Give a class a free choice of character and most will pick Hyde. That is understandable, but it also produces a lot of similar essays. The students who write about Utterson or Dr. Lanyon are often the ones doing the most original thinking.

Utterson is the lawyer who follows the mystery, and the reader follows him. Lanyon is the respectable physician who refuses to accept what Jekyll has been doing, and pays for it. Poole, the loyal butler, shows what fear looks like inside the household. Each one offers a different way into the story.

Grading these essays takes a slightly different approach than grading essays on the title characters. Students have less class discussion to lean on, so their arguments are more likely to be uneven. That is a reason to grade with care, not a reason to mark them down.

The key is to grade the analysis of the character, not the choice of character.

What Strong Character Analysis Looks Like

A strong essay treats the character as a device Stevenson uses to make a point, not just a person in the plot. Utterson, for example, can be read as the voice of Victorian restraint. His reluctance to pry says something about a society that would rather not know.

• The essay makes a claim about the character's purpose in the novella
• Evidence comes from several parts of the story, not one scene
• The student notices how the character changes or refuses to change
• The analysis connects the character to a larger theme such as reputation or science
• Descriptions of the character stay tied to the text rather than personal opinion

Common Problems in Supporting Character Essays

The biggest issue is retelling. A student describes what Lanyon does in each chapter and never asks what it means. Feedback should push them from "what happens" to "why did Stevenson include this."

Another problem is treating a minor character as a stand-in for the student's own opinions. Comments like "Utterson is boring" tell you about the reader, not the book. Ask the student to support the judgment with a specific choice the author makes.

Feedback That Opens Up New Angles

One useful comment is a comparison prompt. Ask how Lanyon's reaction to Hyde differs from Utterson's, and what that contrast reveals about the novella's view of curiosity. This gives the student a next step without telling them what to conclude.

You can also invite them to consider how a character functions in the structure. Utterson's role as a witness shapes what the reader knows and when. Even a brief note about that can lift an essay.

Grading Fairly Across Different Character Choices

When every student picks a different character, consistency gets harder. A rubric based on the quality of analysis rather than the character keeps things fair. GraideMind applies that rubric the same way to each essay, whether it is about Hyde or a minor figure like Poole.

That leaves you free to react to the ideas themselves. And when a student takes a real risk with a lesser-known character, you have time to write the kind of note that encourages it.