Eighth Peer Review

Joshua Jenkins – https://joshuajenkins1.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/to-agree-or-not-agree/comment-page-1/#comment-55

“Hi Joshua,
I definitely agree with your blog and your sentiments that Wilde is certainly using the play to make fun of the upper class, their materialism and shallowness. I also think that you make a good point regarding that maybe Wilde is also trying to guide his readers away from the consumerism that concerns people of both the 19th and 21st centuries. You write very clearly with intent and state your views outright, it makes your blogs very easy to read 🙂 Well done!”


Seventh Peer Review

Victoria Zullo – https://vzengl200.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/week-10-blog-post-critical/comment-page-1/#comment-29

“Hi Victoria,
I had a really good time reading your blog, I did the same question this week for my blog, except I took on a more historical point of view. I found your blog very interesting and a different take on the question compared to my response. I love how you bring up the fact that, in The Death of Ivan Ilych, we see the life that wealthy people lead and how it isn’t all it’s chalked up to be: it can be quite shallow and can lead you into trouble, and yet it’s just the opposite when it comes to the working class. I think it’s great how you continued on this point with Master and Man, with Nikita, from the working class, being of a more humble and kind nature, as opposed to Vasily Andreevich from the upper class and it takes a near-death situation for Andreevich to show some humanity and compassion. What a great blog, very well done!! 😊 Just a couple of small things: I picked up a few lowercase “i’s” when they should be uppercase, as they’re at the start of a sentence and it’s spelled “Andreevich”, not “Andreevichov”. 🙂

Sixth Peer Review

Tara Briggs – https://taramichellebriggs.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/blog-7-topic-1/comment-page-1/#comment-28

“Hi Tara,
I think this is a great post, it’s wonderful and thought-provoking 🙂 You’ve encapsulated some of my own thoughts on these authors too. I think you’re quite right when you say that Dickens makes mention of people in all levels of society, from the Gradgrinds to the Slearys in “Hard Times”, while Austen really only pays attention to the upper classes of society in her novels and Eliot is a combination of the two. Your brief analysis of the characters is thorough and I really like your summarising statement at the end that all three authors have intelligent ideas that are relevant even up to the 21st century. You don’t show a bias or preference for one particular author, which shows an objective and very well-written piece – fabulous work! 🙂 Just one small thing: in your paragraph about Dickens, “effected” should be “affected” with an a, not an e.”

Fifth Peer Review

Jesse Owad – https://jesseshakespeare.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/sixth-19th-century-literature-blog-post-week-9-monday-1st-of-may/comment-page-1/#comment-22

“Hey Jesse,
I love this blog, I did the same topic this week, and I really like how you talk about the hypocrisy of education and how we always say how much we value it but don’t actually pay all that much attention to it. I also like how you say that the intellectual, bookish side of education isn’t all there is and that there is so much more to education, like life experiences and that they teach us so much, maybe even more than what books teach us. I think you’ve done a very good job at encapsulating the frustration we all feel as university students sometimes and how we all get really bored of just studying when all we want is to be out in the world, living life as we want to.

What a great job you’ve done! 😀 Just two things: “Oxford” should be spelt with a capital “O”, as it’s the name of a place, and “gypsy’s” should be “gypsies”.”

Fourth Peer Review

Danielle Gatt – https://daniellegattlit.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/adventure-into-the-gallery/comment-page-1/#comment-11

“Hi Danielle,

I did this question for my blog this week too and I’m really intrigued by the paintings you chose. I love your interpretation of “Cymon and Iphigenia” – the idea that there could be two purposes to the painting is a really interesting concept and I love the notion of the sun in the background as a chance for redemption and second chances. I think your interpretation of “The Widower” is spot on and effectively explains the injustice the poor faced in the 19th century and how unfair life can be, even when you give it all you’ve got and get nothing in return. What a wonderful job you’ve done! 🙂

Third Peer Review

Nicole Walsh – https://nicolewalshblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/blog-post-4-week-6/comment-page-1/#comment-12

“Hi Nicole,
I really like your blog this week, it has a strong and emphatic voice that effectively conveys the message that you don’t approve of the arrangements Mr Gradgrind is making for his daughter. The rhetorical questions also help to drive home your argument about Mr Gradgrind not considering his daughter’s feelings. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, well done! 🙂

Second Peer Review

Annabelle Barns-Licha – https://annabellebarnslicha.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/blog-three-charles-dickens/comment-page-1/#comment-78

“Hey Annabelle,
What a lovely, poignant paragraph. Your use of language is so simplistic yet so descriptive and you describe the heart of the city so perfectly. Your sentences are short but effective, your tone is gentle and calm and I love how you describe all the different people you come across in Sydney. Well done!!”

First Peer Review

Biancah Nasr – https://biancahnasrblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/expostulation-and-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-37

“Hey Biancah,

Wow, I love this! I love how you explain the lessons that can be learned from nature and I really like how you do this with a very gentle and calm tone. I also really like how you focus on individual elements of nature (the trees, birds, ants, flowers, etc.) and explicitly state what these things can teach us and, again, you do it so wonderfully 🙂 Well done!”