Jess

media type="file" key="Dan_Levin.mp3" Peer Edit of Jess M’s Commentary By Liza Apothaker

1. Did the speaker address context?

Jess addressed context well. She gave a simple background on Rosencrantz & Guildenstern and their reasoning for coming to Elsinore. But, she should have included some information about the origins of Hamlet’s madness, such as his decision to act mad, and how/when Claudius realized that Hamlet was “mad.” Jess also provided a nice summary of the passage, which was helpful.

2. Did the speaker address purpose?

Jess, in her conclusion, discussed the idea that Shakespeare’s purpose in creating this passage was to show the difference between perceived reality and true reality. She expanded on this idea well.

3. Was there an organizational principle?

Jess did not have much of an organizational pattern, in terms of creating a thesis. She did have two main discussions—one on Denmark and one on ambition—but they were not really set up as two distinctly different points. Instead, she went through the passage chronologically, focusing on these two discussions, with other comments added. But, with this passage, her way of organization worked best, as each comment built off of the one previous to it.

4. What questions would you ask for clarification?

I would ask, “Can you describe the origins of Hamlet’s apparent “madness”? so that Jess could get into a discussion on why Claudius sent R&G to find out in the first place. I would also ask Jess, “Is Hamlet good friends with R&G?” in order to provoke Jess to discuss their “fake” friendship and further characterize R&G.

5. What did the speaker do well?

Jess gave a great overview of the passage in the beginning of the commentary, which helped me get a sense of the passage. She also picked out great literary features to outline and discuss. Her points about Rosencrantz’s comment “the world’s grown honest” were excellent, as well as her discussion of ambition as a shadow.

6. What do you suggest for improvement?

I would suggest that Jess lay out a thesis in the beginning of the commentary. She basically had two main points, but she didn’t state that ever, and clearly outlining those ideas before going into them would have helped her organizational structure.

7. What did she forget to address?

Building off of the questions that I would have asked Jess, she should have focused somewhat on the relationship between Hamlet and R&G, how it evolved, and how it added to the passage. She might have also wanted to discuss how this conversation between Hamlet and R&G affected R&G’s plans and goals in the play.

8. Score: Knowledge & Understanding: 5 Interpretation & Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 7 Use of language: 4

Eugenia Sokolskaya's comments: Jess Metlay:

Overall a very good commentary. I was especially impressed by the constant reference to authorial purpose, and the absence of a simple “translation” of the lines. There was an apparent form of organization, leading toward an overall thesis that combined the passage’s content with its context, as well as Shakespeare’s intentions for the two. There was also very little hesitation – good preparation and a sound understanding of the play were evident. However, I felt that some analysis of literary terms was missing. I had expected to hear some more about irony – thereby connecting content with context – and was therefore disappointed by its weak showing, especially since it tied in with Jess’s thesis. Although she mentioned it in relation to the first line of the passage ("The world's grown honest"), she did not comment on the irony of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's lying repeatedly to Hamlet about their purpose. I would give an 18 for this commentary, with the points lost in the literary terms section. I also took off some in use of language because I did not feel that there was a lot of variation and precision in the words Jess used, although I understand that under the pressure it can be hard to come up with the right words. Understanding: 5 Interpretation: 4 Presentation: 5 Use of Language: 4

Questions:

Why do you think Hamlet wants Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to confess? If they were to give in, how would that have changed Shakespeare’s message in this passage?

Oral Commentary #2 media type="file" key="Oral Commentary 2.mp3"

Peer editor: John G. -Knowledge and Understanding of Extract: 5 You connect the content of the passage to Gordimer's intentions throughout the novel. This includes your analysis of the changes undergone by the characters and their abilities to assimilate into the black culture. You also note the foreshadowing, which connects the passage to the conclusion.

Interpretation and Personal Response: 7 Although you note major themes such as assimilation, role reversal, self-awareness, and alienation, there is one flaw in the argument. You mention early on how Bam and Maureen are separated because unlike Maureen, he has assimilated into the Black culture with the children. While Bam may have to some degree, you go on to show how he hasn't in noting that Bam tries to maintain the old dynamics and showing how Gordimer mocks his false liberalism.

Presentation: 8 You have wonderful analysis, but it is not presented in the most coherent manner. You mostly analyze as you go through the passage and tie everything to themes, but it also may be better to talk about the themes individually and show examples.

Use of Language: 5 Your use of language is completely accurate, clear and precise. You pay attention to Gordimer's use of diction and tone, but not exactly to sentence structure.

Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Jess did an excellent job of fully addressing both the setting that describes when the event occurs by providing what has happened before the passage. By linking the previous event to the passage, Jess explains how the passage has resulted from the previous scene with Maureen and July. Overall, Jess constantly provides evidence throughout her commentary to support her argument. Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? After introducing the passage by providing the context and the purpose of the passage, Jess goes through the passage line-by-line, as she fully analyses the effects of the literary terms. What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? Would you elaborate on the situational irony when July’s supplies soap for Maureen when she washes herself with the river water? What is the significance in that Daniel is the one who took the gun? What did the speaker do well? Jess thoroughly discusses the various literary terms used in the passage. She demonstrates how the effects of the literary term support and embody the way Maureen alienates herself. Jess uses textual evidence to support her assertions while she also reflects her own thoughts and opinions on the situation of Maureen. She makes connections among the effects of the literary terms. Furthermore, she equally provides both textual evidence and analysis. What would you suggest for improvement? Along with the effects of the literary terms, Jess should consistently reference back to her previous assertion about the overarching theme of alienation. Tying the effects together will strongly support the purpose of the passage and explore the techniques of Gordimer. What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) The discussion of the purpose of the short statement about the fact there are no stars: “There were no stars”. The use of ellipsis in “Well…he wasn’t kept short of…”. Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4 //Interesting sounds in the background! hehe//** **:)**
 * Paula Choi’s Peer Review of Jess Metlay’s Commentary**
 * What would you score them based on the rubric?

Oral Commentary #3 media type="file" key="horns of the altar (metlay).mp3"