Charles Smithson is the man through whom most of The French Lieutenant's Woman is seen, and he is a more complicated figure than students often realize. He is an amateur naturalist who collects fossils, a gentleman engaged to the wealthy Ernestina Freeman, and a person who thinks of himself as more enlightened than his peers. The novel spends much of its length gently undermining that self-image.

Student essays on Charles frequently settle on a single adjective, usually indecisive, and then repeat it for five paragraphs. The label is not wrong, but it does not constitute an argument unless the student explains where the indecision comes from and what it reveals about his world. Strong essays connect his hesitation to class expectations, to his sense of irony, and to the pressure of an inheritance he cannot control.

When grading, it helps to ask whether the student sees Charles as a person or as a type. The best essays do both, showing how he represents a Victorian gentleman while also behaving in ways that complicate the type. That balance is difficult, and it deserves recognition when students achieve it.

Recognizing Depth in Analysis of His Interests

Charles's fascination with fossils offers an opening for sophisticated analysis. A student might argue that his habit of classifying and collecting mirrors his attempts to categorize Sarah, and that both efforts fail because living people do not fit tidy labels. Essays that notice this pattern are working at the level of imagery and theme, not just plot.

• Connecting his scientific interests to his behavior toward Sarah and Ernestina
• Explaining how class and inheritance limit his choices, not just describing his feelings
• Noting where the narrator comments on Charles with irony or sympathy
• Distinguishing what Charles believes about himself from what the text shows
• Tracing change in his thinking across the novel rather than treating him as static

Common Misreadings to Watch For

One recurring misreading is treating Charles as a straightforward romantic hero who is simply caught between two women. This overlooks how much of the novel invites readers to see his motives with skepticism, particularly his attraction to Sarah as an escape from his own dissatisfaction. Another misreading assumes the Victorian setting means he thinks and acts identically to every other character, ignoring the places where he is more self-aware.

Feedback on these misreadings should point to evidence that complicates the student's view. A note asking the student to consider a particular scene where Charles's reasoning seems self-serving can reopen the question without telling them what to conclude. This approach teaches them to test their own readings against the book.

Balancing Character Study With Historical Context

Essays on Charles are stronger when they include historical grounding, such as how Darwin's ideas were unsettling assumptions about inheritance and status in the 1860s. Students do not need extensive research, but they should be able to explain why a man like Charles might feel anxious about change. Without that context, his behavior can look arbitrary.

A short context handout or a brief class discussion before the assignment can raise the baseline quality considerably. When essays still miss the historical dimension, a targeted comment prompting one specific connection is usually enough. Efficient, focused feedback of this kind makes better use of grading time than a long list of general suggestions.

Using Consistent Criteria Across Character Essays

If your course assigns character essays on both Charles and Sarah, applying parallel criteria makes scores easier to compare and explain. Both essays should be evaluated for the same core skills: a clear claim, well-chosen evidence, attention to technique, and connection to theme. That structure helps students see their progress from one assignment to the next.

Consistency is also easier to maintain with support from grading tools that apply your written rubric the same way every time. You still decide the standards and review every result, but you spend less effort on the mechanical aspects of scoring. More of your attention can go to the qualities that only a human reader notices, such as a surprising insight or an elegant turn of phrase.