"Who is the real monster in The Hunchback of Notre-Dame?" is one of the most common argumentative prompts assigned for this book, and the answers can become predictable. Most students choose Frollo or the crowd, cite the same few scenes, and conclude that society is the true villain. Teachers grading dozens of these need criteria that reward original thinking and penalize formulaic responses.

The prompt has real strengths. It invites students to take a position, weigh evidence, and consider competing readings, all of which are central to argumentative writing. The difficulty lies in its ambiguity: what counts as monstrous, and who decides? Students who define their terms at the start of the essay have a major advantage, since the entire argument then rests on a clear standard.

You can steer students toward less obvious answers by broadening the field. Phoebus, Gringoire, the judge Florian, and even Esmeralda's mother Sister Gudule all have arguments in their favor as candidates for moral failure. Encouraging students to consider at least one unconventional choice before settling on the popular one leads to more original essays.

Evaluating the Quality of the Argument

An argumentative essay should be graded on the reasoning, not the conclusion. A student who argues that Quasimodo himself bears some responsibility for violence can earn full credit if the case is made well, just as one who blames Frollo can. Make this explicit in the rubric so students feel free to take risks with their positions.

• Defines what makes a character monstrous before making the claim
• Uses evidence from at least three separate parts of the novel
• Acknowledges and responds to the strongest counterargument
• Distinguishes between individual wrongdoing and systemic failure
• Concludes with an implication for how Hugo wants readers to judge others

Addressing Counterarguments

Counterargument is often the weakest part of student essays. Many either omit it or mention an opposing view in a sentence and dismiss it without evidence. Modeling a full counterargument paragraph, with a fair statement of the opposing view, textual support for it, and a reasoned rebuttal, shows students what is expected.

Grading counterarguments consistently means looking for sincerity. A straw man that no reasonable reader would hold should earn less credit than a genuine challenge to the thesis. Feedback can ask whether a thoughtful classmate who disagrees would feel their view had been represented fairly.

Avoiding Formulaic Essays

Five-paragraph templates tend to produce mechanical prose, especially on a prompt everyone knows. Encourage flexible organization in which the structure follows the logic of the argument instead of a preset pattern. A paper with three body paragraphs that each develop a different piece of the reasoning can be more persuasive than one that mechanically lists three examples.

Also watch for borrowed ideas from popular commentary or the film. If many essays use the same phrasing or the same evidence in the same order, students may be relying on a common source. A brief reminder that they are expected to develop their own reading, along with a rubric row for originality, can reduce this tendency.

Making Revision Meaningful

Revision is where argumentative writing improves most. After returning graded essays, ask students to identify their weakest paragraph and rewrite it using your feedback. This targeted approach is more manageable than revising the entire paper and produces visible improvement.

Consider having students write a short reflection explaining what they changed and why. The reflection helps them articulate what they learned about argument and gives you insight into their understanding. Students who can describe the difference between a weak and a strong claim are more likely to apply that knowledge in future essays.