|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Group 5: "noseriouslytho" Site | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Go To Group Five's Site! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for May 1, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Group 5 always does a great with leaving suspense in a summary of their story. It made me want to go and read their book. Tangerine seems interesting enough taht I may go and read it. The only negative which is not really negative is to say the words they summarize their story with should have a bit more excitement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for April 2, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Smoke and Mirrors seems to an interesting book. Group 5 did a great job of explaining the book, however I feel that some information should have been left out for the element of surprise. The book review is kind of �jumbled� so to speak. It�s as if they wanted to tell the whole story. I think the group should have explained more about Andrea before the end so that the readers could understand her pain. It started out as a book about a boy named Simon, and his life, then became a story about a ghostly girl named Andrea and her fading and reappearing at different times in Simon�s life. I think Group 5 did a great job, I would have just liked to see a little bit more structure and organization in the book summary. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for March 1, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for February 1, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This critique of O Pioneer had it's good points and it's bad points. The critique was very nicely set up into the different parts of Freytag's pyramid, and the separation of these pieces works well with the organization of the critique. The parts that fit under the pieces worked, but I think the falling action could have been included in the denoument and the category eliminated. Overall, the critique was great for what seemed like a confusing book. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique for January 9, 2007: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Group 5's critique of Alice in Wonderland was both good and bad. The structure and organization were excellent and really easy to follow. Each section of Freytag's Pyramid was outlined and explained. The only bad part about this analysis was that it was a little confusing, in that things weren't explained all that well towards the end, and what was described as each part of Fretag's pyramid, didn't really match up to what it seemed like it should be. Overall, the analysis was okay. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critique For December 1, 2006 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I believe that group four�s literary analysis of the book titled �Things Fall Apart�, was a little confusing and almost boring. They had a few minor grammatical errors, and it sounded as if the summary came straight from a website in the beginning. I was not interested in reading the book at all; however, as I read into the climax and falling action I suddenly became interested. I don�t know if that is accredited to the people who wrote those excerpts�s ability to capture the reader, but I enjoyed it. The story after reading its summary once more sounds like a sad but adventurous one. I think that if group four works on engaging the reader a lot more rather that sounding robotic, they will have the skill down perfectly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back To Home | |||||||||||||||||||||||||