Commentary with Hor
An analysis of two locations: Kashmir and Qazigund
Kashmir, a region that is described by the writer as "coolness and colour," is a beautiful place with a "milky blue sky" that blankets the region. It's gateway, Qazigund, is described much differently than that of Kashmir. In this post, I will be analyzing the two descriptions that are provided by the writer.
The writer's description of Kashmir in the first paragraph shows the regions true beauty with detailed descriptions of the location. The writer begins by saying that Kashmir was "coolness and colour." The coolness allows me as the reader to create an image of a breeze likely flowing through the region. Bringing up color prompts me to believe that the region is bright and likely creates a cheerful environment. Kashmir's "milky blue sky" further contributes to the fact that the region is a cheerful, calming environment as milky blue is more of a lighter tone of blue that is often associated with happiness and cheer. Overall, Kashmir is described as a calming environment that is welcoming.
However, the writer brings the viewpoint of the region back to where they stand, at Qazigund. Described as "dust in the sunlight," Qazigund is vastly different than Kashmir. In the second paragraph, the writer highlights what they see of Kashmir from Qazigund - the gateway to Kashmir. With further detailed descriptions of elements like the scent being described as the "cold air of charcoal, tobacco, cooking oil, months-old dirt, and human excrement," I can see that the closer you get to Kashmir, it seems to be more foul than the first paragraph initially described it. With these descriptions that almost directly contrast the first paragraph's descriptions of the bright and cheerful Kashmir, the writer shows readers that it isn't the true beauty that they described in the paragraph prior. It is a region that has a rotten aroma filled with contrasting scents like tobacco and cooking oil that have created almost a cloud of horrible scents.
In these two paragraphs, the writer described a region that is seen from a distance as a bright and cheerful environment, but becomes foul the closer you get. Both paragraphs are vastly different in their descriptions of the region, yet it is clear to see that the region truly does look far different the closer you get.
Looking back at my blog and at the rubric, I can clearly see that my commentary lacked several features that would place it at a level 4 or 5. For the AO1 column, I do believe that I am at a level 3. I did have a clear understanding of the text however not a detailed understanding of it. I discussed the feelings that could be associated with Kashmir, but lacked discussion of it in Qazigund as I focused more on the aroma. I provided clear references to characteristic features of both locations as I mentioned Kashmir's "milky blue sky" and Qazigund's scent of "months-old dirt" and "human excrement." As for the AO3 column, I would place myself somewhere between a level 2 and 3. I feel that I wrote a clear and coherent analysis, but lacked a clearer awareness of the writer's stylistic choices. I do believe that I used an appropriate selection of elements and clear and appropriate language to link evidence with explanatory comments to enhance my analysis. For this reason, I would place myself between a high level 2 and lower level 3. Overall, I would give myself between 10-13 marks for my response.
ReplyDelete