Eugenia

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, passage 12 from Ch 10 "Fecundity"

media type="file" key="IB_Commentary_3.mp3"

July's People Commentary, pp. 71-72

media type="file" key="IB_Commentary_2.mp3" //-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?// Eugenia set the correct context of the passage and throughout the passage linked back to the purpose and context that she stated in the beginning of her oral commentary. //-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?// Eugenia had a very clear thesis in the beginning of her commentary and diligently remarked on every point mentioned. //-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?// How does the argument metaphorically represent the period of time the book takes place in the apartheid? How has the power shifted between Maureen and July throughout the novel? //-What did the speaker do well?// I think Eugenia had a clear focus throughout her essay and correctly analyzed her points. Eugenia was very clear and concise and I really enjoyed Eugenia’s analysis of the acting diction- that was a very intelligent connection. //-What would you suggest for improvement? -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)// One suggestion for improvement would be when you where talking about the word choice of boy you can connect that to Maureen’s past. This might be me being over cautions but when you described Maureen as a mistress make sure it is taken in the context of a person that employs a servant only because there is the issue with Ellen. Also to stress the point, connect the equality issue back to apartheid and also discuss why Maureen felt the need to mention Ellen to July as a final blow. //-What would you score them based on the rubric?// Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8.5 Presentation: 9 Use of Language: 4 ~Marissa

Did the speaker address context? Purpose?** Eugenia addressed context and purpose very well throughout this passage. She discussed what happened before and after the passage as well as summarized what occurs in the passage. She also discussed Gordimer's purpose in this novel well, stating that it is a "critique of white liberalism" and a comment on the blacks unable to adjust to the new order. Eugenia took a three pronged approach to organizing her commentary; she focused on the themes throughout the passage. Eugenia divided the passage into the use of old and outdated language, the acting and theatre diction as well as the constant obsession with the old order. What are the implications of Maureen's mention of Ellen on her relationship with July? How the relationship shift between Maureen and July throughout the novel? She discussed the symbolism of the bakkie in this situation and utilized the few and sparse literary terms in this passage. Eugenia characterized July and Maureen well throughout the passage and discussed the diction of each character very well. To allow for an easier interpretation by the listener, Eugenia could utilize line numbers to aid the accessor. Discussing the servant's formula and master's formula would be benefitial to the understanding of the two characters. The theme of the servant's formula and master's formula and how it shifts through the novel. Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 10 Use of Language: 4
 * Karolina Swider's Peer Review of Eugenia's OC on //July's People//
 * 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?**

by Liza Apothaker
 * Peer Edit of Eugenia’s Commentary

1. Did the speaker address context?

Eugenia gave a quick review of context, stating that this was at the end of Hamlet and his mother’s personal talk. She left out more details of the context, such as the fact that Hamlet had killed Polonius previously, and that the ghost of King Hamlet had confronted Hamlet right before this discussion. These things help to shed light on parts of the passage, and should be stated.

2. Did the speaker address purpose?

Eugenia discussed purpose well a few times during her commentary. First, she discussed how Hamlet’s use of unfavorable adjectives toward Claudius showed Shakespeare’s commentary on betrayal. As well, she gave a great wrap-up at the end where she discussed Shakespeare’s purpose for creating this passage; to show that the Queen could have acted different from the start if she had seen reality in the beginning.

3. Was there organization?

There was a lack of organization in this commentary. Eugenia did not set up a thesis that stated the few main points she was going to discuss. Instead, she went through the passage from start to finish, stopping at certain lines to make points. But, there was a conclusion at the end, which tied everything together nicely.

4. What questions would you ask for clarification?

I would ask, “Who did Hamlet talk to just prior to this passage, which shaped this discussion with Gertrude?” The answer is the ghost. This is important because the ghost tells Hamlet that he must be calm with his mother and not take his anger out on her. We can see Hamlet acting nicer toward his mother here, and actually telling her what is going on instead of just screaming at her and getting mad at her.

5. What did the speaker do well?

Eugenia brought up some really good points from the passage. She was especially skilled at deciphering the lines that had tricky wording, such as “For who… would… such dear concernings hide.” She also did a great job connecting certain lines to other parts of the play or outside sources. For example, she connected the “famous ape” to its story and at one point connected one of Hamlet’s lines to one of Claudius’ lines earlier in the play. Eugenia discussed the idea of appearances vs. reality thoroughly, and her conclusion really helped to back up her points.

6. What would you suggest for improvement?

Next time, Eugenia should try to create a pattern of organization. It would have helped if she had created a thesis in the beginning of the commentary. This way, she could have discussed a few main ideas, instead of going through the passage picking out lines. Also, Eugenia avoided naming specific literary terms. She should make sure to names these next time, and explain how they fit into the text.

7. What did she forget to address?

Something big I found in this passage that Eugenia did not touch upon was the characterization of Gertrude as a weak pawn. For example, Gertrude’s first line is “What shall I do?” and she ends by telling Hamlet that she has forgotten what he told her. Also, I found a lot of evidence to show that Hamlet was trying to get on the good side of his mother to further his plans. One can see this when he talks about Gertrude as a queen who is “fair, sober, wise.” The characterization of these two people is important in this passage.

8. What would you score her?

Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Presentation: 4 Use of Language: 4

Julia’s Peer Review of Eugenia’s Commentary:** -Eugenia slightly addressed context, although perhaps a little more detail on what was taking place before Act III scene iv would have been helpful to get the listener into the mindset of the passage. As far as purpose though, the speaker did a thorough job of connecting all of her points to a common theme, the appearance versus reality in the court of Elsinore, more precisely in this scene concerning the Queen and Hamlet. Although the purpose of why Shakespeare included specific literary features or themes was made clear, his reason for writing about appearance versus reality in general was not addressed until the very end, in a single sentence. More analysis of why Shakespeare made this such a prevalent theme in the play would have been an effective way to make a stronger conclusion for the commentary.

- The organization was clear and effective; Eugenia went through the passage in a chronological order picking the parts that supported her thesis about how appearance and reality are illustrated as extremely different in this play (i.e. “That I essentially am not in madness, but mad in craft.” shows that Hamlet really isn’t mad, only in appearance.) -The speaker made a very clear and coherent commentary, all of her points were connected and the overall flow was good. Eugenia made a very strong and well-supported argument with the use of literary features, themes, and tone seen in this passage (i.e. the mentioning of Shakespeare’s use of antithesis, and his reason for doing this.) Also, it was clear that her analysis was leading up to her main point, the fact that in this scene, Hamlet is taking away the appearances and showing Gertrude the harsh reality

- The only suggestion I have is maybe to connect more to the book, where else is this seen in Hamlet. Also, as I stated before, perhaps speaking a little more about authorial purpose, such as why he wrote about the theme or what he expected from the audience. I don’t really think Eugenia forgot to address anything that would further support her claim; it was obvious that she thoroughly analyzed and annotated that passage beforehand.

-What would you score them based on the rubric? I would give Eugenia a 19, taking off points for presentation. Questions: -Why would Shakespeare put such emphasis on the theme of appearance versus reality? Is Shakespeare commenting on the court life in general? If so, how do you see this?