An "A" essay is well-conceived and well-written. The argument is focused and well-structured, moving clearly from point to point by means of effective transitions. Texts and ideas from lecture are cited in an intelligent and integrated way. The essay strikes a balance between exposition and analysis, moving smoothly from descriptive summary of key ideas and/or scenes to deeper inferences regarding their implications. The prose shows vigor and clarity of expression.

A "B" essay has minor problems in conception or execution. It lacks some focus; and as a result, the structure is a bit confused, or the transitions occasionally obscure. Texts and ideas from lecture are sometimes only glancingly cited, or there is some overall imbalance in terms of how they are used. The argument fails at times to pursue larger analyses when they are called for. The prose may be sloppy in places or lack sufficient punch.

A "C" essay has some serious problems in its conception or realization. The argument tends to wander, and transitions are rough and sometimes absent. References to texts and ideas from lecture are not effectively synthesized, or sources are used injudiciously or too slavishly. The discussion stays too close to pure exposition, seldom probing the underlying implications of the topic, or else larger claims are ungrounded in concrete details from the texts. The prose at times is muddled and has some relatively major flaws.

A "D" essay has very serious problems in its general design. The argument is either sketchy or never clearly formulated, jumping from point to point without warning or preparation. Texts and ideas from lecture are not really integrated into the discussion, being deployed nebulously or offhandedly at best. Deeper analysis, if not eschewed entirely in favor of plot summary or exposition, is only vaguely suggested but never pursued in detail. The prose has severe flaws that damage the overall flow.

An "F" essay lacks a conceptual framework and is very poorly written. There is no guiding argument, and as a result the structure is murky and amorphous, with assertions that lack clear articulation with one another. Texts and ideas from lecture are cited in a vague and garbled way, their implications often misconstrued. There is little if any analysis, and there may be long digressions that are only loosely rooted in the texts. The prose is shoddy and riddled with errors.