat chronological, it was also thematic in Shakespeare’s use of various ideals such as thought and actions. Additionally, her back and forth style mirrors Shakespeare’s style of contradiction during Hamlet’s soliloquies. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? 1. How would you argue for/against the view that Hamlet’s soliloquy and indecisiveness is an expression of his cowardice? 2. Would you agree, from the argument you have presented, that Hamlet presents himself as a heroic figure?

-What did the speaker do well? The speaker used extensive literary terms, spoke clearly, and had a concise but fulfilling train of thought that could be easily followed. Additionally, she cited other areas of the text, displaying her knowledge and creating a more complete argument. -What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest that she would form a more complete conclusion. Additionally, a slightly more complete contextualization would be helpful in the beginning simply to outline the events directly preceding this soliloquy. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) Nothing, literary terms were fully addressed, from antithesis to asyndeton, even to varied connotation. Additionally she fully addressed authorial purpose, even suggesting new theories on Shakespeare’s religious views based on her knowledge of the period. -What would you score them based on the rubric? This oral commentary was extremely successful and I would score it as a 28 on the rubric.

Pavel Aprelev Peer review of Jessi Milestone

1. Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Jessi brief addresses context and quickly begins the analysis. She makes it clear what takes place in the passage, and at what point the events happen. She also defines the purpose of the author, though might want to be clearer. 2. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Te commentary is well organized. Jessi begins by introducing the literary terms and continues with the authorial purpose of the quote, describing what is being said, and how that relates to the events in the book. Fist, she analyzes line by line and then moves on to the authorial purpose, which is very effective. 3. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? What role does the bakkie play in later development in the story, and how does that relate to the Smales’ position in the village? 4. What did the speaker do well? The speaker addressed literary terms and created an efficient organization pattern. She recognized the major details of the passage, and the most significant symbols that would play a larger role later in the book. 5. What would you suggest for improvement? I would suggest pacing more slowly, and eliminating pauses between the phrases. 6. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) The speaker could have talked about the symbols in a greater detail. She could further investigate the importance of the bakkie at the later stage of the book. 7. What would you score them based on the rubric? a. Knowledge- 5 b. Interpretation-8 c. Presentation-8 d. Language-5