7.C Commentary vs Summary (LAN-1.G)

A grader reading summary already knows the plot. Telling them that the steward hands over the keys in Act 3, or that the speaker says he hasn't slept in four nights, gives them nothing to credit, because the text already said it, usually better. Commentary is the sentence that comes after the quotation and does something with it: it names an effect, a tension, a function. Two paths leave the same quotation. One restates its content in your own words, which is paraphrase, still a form of summary no matter how fancy the vocabulary. The other asks what the line is doing: what does its word order, its timing, its imagery accomplish for the argument you're making.

Converting summary into commentary means adding a verb of action, not a verb of saying. Instead of 'the line shows that he is calm,' write 'the claim of calm arrives right after the sleeplessness, so the composure gets offered as its own proof.' That sentence describes a move the text makes, not a fact the text states. The same test applies to plot: a steward surrendering keys silently isn't just an event, it's a dispossession if your claim is that the play equates service with ownership. The commentary sentence has to reach back and touch the claim, or it's just description with confidence.

This is why commentary sits at the center of the line of reasoning that connects claim and evidence. A quotation chosen on purpose and explained only by summary breaks that chain: the evidence sits there unconnected to the argument. Commentary is the join. It's also why evidence selection and commentary are taught together: you pick a line because something about it can be explained, not just repeated.