Friendship is the emotional center of Sula, and it is one of the most common topics for student essays. Yet many papers treat the friendship in simple terms, describing it as close, then broken, then sorrowful. A rubric built for this theme should reward students who capture the complexity of the relationship, including its intimacy, rivalry, and shifting power. Clear criteria also help teachers avoid grading on whether they like the student's emotional reading.

The first criterion should concern how well the student defines the nature of the friendship. Strong papers go beyond saying the girls are best friends and identify what each gains from the other, such as Nel's access to imaginative freedom and Sula's access to stability. They recognize that the bond forms in response to their family circumstances. Descriptors should distinguish between papers that list shared experiences and those that analyze their meaning.

A second criterion should address the use of key scenes as evidence. The episode at the river with Chicken Little, the wedding of Nel and Jude, and the deathbed conversation are pivotal moments. A strong paper explains how each scene alters the relationship rather than treating them as isolated events. The rubric can ask whether the student traces change over time instead of describing a static bond.

Assessing depth of interpretation

Depth of interpretation should have its own criterion, separate from evidence. A top-level descriptor might state that the student considers multiple perspectives on the friendship, acknowledging that Nel and Sula interpret events differently. It might also reward students who question whether the friendship was as reciprocal as it first appears. Papers that raise and address complexity should score higher than those that settle on an easy conclusion.

• Defines the friendship with specific reference to what each character needs
• Traces how the relationship changes across the novel's timeline
• Uses pivotal scenes as evidence and explains their impact
• Acknowledges competing interpretations of loyalty and betrayal
• Connects the friendship to broader themes such as community or selfhood

Avoiding sentimental or judgmental writing

Students sometimes write with strong emotional judgments, calling Sula a bad friend or Nel naive. A rubric should reward analysis over verdicts, and comments can redirect by asking what the text shows. Point out that Morrison often invites ambivalence, and that a nuanced paper weighs competing evidence. This guides students toward critical reading and away from moralizing.

Be careful not to penalize students who bring personal experience to their readings, provided the paper stays grounded in the text. A student who has experienced a broken friendship may bring valuable insight into the novel. The key is whether they translate that insight into textual analysis. Comments can affirm the connection while asking for evidence.

Scaling the rubric for different grade levels

The same criteria can be adapted for different audiences by adjusting descriptors. For high school juniors, expectations might focus on clear claims and accurate evidence. For college students, the rubric might add expectations about engaging critical perspectives or situating the novel within a tradition. Keep the same basic categories so that students see continuity as they progress.

Share the rubric in advance and use it as a planning tool. Students can check their outlines against each criterion before drafting. This reduces the likelihood of missing elements and encourages self-assessment. Teachers often find that papers improve simply because expectations are visible.

Using the rubric for feedback

Tie comments to rubric language so students understand how they earned their scores. If a paper treats the friendship statically, note that the trace-change criterion is not yet met and suggest comparing the girls in childhood and adulthood. This specificity makes revision easier. It also demonstrates that grading is based on criteria rather than preference.

After scoring a class set, review where students clustered on each criterion. If many struggled with interpretive depth, plan a lesson on handling ambivalence in literature. Adjust the rubric descriptors if they proved confusing. The rubric should evolve with your teaching, becoming a sharper tool each time you use it.