Will

media type="file" key="July's people e.mp3"

media type="file" key="Pilgrim at tinker creek 2.mp3"

Will Carabasi -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Will addresses the context primarily by stating that Hamlet is in a state of depression. Although this is a valid and true statement, it would be more noteworthy as a theme of the passage rather than stating it is the context. Beyond that however Will paints a very clear picture of the scene. Will shuffles the point of the passage around and does not

-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Will goes line by line which is appropriate so we can see the building animosity between son and sun.

-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does the ellipsis in Claudius’ first line lend itself to the overall tone of the passage? What are the forms and shapes of grief Hamlet is referring to in his fourth line? How does the pun of son and sun tie in with the light and dark imagery ever prevalent throughout the passage?

-What did the speaker do well? Within the lines Will was able to pick out literary effects and explain them well. The sound affects were funny.

- What would you suggest for improvement? Although he was able to pick the literary terms out, he was not quite able to put them all together for a concise conclusion in the end. If he would have given a conclusion or a purpose of the passage this would have been much stronger and the argument would have come much easier.

-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) In the beginning of the oral, Will says that Claudius’s line sets the tone for the passage, however he does not explicitly say what that tone is. Will says that the context of this scene is linked with Hamlets moodiness, however this should really be perceived as a theme. If he had stated that anger and discomfort was a theme and tone of the characters, he would have had an easier time expanding on that. Will would have had an easier time if he had emphasized the light and dark imagery ever present throughout this scene. He could have tied it in with his statement that Hamlet is ‘clearly in a state of depression’ and had a much more founded argument. Also, in the Hamlet translation we were supposed to read, it says more than kin: I.e, twice related; uncle/ nephew and “Father”/”son”; less than kind: i.e., in a less-than-natural relationship, this may change your interpretation of that sentence seen that ‘kind’ is not used in the modern way in the play.

Knowledge and Understanding: 3 Interpretation and Personal Response: 4 Presentation: 4 Use of Language: 3 _ Peer Reviewer: Grazia Castagna__**
 * __Peer Review for Will Carabasi Act 1 Sc.2

The candidate addresses the context thoroughly. He talks about the importance of the relationship between Claudius and Hamlet and the fact that it is the first time that Gertrude and Claudius have confronted Hamlet about his excessive mourning. However, the candidate goes into too much detail about what happens after the scene, it was sufficient to inform the listener that Hamlet has not spoken to his father’s ghost yet. The candidate does not provide a clear author’s purpose. The candidate proceeds through the passage line by line and effectively establishes the context at the beginning of the commentary. He concludes the commentary with how it ties with criticisms of the play. What was Shakespeare’s intention in including this passage? Why is the relationship between Hamlet, Gertrude and Claudius important at this point of the play? What is the tone of this passage? What does Queen Gertrude’s speech and Hamlet’s response tell us about the relationship between the two characters? The candidate added a little emotion to the reading of the quotes and I thought that was very effective and drew my attention. I also liked the point of Hamlet wearing dark clothes because he is afraid of death, and later in the book he sheds this darkness because he is completely intimidated by death. Additionally, the candidate adapted the passage well to the criticisms of the play. The stating of “quote” and “unquote” interrupted the flow of the commentary a little therefore I would suggest to just read the quote. It also might interrupt the candidate’s flow of thought. Additionally, a more thorough analysis of the literary terms could be conducted. Hamlet and Gertrude’s speeches could’ve also been discussed in more depth. The author’s purpose also must be discussed and made clear in the commentary to establish the focus of the analysis. The candidate did a very good job with the analysis of the passage however; he did miss a few things. The theme of appearance vs. reality was not really discussed, although it manifests itself heavily in this passage. The fact that Claudius is saying that Hamlet is going against heaven whilst Claudius himself committed a sin shows the hypocrisy of the court. Additionally, the fact that Hamlet says that he’s not putting up an act and he feels within what he manifests in his appearance contributes to Hamlet being the ‘perfect prince’ because he doesn’t put up a façade like Claudius and Gertrude. The fact that Hamlet makes such a big deal about the word ‘seems’ could’ve also been discussed. Furthermore, Hamlet and Gertrude’s speech could’ve been discussed in more depth with the nature imagery and the allusion to religion. Knowledge and understanding of Extract of work(s): 5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 8 Presentation: 8 Use of Language: 4
 * -Did the speaker address context? Purpose?**
 * -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?**

Will

Your pod cast was clear and coherent and the "Dun dun duns" really enforced the conflict in the passage that you were conveying along with being entertaining. Your opening was very strong and you nailed the context of the passage. I also liked how you incorporated the tone of the passage along with the context. As a suggestion, I think a thesis in your intro would be helpful for your organization. The chronological organization worked extremely well for you up until you started talking about overarching themes and conflicts. I think instead of leaving these to the end you should incorporate them in with your discussion of lit features. You did a really great job on identifying lit features and explaining the effects. In the beginning of the pod cast when you mention the light and dark imagery with the sun and the clouds you can also incorporate the idea of Claudius being the sun. Towards the end of the passage in King Claudius's line you discuss the use of the word father. Instead of labeling it as anaphora I would instead label it as repetition. I think you had a great understanding of the passage and analyzed quotes well, but some of the quotes you analyzed were too large. At the end you lost you focus, but all your information was valid and I thought the revenge tragedy added to the purpose of why the play was written. The clarifying question I have for you is: What was the overall purpose of the passage in relation to the play (include conflicts)?

Score: 21 1. 4 2.7 3.6 4. 4

Peer Reviewer: Steph -Did the speaker address context? Purpose? Yes, Will immediately addresses context of the passage and the purpose of the passage. He mentions the idea of the bakkie and how it was returned, but does not mention that it was a motif throughout the novel. -Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary? Yes it appears as if he goes through the passage and then talks about issues as they appear throughout the excerpt. -What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR? How does the change of sentence structure and syntax affect the passage as a whole? What is Gordimer trying to portray to her audience through Maureen’s relationships with Bam, July, and how she views herself? -What did the speaker do well? Will refers to the syntax and sentence structure frequently which reflects an interesting shift of the structure throughout the passage. He also references foreshadowing, themes, and Maureen’s lack of control in this situation. He quotes the passages well when used as evidence to support what he is speaking about. He also mentions the theme of identity and discusses it well. He appears calm in the tone of his voice, but there are REALLY distracting noises in the background. - What would you suggest for improvement? To improve, Will could speak louder and not be in a loud environment while recording the commentary. He mentions a lot of great literary devices but does not necessarily discuss their significance to the passage. It also sounds a little scripted at times. -What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.) He did not appear to forget any literary terms or themes, but it would have been better if he mentioned the bakkie as a motif, and the item’s significance to the passage.

Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 7.5/10 Presentation: 7/10 Use of Language: 4/5

//-//**//Did the speaker address context? Purpose?// Will does a nice job accessing the purpose of the passage. He often refers to it sporadically but fails to make a final wrap up. However he does mention context of the Bakkie.
 * Jess Rothstein

//-Was there an organizational principle utilized for their commentary?// Yes, Will addresses things as they come. In most cases he states the literary device, then Gordimer’s purpose. His organization is rather successful.

//-What questions would you ask this person for clarification, IF YOU WERE THE ACCESSOR?// What is the significance of the context of the bakkie to this passage? What is the overall message this passage portrays? -What did the speaker do well? Will did a nice job not forgetting any literary features. He also established a good amount f context before beginning the passage.

//- What would you suggest for improvement?// Will could explain the literary features a lot more. He discuses some in the context of the book, but could really emphasize the overall patterns in his specific text. He also seems scripted a lot and also his slow speech is a little distracting.

//-What did they forget to address (lit terms, themes, etc.)// Will does not forget any literary features but, sometimes just says syntax which is a very general term. Other then sometimes lacking specificity Will does a great job in this category.

Knowledge and Understanding: 4/5 Interpretation and Personal Response: 6/10 Presentation: 6/10 Use of Language: 3/5