Gavin Stevens, Chick's uncle and a lawyer in Jefferson, delivers some of the longest and most debated speeches in Intruder in the Dust, reflecting on the South, its people, and its future. These passages are rich material for rhetorical analysis, but they are also easy for students to misread as the author's direct message. Teachers who assign essays on Stevens's speeches need a grading approach that rewards careful attention to how he argues, not just what he says.

A rhetorical analysis of a literary character differs from an analysis of a political speech, because the audience, purpose, and context are embedded in the fiction. Students must consider who Stevens is addressing, which is often Chick, and what that relationship reveals about his motivations. Papers that ignore this layer tend to treat the speeches as freestanding essays rather than as moments within a story.

Teachers can help by asking students to identify at least one rhetorical strategy per speech, such as appeals to shared identity, use of historical generalization, or the framing of a moral problem as a regional one. Naming the strategy gives the essay a concrete analytical spine. It also gives the grader a clear checkpoint for whether the student is doing rhetorical analysis or simply paraphrasing.

Separating Character From Author

A frequent weakness in these essays is the assumption that Stevens speaks for Faulkner, which flattens the novel's complexity. A better approach asks how the narrative positions the speeches, whether through Chick's reactions, the context in which they are given, or the way other characters respond. Papers that explore that question tend to arrive at more nuanced claims about how the novel treats his views.

• Identifies a specific speech or passage and describes the situation in which it is delivered.
• Names and explains at least two rhetorical strategies Stevens uses.
• Considers the audience, especially Chick, and how the speech functions in their relationship.
• Distinguishes between Stevens's perspective and the novel's overall stance.
• Evaluates the effectiveness or limitations of his reasoning with textual support.

Grading Evidence From Long Passages

Because Stevens's speeches are lengthy, students may be tempted to quote large blocks or to cite them vaguely. A good rubric rewards brief, targeted quotations that are followed by close commentary. Teachers can model this by showing how a single phrase can anchor a paragraph of analysis, while a pasted paragraph usually signals that the student has not yet decided what matters.

Accuracy is another concern, since long speeches contain shifts in tone and argument that students sometimes compress into a single idea. Graders should check that the paper reflects the speech's actual progression rather than a convenient summary. A comment asking where the argument turns or complicates itself can lead to a more faithful reading.

Encouraging Critical Distance

Students can analyze the speeches critically without needing to agree or disagree with Stevens's ideas. The task is to examine how he builds an argument, what he assumes, and what he leaves unsaid. Encouraging this distance helps students engage thoughtfully with perspectives they may find outdated or troubling.

Teachers should also be ready to address student discomfort with some of the ideas expressed. A brief class discussion about the difference between analyzing a view and endorsing it can set a productive tone. This groundwork leads to essays that are both more honest and better reasoned.

Efficient and Consistent Evaluation

Rhetorical analysis essays can be demanding to grade because they combine literary and argumentative skills. Using a clear rubric with defined levels for strategy identification, audience analysis, and evidence use keeps scores consistent. Spot-checking a few papers against anchor samples helps ensure that standards do not drift during a long grading session.

AI-assisted grading can help by flagging essays that merely paraphrase the speeches or that fail to name any rhetorical strategy. Teachers can then focus their attention on borderline papers and on the ones that attempt more ambitious interpretations. The combination speeds up the process while keeping human judgment where it counts.