Hello there.

Welcome to our lesson today, great to see you.

I'm so glad you joined me for today's lesson.

We are taking a deeper look into the novella, the strange case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

And today we are gonna focus on the character of Dr.

Lanyon, thinking about how he is a foil to Dr.

Jekyll.

Okay, let's get started.

So our outcome today, by the end of today's lesson, you are gonna be able to explain how Dr.

Lanyon acts as a foil to Henry Jekyll.

So we've got four key words today.

They are foil, protagonist, reckless, and unfettered.

Let's have a look in a bit more detail at what each of these mean.

Now you can see from our title and our outcome that foil is gonna be a really, really important word today and it means a character that is contrasting with a main character highlighting their differences.

And we will look at this word in more detail, we'll explore in a little bit more detail later.

Protagonist is another important word as it allows us to talk about our main character in the story, often the hero.

And then these two words, the final two words are just gonna be really useful when we talk about the relationship between Dr.

Jekyll and Dr.

Lanyon.

So reckless means to act without thinking, taking risks without consequences and unfettered means to be free and unrestrained, to not be held back or restricted in any way.

Okay, if you need to pause the video and if you want to jot these keywords down, otherwise, let's get started.

So there are two learning cycles in today's lesson.

Firstly, we are gonna be trying to answer that question, how is Lanyon a foil? It's a key word there.

And then we're also going to be in our second learning cycle thinking about Stevenson's message about science.

So let's get started by thinking about Dr.

Lanyon in a little bit more detail.

So to start, let's have a discussion, why do you think Dr.

Lanyon is so important to the plot of the novella? If you've got a partner, and now's the time to discuss with them but if you're working by yourself, don't worry, you can just pause the video and think through these questions.

Okay, so pause the video, giving yourself a bit of time to think or discuss and press play when you are ready to continue.

Some fantastic discussions there and really well done to those of you who were using evidence from the text to support your ideas.

Let's have a look at what some of the Oak characters said, shall we? So Jun said, "Well, he's almost the opposite of Dr.

Jekyll.

He represents the responsible side of science." And Andeep said "Yes, his behaviour really accentuates, really highlights Jekyll's reckless experimentation." Remember reckless being a key word there.

So it shows that Dr.

Jekyll doesn't really think he has all this dangerous or he undertakes dangerous experimentation.

And Lanyon really represents the opposite, that he's a very sensible responsible scientists.

Well done if you said anything similar to our Oak pupils but of course you may have said something else as well.

So what we have seen here is Jun and Andeep have started to identify that Lanyon is a foil, remember that keyword? Meaning contrast, showing the opposites.

He's the foil to our protagonist who is Dr.

Jekyll? Let's explore in a little bit more detail what a foil means then, shall we? So a foil is a character who contrasts with another, usually the protagonist, and they do that in order to highlight the qualities or sometimes the flaws in them.

So can you think of any other characters in maybe any other text that you've read who act as a foil? What qualities or flaws did they highlight in another character? So pause the video, have a think, you can discuss with a partner if you have one or otherwise you can think to yourself.

Can you think of any other texts where you've got two characters, one who acts as a flaw to another.

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

Welcome back.

I can hear some fantastic texts being discussed.

Well done if you at like Andy made a comparison to Macbeth, that might be a text that you have studied.

And he said that, "Banquo's loyalty to King Duncan really accentuates, really highlights Macbeth's, ruthless disloyalty." Therefore, Banquo is a foil to Macbeth because he's highlighting these flaws.

And that flaw is Macbeth's lack of loyalty.

Okay, let's check how we're getting on then, shall we? True or false.

In literature, a foil is a contrasting character who is used to highlight positive qualities in a protagonist.

Is that true or is that false? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

That is false.

You might have.

That might have been a tricky one there.

So let's see if we can justify it why that statement is false.

Is it A, that a foil highlights the positive qualities in any other character, not just the protagonist? Or is it B, a foil could highlight negative qualities or flaws as we might call them in other characters.

Pause the video and press play when you are ready to continue.

Well done if you said B.

Of course, A, foil is not just going to present positive qualities in a protagonist or other characters, although they may do, but they can be used to also highlight negative qualities or flaws in other characters.

So well done if you said B.

Okay, now onto our first task in today's lesson.

You are going to complete the following table.

In this table, I'm gonna give you three quotations and I want you to explain how each of these quotations depict Lanyon as a foil to Jekyll.

Let's have a look at each of the quotations, shall we? So the first one, this comes from chapter two.

It's our first time we meet Lanyon and he's telling Utterson about Jekyll and how he's fallen out with Jekyll or he's certainly become less close than they previously were.

And he says to Lanyon that Jekyll has become too fanciful and his science has or his experimentation, he describes as being unscientific bolder dash.

Bolder dash means rubbish.

So he says it's unscientific there.

So I really want you to think about how does that quote illustrate that Lanyon is a foil to Jekyll? How does it show that Jekyll or what contrast does it show between Lanyon and Jekyll? The second quotation is from chapter three and this is actually Jekyll describing Lanyon and he describes Lanyon to Utterson as a hidebound pendant.

Pendant being someone who follows the rules meticulously.

So I really want you to think about what does that tell us about Lanyon and how does that show a contrast between Lanyon and Jekyll? And our final quotation then is when Lanyon first meets Hyde.

So we know that this actually happens in chapter six or around chapter six or some time before chapter six 'cause that is when Lanyon dies.

But we know we don't hear about this or we don't hear Lanyon side until chapter nine in Lanyon's narrative.

And we know that when Lanyon first meets Hyde, he describes an icy pang among his blood when Hyde's touch.

Okay, so really thinking about how Lanyon's reaction to Hyde shows that he's a foil to Jekyll here.

What's the contrast there? Okay, so pause the video for each of these quotations think about how they show Lanyon is a foil to Jekyll.

How are they showing a contrast? What negative qualities or flaws might they be highlighting in Dr.

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

Well done, welcome back and really well done to those of you who were flicking back and forth through your copy of the novella seeing if there was any other context around these quotations in these chapters that might help you.

So let's have a look at some of the things that you may have said.

So for the first quotation you may have said, well, it shows that Lanyon doesn't have any respect.

He really disapproves of Jekyll's reckless experimentations.

So it really positions these two as very, very different scientists.

Jekyll, sorry, Lanyon being a responsible sensible one and Jekyll being a reckless in his experimentation.

The second quotation where Jekyll describes Lanyon as a hidebound pendant.

Well, this shows that Jekyll believes Lanyon is actually quite restricted in his views.

It means he's unwilling to entertain unconventional ideas.

It almost suggests that Jekyll thinks Lanyon lacks bravery.

So remember that a foil can highlight both negative and positive qualities.

So some people might argue that, Lanyon.

Kind of Lanyon's inability to take risks actually presents Jekyll as quite a brave scientist.

They might be thinking that before we know exactly what Jekyll's reckless.

The consequences of Jekyll's reckless experimentations were but it could highlight that Jekyll's are kind of a more unconventional and he's less restricted in his experimentation.

And finally, this quotation from Lanyon's narrative where he describes meeting Hyde as kind of or he has an icy pang among his blood, along his blood when he sees and Hyde touches him.

But we could say that Lanyon's initial reaction to Hyde is one of complete horror.

He's disgusted by what he sees.

And this really highlights the difference when Jekyll first describes transforming into Hyde and he says he's younger, lighter, happier.

So we see a real contrast in their reactions to Hyde.

And this could really highlight some negative qualities in Jekyll that he seems to.

He doesn't seem to understand the severity of creating such a terrible, horrific character.

Okay, well done if you said anything similar to what you can see on the screen, of course you may have said some other things as well.

Alright, let's move on to our second learning cycle today and we're gonna be thinking about Stevenson's message about science.

So let's start with the discussion then.

What were the commonly held views about science when the novella was written? So what do you know about the time that novella was written, the victorian era, the the enlightenment era? What do you know and what might have been some commonly held views about science? Pause the video, if you've got a partner, you can discuss them.

Otherwise you can just think through this question to yourself.

Press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back, I heard some fantastic ideas.

I really wanna shine a spotlight some of the great things some of you were saying.

So let's look at some contemporary views on science then.

Well, some of you were saying, well, it was argued or some people argued that Darwinism was in contrast to the Bible.

With Darwinism looking at the evolution of man and the Bible saying that God created man, it could be argued that these two things were in contrast.

So for a religious society or for a society where many people were Christian, this might have been quite worrying, it might been unnerving to people because it might have feel like disproving things that they've always believed.

However, we don't want to have, well done if you said something like this, that actually that wasn't a thought that all people had.

It is not, we don't wanna have a sweeping statement that all people were religious, therefore all people thought Darwinism was in contrast to the Bible.

Therefore all people were really unnerved and worried by Darwinism.

'Cause for some people they might have argued, well actually evolution was further proof of a God.

Because for some people evolution was such a fantastic and intricate process that surely that could be something that had only been created by an all powerful God.

So I think it's really important here that we don't try and make sweeping statements and say that everyone felt this or everyone felt that.

But evolution and Darwinism certainly raised some interesting questions when it came to religion and some commonly held beliefs at the time.

Therefore, particularly for people who were really spooked by the idea of Darwinism, this could have led to a fear of unfettered experimentation, unrestricted experimentation.

What else could be found and what else might this disprove about the way that people had always thought and the things that they'd always believed.

And then for some there might have been a very real fear that actually religion might have held scientific development back.

Okay, that people might have thought, well, actually we believe in the Bible and we don't want people to disprove the Bible.

And so a society that were their moral and social codes were based in religion might find or might hold scientific development back.

So I think one thing that was really clear and well to all those you picked this out, there wasn't just one contemporary view on science.

There would've been many different contemporary views and it's really interesting to think about how Stevenson uses those in his novella.

So let's have a think then at Lanyon more specifically, how might he represent some of these different contemporary views of science and how might his relationship with Jekyll represent those as well? So pause the video, have a discussion if you have a partner or think through this to yourself if you are working independently and press play when you are ready to continue.

Loads of really, really great ideas there.

Well done for taking part in this discussion so enthusiastically.

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

Well, some of you might have said something along the lines of, well, actually Lanyon represents the really rational and respectable side of science.

He doesn't want to take things too far, he doesn't want to upset the status quo.

And when we think about that debate between religion and science and some of those people who were worried that science would upset the status quo that often was set by religion, then that Lanyon might represent that more rational and respectable side.

Some of you, I heard you talk about Lanyon's death and that could really highlight the dangers of reckless experimentation, okay.

Obviously, and this is in the specific example is Jekyll's reckless experimentations.

But when we think about more wider views in society, there would've been really.

There would've been fears about reckless and unfettered experimentation and Jekyll's.

Sorry, Lanyon's death really plays on those fears.

And actually you could even argue that the conflict between Lanyon and Jekyll and the fact that Lanyon is a foil to Jekyll could really reflect those contemporary worries.

How much science was acceptable, how much experimentation was acceptable.

So their conflict could really represent some real conflicts that were happening at the time.

And I think those conflicting views are represented by the different narrative perspectives.

Really interesting that we only hear at the end of the only two characters that we hear from their specific point of view are Jekyll and Lanyon.

Okay, Lanyon in chapter 9, Jekyll in chapter 10.

And those conflicting narrative perspectives or those different narrative perspectives can represent those conflicting views in science at the time.

(indistinct) said anything on the screen and of course fantastic if you said other things as long as they were really justified with evidence from the text.

Again, let's check how we're getting on then.

How could Dr.

Lanyon be said to represent contemporary views about scientific development? Is it A, Lanyon represents the respectable and rational face of scientific development? Is it B, Lanyon acts as a foil to Jekyll and his death highlights the dangers of unfettered scientific development? Or is it C, Lanyon's untimely death illustrates how dangerous science is? Pause the video, have a think.

I might give you a hint here there might be more than one correct answer.

Press play when you are ready to continue.

Well done if you said both A and B.

I think both of these are really interesting inferences that we can make about Dr.

Lanyon and particularly how he represents contemporary views and scientific development.

Okay, the Oak pupils and I have been discussing how Stevenson may have used Lanyon as a vehicle as a tool to explore his own views on science.

I want to think about which of the two peoples do you most agree with and why.

So Jun said, "Well, Stevenson uses Lanyon as a foil to Jekyll to illustrate his own fears about unfettered scientific development." So Jun's arguing that Stevenson might have his own worries about scientific development and how it might go too far.

Andeep says, "Through the ongoing conflict between Lanyon and Jekyll, Stevenson plays on contemporary fears surrounding science to create a harrowing story." So Andeep saying this is less about Stevenson's own fears about science and more about using the public's fears about science and really playing on those so he can create a really effective gothic text.

Paul's video, who do you most agree with? Do you think this is more about Stevenson's own fears or do you think this is more about Stevenson using the public's fears? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So really great discussion.

It was great to hear not everyone agreeing with each other.

I think what's important to say if you agreed with Jun is I don't think there's any evidence both in the text and historically to suggest that Stevenson was anti-science, okay? I don't think we could argue that he was against all scientific development.

However, I think Jun makes a good point that you could use this to argue that Stevenson is warning people not to take science too far.

Although I could totally see how you might agree with Andeep and say, actually this isn't about Stevenson's own personal views on science, this is more about him using the fears that were there in society to create a really effective gothic text.

Okay, whichever of the two students you agreed with, we are now in our final practise task of the lesson going to develop their idea and turn it into a short paragraph.

So in the first column you can see Jun's top idea, in the second column you can see Andeep's you can use these as a topic sentence.

And then using the checklist on the right hand side, in the right hand column, you are going to expand this topic sentence and turn it into a paragraph.

So make sure you're using quotations from the text to support your argument or the pupil's argument.

Use connectives to justify your response.

Think about those keywords that you could use.

So foil, protagonist, reckless, unfettered, and make sure you are making link to context, okay? Think about what you know about scientific beliefs at the time and either think about how that might influence if you are going on Jun's argument, how that might.

How you could use that to say that Stevenson feels a certain way or if you're going down Andeep's path, just thinking about what those contemporary fears were and how Stevenson can use those to create this harrowing gothic text.

Okay, pause the video.

Over to you and press play when you are ready to continue.

Alright, welcome back.

It is time for us to do a little bit of reflection on what we have written today.

So we are going to select something we have done well, a WWW what went well and something we want to focus on next time, an EBI, an even better if.

So I've given you four pieces of success criteria on the screen.

I want you to pick one of them that you think you've done well and one of them that you would need to work on next time.

And a quick hint from our Oak pupils here, they say, when they select what went well, they would start at the bottom of the list because the criteria goes in.

Starts from the probably the most straightforward to the most challenging.

So they start at the bottom of the list and they think about, okay, which of these have I done the most challenging thing have I done best.

When they're selecting their EBI, they start from the top of the list and they look for the most straightforward, the most fundamental skill that they are looking to improve.

So pause the video, reread your paragraph, and give yourself a what went well and an EBI.

Okay, fantastic work today everybody.

It's been great to see you grappling with this idea as Lanyon as a foil to Jekyll.

On the summary.

On the screen now you can see a summary of everything that we have learnt.

So we have talked about in literature how a foil is a contrasting character who highlights other qualities or flaws.

This is a piece of knowledge that we can apply to all texts, not just the strange case of Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

We therefore though, in this text in our novella, we can argue that Lanyon acts as a foil to Jekyll.

We can say that Lanyon represents the rational and reputable face of science and this highlights Jekyll's recklessness.

We could say that some argue that Lanyon represents Stevenson's own criticism of unfettered scientific experimentation, but we could also say that Lanyon and Jekyll and their conflict may represent a contemporary concerns about science.

If there's anything on the screen there that you are unsure about, please do go back and watch that section of the lesson again, make sure you're feeling really confident before you move on to the next lesson.

Thank you so much for joining me.

Have a fantastic day at whatever you choose to do with the rest of your day and I hope to see you in one of our lessons soon.

Goodbye.