Dan

Dan Levin:

It is evident that Dan knew what he was talking about in discussing the passage, both in the content of the passage and the context of the play. A certain organization was present in the line-by-line analysis, and this organization allowed for a highly detailed discussion of literary terms. The main disappointment, however, was that there was no reference to authorial purpose. In accurately translating the lines and noting literary terms, Dan did not come to a conclusion as to what Shakespeare meant to do with this passage. The line-by-line organization was detrimental to the formation of a thesis, because it took attention away from the overall theme of the passage and placed it in the words of every line. Since there was no thesis, the organization did not lend itself to any kind of conclusion, the commentary cutting off instead of ending meaningfully. It also cut off too early: the total time was less than ten minutes. In general, there is a base of literary terms and analysis on which a thesis could be built with a more meaningful organization and conclusion. If the commentary had been ten minutes, I would have given it a 13, with the most points lost in organization and authorial purpose, but full marks for literary terms. From that, of course, points would have been docked for the length. Understanding: 2 Interpretation: 5 Presentation: 2 Use of Language: 4

Questions:

What might have been Shakespeare’s purpose in including this passage? You had a concluding point about how if Hamlet hadn’t dwelled on his father’s death the play would not have happened. How do you think this could translate into an average reader’s life?

~Peer-editor: Eugenia Sokolskaya

__Peer Editor: Jess Metlay Commentary: Dan


 * Review**: Dan does a good job of beginning his podcast with an explanation of the background information for which the //context// of the scene takes place. Throughout the podcast he continues to do a nice job explaining the meaning of each line as it relates to other characters in the play (for example Claudius’ dialogue is primarily intended to chastise Hamlet’s prolonged mourning period). However there is no clear //theme// established for the passage (i.e. what is the authorial //purpose//). This may be in part because the podcast is organized in a line-by-line commentary Instead perhaps Dan should begin the podcast, after giving some general background information, by stating the overall intent that the author had for the passage. Then Dan could still use his line-by-line method and have an easier way to organize his thoughts quickly and be able to tie each point back to the theme that he mentioned earlier. Along the same vein Dan also needs to conclude his passage with a conclusion in order to tie everything back together. While he began to hint at several potential larger points like Hamlet’s inability to express his grief and also Gertrude/Claudius’ judgments of his grief vs. how Hamlet actually feels, he never explicitly ties these points together into a overarching theme like appearance vs. reality. In terms of his translation of each line, Dan did a really nice job of explaining what each line actually meant. However he often did not address which //literary term// was being used. Fortunately though he was still able to convey the intent of the line even though he did not explain how it was achieved via a literary term. Overall: a good podcast with excellent attention to line meaning and character analysis that will benefit from a few quick additions in organization, theme, and more identification of literary devices.__

__**Questions**: How d____o Claudius’ comments to Hamlet at the end of the passage tie into Hamlet’s comments to Gertrude earlier? How does Shakespeare effectively use literary devices to express Hamlet’s grief over his father and Claudius/Gertrude’s frustration with Hamlet’s melancholy? Does Hamlet encourage the appearance negative appearance the Gertrude and Claudius adapt towards his grief?

Interpretation-5 Presentation-5 Language-4__ July's People
 * Score**: Knowled____ge-3

media type="file" key="Levin_OralCom.m4a" width="72" height="132" July's people peer review: Grazia

-Did the speaker address context? Purpose? The speaker somewhat addresses context but he does not say what pages he is discussing. He could’ve gone a bit further with context. He says the context is that Bam joined a hunting expedition however; I do not think this is correct because Bam gets one of the boys in the village to join his own hunting expedition. The importance of the passage is discussed which is good. The authorial purpose is not really discussed. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? There is an organizational principle of going line by line which is easy for the listener to follow but not a very effective structure. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? The pigs are described as being a family so why is this important? What is Nadine Gordimer’s message through this passage? -What did the speaker do well? He said many interesting things I hadn’t thought of and spoke in a clear, slow, focused voice. The analysis is very detailed and interesting. I thought the part of having the choice to struggle for what they once had or accept their fate was really interesting. -What would you suggest for improvement? He should discuss the themes at the beginning to make it easier to follow and allow the reader to get an idea of what he will discuss. Additionally he should not read line each line because it wastes time and I do not think it’s necessary. He should use segments from the line to support his analysis. Additionally he should discuss themes and how the importance of the literary devices. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) How the pigs symbolize the Smales family and he should refer to the power struggle between Bam and July. -What would you score them based on the rubric? Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Work(s): 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 9 Presentation: 6 Use of Language: 4

Peer Editor: Effie Kong Commentary: Dan Levin

Review: It is obvious through his commentary that Dan has a deep understand of the text and its intrinsic meanings. He develops aptly upon many if not all the motifs, themes, and symbols present in his passage and discuses them using appropriate literary terms that further and support his idea. It is in his correct identification of the underlying messages of the novel that is most impressive – the dichotomy of the white and black society as seen in their difference in interacting (pigs) with nature, the return of refined white liberalism back to its animalistic and id-driven roots, and the discussion of fate and the acceptance of it thereof. Moreover, Dan clearly presented each of his points with first locating in the text the sentence he will discuss to prove his thesis. In this sense, he clearly and effectively organized his commentary. He also gave a very helpful lead into the passage he would discuss in not only summarizing it as is often done, but giving the surrounding context of plot and the significance of the passage itself in relation to the story. Overall, it was a very well done commentary.

Questions: How was the power struggle between the Smales and July an underlying conflict in this passage? How was this presented through the treatment of the pigs? Score: Knowledge-3 Interpretation-8 Presentation-6 Language-5