Asking whether Santiago qualifies as a tragic hero is a deceptively difficult prompt, because it requires students to first establish a working definition of tragic hero before they can meaningfully argue whether Santiago fits it. Essays that skip this definitional step almost always end up arguing past each other, since "tragic hero" means something different depending on which criteria a student assumes.

A strong grading rubric for this prompt should require an explicit definition early in the essay, whether drawn from a classical Aristotelian framework or a more modern understanding of the term, since the entire argument's coherence depends on that foundation being clearly established.

This also creates a useful teaching moment about how literary terms carry specific technical meanings that shift depending on critical tradition, which is a genuinely valuable lesson that extends well beyond this single assignment into how students engage with literary terminology generally.

Grading criteria that reward this definitional precision tend to produce noticeably more rigorous essays than a rubric that simply asks students to argue for or against the label without requiring them to justify what the label actually means in the first place.

What a Well-Argued Response Looks Like

The strongest essays establish a clear definition, apply it systematically to Santiago's specific circumstances, and honestly address where the fit is imperfect rather than forcing every detail of the novella to match the definition exactly.

• Establishes a clear, sourced definition of tragic hero before applying it
• Systematically applies each element of the definition to Santiago's situation
• Uses specific evidence from both the fishing trip and Santiago's backstory
• Honestly addresses aspects of Santiago's character that complicate a clean fit
• Reaches a conclusion that follows logically from the evidence presented, not a predetermined answer

Grading Essays That Skip the Definition

Essays that jump straight to arguing for or against the label without defining it first should be flagged early, since the rest of the essay's evidence, however well chosen, is difficult to evaluate fairly without knowing what standard the student is actually measuring Santiago against.

In these cases, feedback that asks the student to state their working definition explicitly, even after the fact, can clarify whether the underlying argument was actually sound or whether the missing definition was masking a genuinely confused line of reasoning.

Providing Definitional Resources in Advance

Since not every student arrives with a solid working knowledge of classical tragic hero criteria, providing a short reference sheet with two or three competing definitions, from Aristotle to more modern literary criticism, levels the playing field and produces more consistent essay quality across the class.

This resource doesn't tell students which definition to use, but it removes the barrier of needing to research the concept independently before they can even begin drafting their argument about Santiago specifically.

Extending Into Comparative Literary Study

This prompt works particularly well as a bridge into other tragic hero discussions later in the curriculum, since students who have already practiced applying the definition rigorously to Santiago tend to transfer that skill more successfully to more complex figures encountered in later units.

Grading this essay with an eye toward that future transfer, rewarding the underlying analytical process as much as the specific conclusion about Santiago, pays dividends well beyond this single assignment.