Written communication plays a central role in The Fault in Our Stars, from the emails to Peter Van Houten to the pages Augustus leaves for Hazel. These texts make useful subjects for rhetorical analysis, a skill that appears on many high school writing assessments. Students can examine how a writer's choices of tone, structure, and appeal shape an intended reader's response. Grading these essays requires a clear understanding of what rhetorical analysis is and how it differs from literary analysis.

Rhetorical analysis asks how a text persuades or moves its audience, not what it means in the abstract. When students analyze an email from Hazel and Augustus to Van Houten, they might consider how the writers establish credibility, appeal to his feelings, and frame their request. The emphasis is on choices and effects. Essays that drift into general commentary on the plot or theme are not doing the assigned task.

Students often need a vocabulary for rhetorical analysis. Terms like audience, purpose, ethos, pathos, and logos give them a way to describe how the writer persuades. Diction, syntax, and tone allow them to discuss specific language choices. Teachers can provide a short reference sheet and practice by analyzing a short letter together before students write independently.

What Rhetorical Analysis Should Show

A strong essay identifies the writer's purpose and audience, then explains how specific choices serve that purpose. For example, a student may analyze how Hazel's direct, honest tone in a message contrasts with the more elaborate style of Van Houten's own writing. They might then argue that this contrast reveals something about who has power in the exchange. The claim connects craft to effect, which is the core of rhetorical analysis.

• A clear statement of the writer's purpose and intended audience
• Analysis of specific choices such as tone, word choice, and structure
• Explanation of how those choices are meant to affect the reader
• Evidence quoted from the letter or message, with accurate context
• A claim about effectiveness rather than a simple list of techniques

Common Weaknesses in Student Responses

A frequent weakness is technique spotting. Students label devices, such as pathos or a metaphor, without explaining how they operate in the passage. Feedback should push them to describe the effect on the audience and to consider why the writer chose that approach. A comment like "what does this word choice make the reader feel or believe?" moves the analysis forward.

Another weakness is confusing the fictional writer with the real author. Students may write as if John Green is addressing them directly when they are analyzing a letter by a character. Teachers can clarify by reminding students of the fictional context and asking them to consider the character's intended audience. This precision strengthens the analysis.

Scoring and Efficiency

A rubric for rhetorical analysis should include strands for thesis, evidence, commentary, and organization, with descriptors focused on how well the student explains the writer's choices. Lower levels describe lists of devices without explanation, while higher levels describe analysis that connects choices to purpose and audience. Anchor papers help teachers and students see the difference. Clear language keeps scoring consistent across a large class.

Because rhetorical analysis is a formulaic skill on many exams, students often practice it repeatedly, which adds to grading volume. AI feedback tools can identify essays that list techniques without commentary and draft specific comments encouraging explanation. Teachers review and adjust these, adding their own observations where needed. This lets students practice more frequently while keeping feedback timely and specific.