Shakespeare feedback
Jul. 2nd, 2010 04:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
klenaCut because it probably only interests me
(1a) This detailed and fluently presented essay offers a detailed response to the passage and maintains a clear focus on the linguistic elements of the scene. Sometimes, there are moments where the commentary becomes more descriptive and/or glossing that analytical but in general the essay is well focused on the requirements of this exercise. There is also a useful awareness of how Othello speaks in earlier parts of the play.
(12) MV and KL form the focus of this engaged and clearly argued response. The implications of bonds of duty and love are usefully explored and there is clearly a detailed knowledge of both plays. The approach is both systematic and thorough and, although the essay offers no great surprises or original insights, it efficiently covers a wide range of relevent materials.
(7) The 'recreation' of Lavinia by language, in conjunction with her losing her own facilities for speech, offers an intersting and effective start to the essay. The following discussion of Prince Hal's language is well informed and usefully poloarised betweehn his contrasting public identities in the play but it is not always easy to see the direct language connection. Overall, a solidly argued and informed response to the question.
This work has been double marked; the agreed mark, subject to external examiners' ratification is 65
I feel the comment about my essay offering "no great surprises or original insights" is a little harsh because it is Shakespeare and people have been writing commentary on him for nigh on 400 years, but whatever the markers say! I'm not disputing my mark.
(1a) This detailed and fluently presented essay offers a detailed response to the passage and maintains a clear focus on the linguistic elements of the scene. Sometimes, there are moments where the commentary becomes more descriptive and/or glossing that analytical but in general the essay is well focused on the requirements of this exercise. There is also a useful awareness of how Othello speaks in earlier parts of the play.
(12) MV and KL form the focus of this engaged and clearly argued response. The implications of bonds of duty and love are usefully explored and there is clearly a detailed knowledge of both plays. The approach is both systematic and thorough and, although the essay offers no great surprises or original insights, it efficiently covers a wide range of relevent materials.
(7) The 'recreation' of Lavinia by language, in conjunction with her losing her own facilities for speech, offers an intersting and effective start to the essay. The following discussion of Prince Hal's language is well informed and usefully poloarised betweehn his contrasting public identities in the play but it is not always easy to see the direct language connection. Overall, a solidly argued and informed response to the question.
This work has been double marked; the agreed mark, subject to external examiners' ratification is 65
I feel the comment about my essay offering "no great surprises or original insights" is a little harsh because it is Shakespeare and people have been writing commentary on him for nigh on 400 years, but whatever the markers say! I'm not disputing my mark.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-02 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-06 03:08 pm (UTC)