Liza

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: media type="file" key="Liza Apothaker - Waters of Separation - Pilgrim.m4a"

July's People:media type="file" key="Liza Apothaker- July's People.m4a"


 * Melissa Langer's peer review of //July's People// oral commentary

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose?** Liza addresses the context of the passage, referring to the conversation that takes place before this passage and relates what occurred to what will happen in the end of the novel. She addresses purpose by explaining how the extract reflects Maureen’s transformation, but does not explicitly mention Gordimer’s purpose. Yes, Liza went through the passage highlighting ideas that supported her main augments presented in a thesis at the beginning of the commentary. Why would Gordimer relate money and status to love and relationships? How is Maureen’s transformation reflected in her relationship with July? Liza includes a wide range of literary features including irony, alliteration, imagery and choice of diction. She goes into detail to explain how the extract reflects Maureen’s transformation as she becomes aware of her shallow white liberalism and naivety. She also maintains a strong focus throughout the commentary. Liza should she include an overall conclusion to tie the commentary together and explain the significance of the passage. She should also try to avoid the use of fillers such as "kind of" because they can become distracting when overused. Liza did not mention the significance of the passage or authorial purpose enough. Knowledge and Understanding: 5 Interpretation and Response: 9 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4
 * -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?**


 * Tom Smith's peer review of Liza's oral commentary on //July's People//

Did the speaker address context? Purpose?** Liza attempted to summarize and create context for the passage; however, instead it was too brief and did not set the scene well enough. While Liza did mention themes of the passage, she neglected to mention authorial purpose, hardly ever referencing the Gordimer other than a couple times through the entire oral commentary. Also context was addressed both at the beginning and in the middle of the oral commentary Yes, there was a successful organization that split the commentary up by three themes (similarly to a thesis statement). Each theme was discussed well and each one was about equal length as the others. Why do you believe that Nadim Gordimer created this character progression of Maureen throughout both this passage and the novel as a whole. How the relationship shift between Maureen and July throughout the novel? Liza had a lot of great lit terms: she mentioned irony, alliteration, characterization, imagery, diction. She did not just mention the fact that there were literary features, but also delved into the reason and effect these features add to the novel and themes that she was discussing--I believe that Liza tackled diction the best, giving plenty of examples and great explanations of their inclusion. I think context needs to be addressed more thoroughly in addition to authorial purpose (why did Gordimer specifically write what she did?). I think that context should also be addressed in the beginning rather than throughout the oral commentary. Liza did not mention thoroughly enough, authorial purpose, especially in regard to linking stylistic and thematic choices to the Nadim Gordimer. Knowledge and Understanding: 4 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 9 Use of Language: 5
 * 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?**

-Liza did a good job of including context in her commentary. Before she started analyzing the passage, she gave a basic overview of what was happening before and how that tied into what was happening in the scene she chose (i.e. Hamlet had just killed Polonius in front of Gertrude, the ghost entered while Hamlet was yelling at his mother and told him to be kind with her.) Liza also always provided a reason for every claim she made, connecting the points she made and the use of literary features to her thesis, which made this an effective commentary.
 * Julia’s Peer Review of Liza’s Commentary**:

-The organization followed the three points Liza made in her thesis, which were Shakespeare’s characterization of Hamlet, his characterization of Gertrude, and how this passage illustrated Freud’s thesis about Hamlet loving his mother. This was more effective than a line-by-line analysis because it emphasized the point Liza was trying to make and ensured that she would relate back to her original thesis. - The speaker did a really good job of analyzing the text and then explaining why Shakespeare would do this (i.e. Shakespeare’s relationship with his mother could be the reason for this strange relationship Hamlet has with his mother.)

- Also, she included the theme of appearance versus reality, which is often seen throughout the book. While Liza describes where and how this is seen throughout this passage, she could have included how this contributed to the overarching theme of the book, and the question of whether or not Hamlet is mad. Although Liza did address many themes, perhaps a more thorough analysis of the literary features would have further contributed to the overall thesis of the commentary (i.e. the simile “like the famous ape” was not addressed, alliteration with “sense and secrecy.”)

-What would you score them based on the rubric? I would give Liza a 17, taking off points in the sections of interpretation and personal response, and use of language (slightly repetitive at times.)

Questions: Where else do you see evidence of Freud’s thesis throughout the book? Does this passage prove that Hamlet is mad? Or does he just appear to be mad? What tone does Shakespeare set throughout this passage?