Hi there.

Welcome to today's lesson.

It's fantastic to see you today.

My name is Mr. Barnty.

Thank you so much for joining me.

Today we continue our study of the "Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," but today we're gonna be focusing very specifically on the whole text structure.

Okay, should we dive in? Let's go.

Right, so our outcome today.

By the end of the lesson, you are gonna be able to explain how Stevenson uses narrative structure to present his ideas on duality in society.

So four key words today: epistolary, critique, duality, and concealment.

Let's have a look at what these words mean.

So epistolary is a story that's told through letters or written communication between characters.

Now, already you should be thinking, "Ah, I think I can see moments when this story is told through letters or written communication." So we can see that Stevenson uses elements of epistolary fiction in his text.

So a critique is a detailed evaluation.

It's expressing opinions on the merits or the faults.

And when we always think, and as we're gonna be doing today, even though we're talking about structure, we're always gonna be taking it back to Stevenson's message.

Like, is he critiquing anyone or anything in particular? Now, the final two words are hopefully keywords that you recognise.

Duality and concealment are both key ideas in this text.

Duality being the idea, a quality of having two aspects.

We are really talking about the dual nature of the, the duality of human nature.

And also concealment, the act of hiding or keeping something secret.

All really useful words.

Look out for them in today's lesson and see if you can use them in your own discussions.

Okay, so we are gonna be looking at the overarching structure of the text of "The Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." We're gonna do this by breaking our learning cycle into two parts: the importance of documents, linking that to that keyword epistolary, and also we're gonna think about different narrative perspectives.

So let's have a look at the importance of documents.

Well, Stevenson uses the convention of epistolary fiction, stories told through letter writing, to foreground the importance of letters and documents.

Basically, he uses elements, conventions of epistolary fiction to say that letters and documents are really, really important in this novella.

So let's take a moment and discuss.

How many different letters or documents can you remember from the novella? Pause the video.

If you've got a partner, you might want to discuss this with them.

But don't worry if you're working by yourself.

You can just think through this question, maybe even make a few notes if you wish.

So pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Great discussions.

I could hear you remembering loads of ideas from the text.

Let's look at some of the things that you might have said.

So in chapter one, well done if you remembered the check.

The check that Hyde gets from behind the door to give to the young girl's family.

Chapter two and three are very much dominated by Jekyll's will, which is in the possession of Utterson.

Remember, he has concerns, so he opens Jekyll's will and looks through it again.

In chapter four, in Carew's murder, we know that he's carrying a letter that's addressed to Utterson.

Now, by chapter five, this is where Jekyll shares that letter that was written from Hyde.

And we know that Utterson goes and looks at the handwriting.

He gets his clerk to look at the handwriting, which shows that this, or the clerk seems to suggest that this is actually Jekyll's own handwriting.

Chapter six, where Dr.

Lanyon dies, we get that sealed letter Utterson receives, that sealed letter from Lanyon.

And by chapter eight, which is when the first part of the story ends, shall we say, when they break down the door and find the body of Hyde in the laboratory, Jekyll also finds this, sorry, Utterson also finds this letter addressed to him from Jekyll, but he doesn't open it straight away.

Chapter nine we know is written from the perspective of Lanyon, and it's the opening of that letter that Utterson received in chapter six.

And the final chapter is Jekyll's statement, which is the opening of the letter received in chapter eight.

So I want you to think about, how many of these documents, these letters, we are saying that Stevenson says these are really important to the plot, how many of these were clues? Okay, how many of them were clues that kind of guided us to working out that Jekyll and Hyde were the same person? And were any of these letters or documents, were any of them red herrings? Pause the video, have a discussion, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, well done if you said that actually the check, Jekyll's will, and that letter forged to look like it was from Hyde were all clues.

Looking back, we can see what had happened.

We know that actually the check was written by Jekyll himself whilst he was Hyde.

We know that Jekyll changed the will himself because he knew Hyde was him.

So if he ever disappeared, that all of Jekyll's things would be left to Hyde, himself, so he could keep them.

And obviously, we know that Jekyll forged that letter.

Were there any red herrings? So a red herring is something that seems like it's a clue but actually isn't.

And actually, Carew's letter could be a bit of a red herring.

It didn't really tell us anything more about Jekyll's relationship to Hyde.

In some ways, because it was addressed to Utterson, it did lead to the walking stick being found and being able to kind of, but ultimately it didn't really give us any clear indication that Jekyll and Hyde were the same person.

Looking back, it didn't really teach us anything.

One thing I do want to draw your attention to.

Utterson had the truth in his hands as early as chapter six.

The letter in chapter eight also had the truth in it, but chapter six, he had the truth in his hands, but he left that letter sealed.

Okay, I think that's important as we continue to move through today's lesson.

So let's have a check for understanding then.

In which chapter could Utterson have revealed the truth about Jekyll and Hyde? Was it a, chapter three, Dr.

Jekyll was quite at ease, b, chapter five, the incident of the letter, c, chapter six, the incident of Dr.

Lanyon, or d, chapter nine, Dr.

Lanyon's narrative? When did Utterson have the truth, or when could he even reveal the truth, about Jekyll and Hyde? Pause the video, have a think.

Press play when you are ready to find out the answer.

Yes, that was chapter six, the incident of Dr.

Lanyon's death.

So after Dr.

Lanyon's death, the truth was out there.

Okay? Dr.

Lanyon had written it all down, but Utterson didn't open it.

Okay.

I want you to think, then, why might Stevenson have used these epistolary conventions when structuring his novella? Why might he have included all these letters and documents? Pause the video, have a discussion with your partner if you've got one, or just think through these questions to yourself, and press play when you are ready to move on.

Welcome back.

Some really fantastic discussions there.

And well done for those of you who were using evidence, specific examples from the text, to justify your thoughts.

Okay, let's look at what some of our Oak pupils have said, because I think they've echoed some of the fantastic things that you were saying.

So Sam said, "Well, the structure helps create a sense of mystery.

One convention of Gothic texts is the fear of the unknown.

So to have the truth slowly revealed throughout the novella, it makes this feel more like a case that the reader can solve." So really interesting what Sam's saying here, is that, actually, by using these letters, we kind of create a sense of mystery, which links to the sense of the unknown.

So you've got something that's quite unnerving 'cause we don't know the truth.

But also, it's called the "Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," and we are almost like a detective trying to solve the crime.

A really nice idea from Sam.

And they actually go further and say, "We can interpret that word case in the title in different ways.

Not only is it us, the reader, playing detective, but we could also see it as a legal case.

'Cause we've talked about how we are trying to decide how culpable, how guilty Jekyll is, and how complicit the other characters are.

We could even see it as a scientific case.

We could ask, is this scientifically possible?" And, you know, particularly when we think about the very real fears of contemporary readers at the time, their fears around science, they might be thinking, "Is this possible? Could someone create an alter ego through science?" So Sam's really thought carefully about how these documents linked to that keyword in the title, case.

Great ideas from Sam, and well done to any of you who said something similar.

Jacob says, "Great ideas, Sam!" His interpretation is that Stevenson's mysterious structure, where the truth is concealed, keyword, secret hidden away, until the end of the novella, he thinks that that structure reflects the secretive nature of the upper middle classes that Stevenson is so critical of.

So you might have discussed in previous lessons what Stevenson's purposes are.

And you might have talked about him being very critical of the upper class, the upper middle classes, and the hypocrisy.

Jacob is making a fantastic point here.

He's linking the overarching structure, the structure, the epistolary conventions, he's saying these reflect, these are almost symbolic of the secretive nature of the upper class society.

He says, "In fact, the secretive documents, particularly the sealed envelopes, are symbols of concealment.

The way that they are introduced throughout the novella, but generally they're left unopened, illustrates how Stevenson uses the epistolary form as a critique, keyword, is being critical of, hypocritical upper classes approach to duality in society.

That is fantastic.

Okay, Jacob is taking the structure, but he's linking it back to Stevenson's argument.

Well done.

Great ideas from Sam and Jacob.

Great ideas from you.

And I hope you understood what Sam and Jacob were saying.

You can use some of those ideas as your own.

Okay, so true or false time.

It can be argued that Stevenson uses the conventions of epistolary fiction to critique the hypocrisy of the upper middle classes.

Pause the video, have a think.

Is that true or false? And press play when you're ready for the answer.

Yes, well done if you said true.

Notice that little phrase "it can be argued." We're not saying that this is definitely what Stevenson was doing.

We're being tentative here, and we're saying this is one interpretation that you could make.

So well done if you said that this was true.

Let's have a look at the justification, then.

So the sealed documents left unopened until the end of the novella represent how the upper classes concealed their dual natures.

And b, the sealed documents which are left unopened for most of the novella are clues to the truth about Jekyll and Hyde.

I want you to have a think, then.

Which of these is the best justification for this statement? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Yes, well done if you said a.

The sealed documents, the fact that they were left unopened until the end of novella, really shows how the upper classes were willing to conceal and hide away their dual natures, or protect their friends if they were worried that something might ruin their reputation.

So well done if you said A.

Okay.

Over to our first task.

I want you to show that you've understood everything that we've discussed in our first learning cycle.

You're gonna do this by completing the following sentences.

Stevenson uses conventions of epistolary fiction because.

Stevenson uses conventions of epistolary fiction but.

Stevenson uses conventions of epistolary fiction so.

Okay, so you've got the same sentence fragment, but you've got different conjunctions.

Remembering that conjunction is gonna change the sentence fragment that you add on the end to complete this sentence.

So really think about the job that each of those conjunctions is gonna do.

All right, pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Before I share some model answers, I want you to double check your sentence fragments, make sure they work with the conjunction that you were given, okay? So pause your video, reread your sentences if you haven't already, and check the sentence fragment you have written works with the conjunction because, but, or so, okay? Pause the video, have a quick check, and then press play when you are ready.

Great work.

Excellent checking.

We should always be checking our work makes sense.

So let's have a look.

Compare your answers to mine.

Think about are there any ideas that you would like to steal? So Stevenson uses conventions of epistolary fiction because he frames the novella as a case and the documents act as clues.

Stevenson uses conventions of epistolary fiction, but the documents, particularly the sealed envelopes, can also be symbols of concealment.

Stevenson uses conventions of epistolary fiction, so he could be using the symbols of concealment as a critique of the hypocritical way the upper classes viewed duality in society.

Well done if you got anything similar.

If you didn't, now's the time to pause the video and pinch them and put them in your own work.

Okay, we are now going to shift our focus on to different narrative perspectives.

So I want you to start.

How many different narrators do we encounter in the novella? How many different perspectives do we hear from? And when we hear from those different people, what perspective is used? Okay? Pause the video.

Question on the screen.

Have a discussion with your partner or think through to yourself and press play when you are ready to move on.

Welcome back.

Well done to everyone who identified we have three different narrators.

They are Mr. Utterson, Dr.

Lanyon, and Dr.

Jekyll.

Now, what perspective is used? So from chapters one to eight, the majority of the story we follow Mr. Utterson from the third-person limited perspective.

This means we are following Mr. Utterson, we're seeing the story from his perspective, but we're not inside his head, okay? We're not seeing it through his eyes.

We're watching him in this story.

This is different to chapter 9, chapter 10, which are both first person.

This means we hear the very specific experiences of Dr.

Lanyon and Dr.

Jekyll through their letters that are opened at the end of the novella.

Well done if you noticed that there was that shift between the way that we follow the story from Utterson's perspective and how that changes when we see things from Lanyon and Jekyll's point of views.

Really perceptive if you notice that.

Okay, so I want us to think about how reliable that we find Mr. Utterson as a narrator.

So I'm gonna give you four questions I want you to think about, and I want you to start thinking, "Okay, do we trust Mr. Utterson?" So what's your initial impression of Mr. Utterson? When we meet him at the beginning, how might his profession inform your views of him? How many clues does Utterson miss throughout the novella? Do you think this is deliberate? Do you think this is on purpose? Does the fact that the novella is written in the third person limited alter how much we can trust him? Okay, the fact that we are watching him rather than we're inside his head, does that change how much we trust him as a character? And by the end of the novella, do you trust him as much as you did at the beginning? Pause the video, have a discussion with your partner, or think through these questions to yourself, maybe making a few notes if you wish, and press play when you are ready to share your responses.

Okay, welcome back.

Really interesting discussions about Mr. Utterson, a character that I think most of us just feel like, "Yeah, we trust Mr. Utterson." But maybe having this discussion might have made you reflect on some of these things.

Okay, let's think about our initial impressions.

Well, for lots of us, we might have thought, "A lawyer, he's trustworthy.

It's his duty.

It's his job to uphold the law." So yeah, why, of course, wouldn't we trust him? But then we notice that he does acknowledge some clues.

So, you know, he sees the check.

He acknowledges the check, and that makes him look at the will.

He looks at the handwriting in the letter.

So it's not that he ignores all the clues, but he does ignore a really major clue, which actually we find out has the truth inside, which is Lanyon's sealed letter.

It has the solution to the case inside.

And that feels like really deliberate choice, okay? He even says he wants to open it, but he chooses not to.

Now, and I think the fact that we don't see it, well done for everyone who said we're not inside his head means we don't know for sure why he doesn't open this.

You know, he argues that he owes it to Lanyon.

You know, he wants to be responsible and respectable to his friend Lanyon, so he's not gonna open it.

But we have to take his word for that.

We don't know if there's any deeper meaning.

Maybe he's concerned the truth will harm Jekyll, and therefore he chooses to protect Jekyll as well as Lanyon, okay? So really interesting that we don't know for sure why Utterson makes some of the decisions that he does.

And I think this leads us, maybe this is just personally, but I feel I trust him a little bit less by the end of novella, okay? I don't think all of his decision making has been fantastic.

And some people might argue that he's doing this 'cause he wants to preserve reputation.

His reputation, the reputation of his friends.

So I think it can definitely be argued that Utterson is less trustworthy by the end of the novella.

Not that he's a terrible person.

But I think you can see why people could argue that maybe Utterson isn't the trustworthy narrator that we once thought he was.

So let's check our understanding of that discussion that we've just had.

True or false? Mr. Utterson is a completely trustworthy narrator.

Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Well done if you said false.

Let's justify our answers.

Is it a, by the end of the novella, all readers will realise he's an upper class hypocrite? Or is it b, by using a third-person limited perspective, the reader is unable to know for sure why Utterson ignores key clues? Pause the video, think which of these most justifies that statement, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, well done if you said b.

I think this is a really interesting one.

The reason why this is false is that word completely.

I don't think anyone can argue Mr. Utterson is completely trustworthy.

The level to which we trust Utterson is up for debate.

It's a to what extent.

It's an evaluate, it's a justify.

And I think one of the things that we can argue is the fact that we don't know him that well, okay? Because of the perspective that Stevenson decides to write from, the third-person limited perspective.

Well done if you said that.

Okay.

So I want you to think about using the questions below.

I want you to discuss why do you think Stevenson changed the narrative perspective in the final chapters.

Okay, so we know for the first eight chapters we follow Mr. Utterson, but then we open these letters, one from Lanyon, one from Jekyll, and we read these as the final two chapters.

Why has Stevenson done that? So here's some questions to consider.

Why do you think it's important we hear from Dr.

Jekyll's perspective? Does hearing from different narrative voices change our view on Utterson? What is the final impact of, what is the impact, sorry, of hearing from multiple different narrative voices? The final two chapters are non-linear.

That means that they are not happening chronologically.

We know Lanyon's letter was written at some point before chapter six, and we know that Jekyll's letter was written some point before chapter eight.

So these are kind of out of chronological order.

What's the impact of that? And actually, why include Lanyon's narrative at all? Okay, so lots of things to think about as you have this discussion.

So pause the video, work your way through, think about these challenging questions, and then press play when you are ready to move on.

Okay, welcome back.

Some great ideas there.

Let's think of some of the things that you may have said.

I want to shine a light.

Some of the Oak pupils have said some things, and I think they correlate with some fantastic ideas that you might have had.

So Sam says, "Jekyll's statement, written from the first-person perspective, allows the reader to assess his culpability.

We start to understand his motivation." By seeing things through his perspective, weirdly, we get to know him more than maybe we ever really got to know Utterson.

And I think it also might change our perspective of Utterson because we know he had access to this confession, yet he chose to lock it away.

He obviously had access to Lanyon's confession.

And it might make him feel a little less trustworthy.

Furthermore, the fact that there are these different narrative voices, in addition to the non-linear narrative, so the story happens not in chronological order, it really does create this sense of mystery.

We've got different voices, things happening in a different order.

The truth really feels like it's been hidden away from the readers.

We don't know who to trust.

And I think this goes back to, like, it feels like a really pointed critique of those who present themselves as being really trustworthy, tell us we should trust them, but they're not.

You know, as readers, we're not sure who we can trust.

And Jacob's makes this interesting point about including Lanyon's narrative.

He says, "Including Landon's narrative complicates this idea that it's simply a story of good versus evil.

Lanyon is a good man, he's seen as a good scientist, yet he himself is driven by curiosity.

He is also flawed, he is also hypocritical." So we can't just say he's the good scientist and Jekyll is the bad scientist.

That is too straightforward.

And I really want to just draw your attention to it.

Have you noticed how both Sam and Jacob tied their comments about structure back to Stevenson's purpose, back to his intention? Okay? That he's using his structure to be critical of people who present themselves as trustworthy, and they're not.

Or including Lanyon's narrative is to show that life isn't as simple as just good versus bad, okay? Really, really nicely done by Sam and Jacob there.

Well done.

It's something I want really want to challenge you to try and do whenever you talk about structure.

Okay, let's do a final check for understanding then, please.

Which of the following Oak pupils ties their comment on structure back to Stevenson's purpose? So yes, they make a really interesting comment about structure, but they're also thinking about, okay, how does that link to Stevenson's intentions? So Sam says, "Stevenson uses a non-linear structure, which means the truth is only revealed to the reader at the end of the novella.

Up until this point, the reader has followed the story from Utterson's perspective." Jacob says, "By using a non-linear narrative structure, the earlier hypocrisy of other characters is finely revealed.

In doing this, perhaps Stevenson is urging his readers to see beyond the facade of upper class respectability." Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you are ready for the answer.

Yes, well done if you said b.

Jacob's response is fantastic.

He is making a connection by the fact that this non-linear narrative, this fact that we only find out the truth right at the end, suddenly opens our eyes to actually how hypocritical some of the characters have been throughout the rest of the novella, and maybe that Stevenson's challenging us to always keep our eyes open and, you know, just check people are not being hypocritical in society today.

A really nice point made there by Jacob.

So over to our final task of today's lesson.

We are gonna be answering this big question: How does Stevenson use the narrative structure to present his ideas on duality in society? So we're really focusing on structure, but we want to link it back to Stevenson's ideas about duality.

So there are three.

The first part of today's task is that we're gonna complete these three topic sentences.

I've started them.

You are gonna finish them.

So you are gonna add Stevenson's purpose on the end.

So I've given you some kind of comment about structure.

You are gonna add a fragment of sentence about Stevenson's purpose.

So let's have a look at them.

They are a, Stevenson uses the concealed documents to present the case as mysterious so.

b, through the different narrative perspectives, Stevenson creates an unreliable narrative so.

c, by having a non-linear narrative, Stevenson presents the case as mysterious, to.

Okay.

Pause the video, finish all three of these sentences, and then press play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's have a look at things you could have said.

Of course, these are not the only answers.

So you might have said, "Stevenson uses the concealed documents to present the case as mysterious so that the readers are unsure of the full, unbiased truth." You might have said, b, "Through the different narrative perspectives, Stevenson creates an unreliable narrative so the reader is uncertain about the plausibility and reliability of events." c, by having a non-linear narrative, Stevenson presents the case as mysterious to make readers question the restrictive nature still present in society.

You might have had other things, but well done if you have something similar.

Now you are gonna pick your favourite of those three topic sentences, and you are gonna create a paragraph outline.

Okay? So you're gonna fill in the topic sentence, you're gonna find some supporting details, and you're gonna write a concluding sentence.

Now, remember, as you fill in this plan, I want you to make sure that you discuss either the conventions of an epistolary fiction or narrative voices in your supporting details.

So yes, your supporting details should include a quotation from the text, yes, it should include context, but now I want you to make sure you've got at least one statement about structure.

So you can either talk about the epistolary fiction, the importance of letters and documents, or you can talk about different narrative voices.

It's up to you.

You may even want to talk about both.

All right, pause the video.

Let's plan a fantastic paragraph.

Press play when you are done.

All right, great job there, I'm really impressed.

Everyone trying to get as much knowledge about structure that we've discussed today into that plan.

That's fantastic to see.

Okay, it's time for us to just reflect, review our plan.

We're gonna ask ourselves some coaching questions to self-assess the strength of our paragraph outline.

Obviously, if there's anything you haven't done, now is the time to improve your own outline even further.

So ask yourself, does your topic sentence link back to Stevenson's purpose? Have you included relevant ideas from the novella in your supporting detail? Have you demonstrated whether you will discuss either conventions of epistolary fiction or different narrative voices in your supporting detail? And have you demonstrated how you will link form and structure back to Stevenson's purpose? And you might have done that in your concluding sentence.

Okay, pause the video, reread your plan, and make any edits that you need to.

Press play when you are done.

Okay, fantastic work today, everybody.

It's been great doing this learning with you.

A summary of everything that we've gone through is on the screen now.

Pause it if you need to read through it.

Take a bit of time.

If there's anything you are unsure about, there have been some tricky ideas today, then don't worry, you can always re-watch that section of the video.

Just make sure that you feel really confident with everything we've learned today before you move on.

Okay.

Thank you so much for joining me.

I've been really, really, really impressed with your learning today.

I hope to see you in a future lesson.

Enjoy the rest of your day, whatever you are doing, and I hope to see you all soon.

Bye-bye.