Hello there.

Welcome to today's lesson.

Fantastic to see you.

My name is Mr. Barnsley and today we are gonna be continuing our explanation of the novella, "The Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Today, we are gonna be looking at duality in Stevenson's Novella.

So you're gonna want to make sure you've got a copy of the text in front of you.

And then it's time for us to get started.

Let's go.

So let's have a look at today's outcome then, shall we? By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain how Stevenson uses language and in particular structure to explore the dual nature of man.

One of our key themes in the novella there, duality.

So there are five key words I want you to keep an eye out for in today's lesson.

They are to harbour, to embrace, to relish, gatekeeper, and to flout.

So to harbour is a verb which means to shelter or protect someone or something.

To embrace means to accept or welcome something eagerly and openly.

To relish means to enjoy greatly, savouring every moment.

A gatekeeper is someone who controls access or entry to something and to flout means to openly disregard or disobey a rule or a law.

Now already you should be able to see links to the characters of Jekyll and Hyde.

You can think about secrets that might have been harboured.

You can think about the way that Jekyll embraced or relished, flouting the laws or the rules of society as he embraced his alter ego, Hyde.

So let's keep an eye out for those words and even better, let's try and use them in our own writing and discussions.

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

Firstly, we're gonna be thinking about what Stevenson is saying about duality.

What is his message about the dual nature that we might believe lives in all of us? And then we're gonna move on to specifically looking about structure.

Although we are gonna be looking at quotations, so the language and quotations across the whole lesson.

But in that second learning cycle, we're gonna specifically think about structure and in particular, how Stevenson uses multiple narrators.

So let's get started by thinking about Stevenson's message then, shall we? So let's start.

Quick thoughts over to you.

Do you think Stevenson is more or less critical of Jekyll than he is of society, that we could argue, represses people's true identities? So do you think he's being more critical of Jekyll or do you think he's more being more critical of society or do you fall somewhere in the middle of that? So I want you to position yourself on this line thinking about whereabouts do you stand? What do you believe or who do you believe Stevenson is being most critical of? So why don't you pause the video, think this through, think about where would you stand on this line.

If this was a physical line, where would you place yourself and what are your justifications for placing yourself there? Alright, pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I could see some really great thinking going on there.

Well done for all of you who were really thinking about specific moments in the text to help you justify your response.

Alright, let's have a look at what some of the Oak pupils said then.

And then we can compare whether which one of our Oak pupils we agree with.

So Laura said that she believes Stevenson is more critical of Jekyll than he is of society as a whole.

This is because he presents Jekyll as a really selfish individual who knows very well that Hyde is out of control, yet he continues transforming into the monster.

So actually Laura's arguing that she thinks, we, as a reader, should be highly critical of Jekyll, which then must mean that Stevenson himself is being more critical of Jekyll as a selfish individual.

Izzy's not so sure, she's kind of a little bit in the middle here 'cause she says yes, she can see that Jekyll is a victim of the society he lives in.

But actually like Laura, she's saying he chooses to live as Hyde.

But we can see that Izzy starting to think about society and the fault that society might have and the impact that society might have had on Jekyll.

And as a result of that, then she is clearly a little bit more in the middle layer trying to work out exactly that she feels that no one person or society is more to blame for the outcome of the novella.

Whereas John is definitely falling on the side that Stevens is more critical of society as a whole.

And this is because, Jekyll is far from the only hypocrites in this novella.

And actually there are many characters who harbour secrets and remember harbour is the key word, so hiding secrets.

So I think really interesting here that John is, he's not saying that Jekyll is blameless, he certainly isn't saying that.

But he's saying, look, if we are to say that all the characters are, the most of the characters in this novella are harbouring secrets, then actually this is a criticism of society on as a whole much more than it is on one individual Henry Jekyll.

I wonder where you placed yourself on the line and which of the Oak pupils you most agree with.

So in today's lesson, we are gonna explore some statements and some arguments that are gonna really help us develop our thinking about the theme of duality and how it shows up in the novella, "The Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." We really want to be thinking about what Stevenson is trying to say to us, what messages we might take away about the dual nature that potentially lives inside all of us.

So let's have a look at our first statement then, shall we? The first statement is, Jekyll embraces, he welcomes with open arms, he embraces his own duality, no matter the cost, no matter the impact on others.

Why don't you have a think about that then? How might we argue and justify that this statement is true? What examples from the text might we use? Now this isn't to say that you have to agree with this statement, of course you might not.

You might disagree with this statement.

However, we can, anyone can, find evidence that suggests that this might be true.

So that's what I want you to do now, pause the video, have a think.

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

Otherwise you can just work through this independently.

How might you argue that, and justify this statement using examples from the text, pause the video, give this a go and press play when you are ready to share some responses.

Really well done, some great work there and extra special well done to anyone who was opening their text to try and find direct quotations that might be useful.

Should we have a look at what some of our Oak pupils have said and you can compare your response to them.

So Lucas said, even though Jekyll compares his dual nature to a dreadful shipwreck, which sounds like a terrible thing, the reader also learns that, living as Hyde braces and delights him, like wine.

So we have these two quite contrasting images, one that actually presents Jekyll as a very sympathetic figure, but we can't ignore that, he says that living like Jekyll braces and delights him, like wine.

This simile seeming suggests that he's drunk on the power and the freedom that Hyde gives him.

And certainly that he seems to be enjoying it.

Izzy adds, "Furthermore, although Jekyll tries to reject Hyde, at times, locking himself away like a 'disconsolate prisoner' ultimately Jekyll gives into the 'throes and longings.

' Jekyll acknowledges that his inner devil has been 'long caged', seeming almost gleeful that it came out roaring." What a great discussion our Oak pupils have said and maybe you picked some of the same evidence, some similar evidence to them.

Let's have a look at why this is such a great discussion, shall we? Well, first of all, I really like how both of them have used examples to justify their arguments.

Just like I saw some of you flicking through your text and finding quotations, they've really used this evidence, textual evidence to support their arguments.

And you might notice that some of these quotations are quotations that we are quite used to using by now.

They're really useful quotations that can be used in many different contexts.

You might also notice that they're not all arguing the same thing.

Some of these like dreadful shipwreck and disconsolate prisoner can be used to argue that actually Jekyll had some reservations.

But fundamentally there is enough evidence here from both pupils to suggest that Jekyll really embraced Hyde and enjoyed living as Hyde.

I also really liked how Izzy used that conjunction, that connective, furthermore.

She has basically built on Lucas's argument developing it further and to do that, and whether you are challenging or building on an argument, she's used more evidence that can help support that, to support this argument.

Now obviously if she disagreed with Lucas, she could have used some quotations that kind of contrasted with what Lucas was saying.

But actually what Izzy was doing here was really building on Lucas's idea.

So really great job from both our Oak pupils here.

So let's check how we're getting on then, shall we? True or false, the quote the "disconsolate prisoner" shows how Jekyll relished embracing his dual identity.

So he really enjoyed opening his arms to his dual identity.

Do you think that's true or false? Why don't you pause the video, have a think, and then press play when you are ready to find out the correct answer.

Yes, well done, if you said that was false.

Should we justify that then? Which of these feels like the correct justification? Is it, a, arguably this quotation is useful in illustrating how Jekyll became a prisoner to his dual identity? Or is it, b, that this quotation is useful to show how Jekyll was tired of locking himself away or locking his dual identity away from the world he wants to embrace it? What do you think? Why don't you pause the video, give this a go and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, really well done, if you said, a.

At this point, this is chapter seven, the incident at the window.

We've got no inclination that Jekyll feels frustrated by him having to hide his dual identity away.

It really feels like he's trying to lock himself away from society, maybe to protect society from the danger of Hyde.

So at this point, I think it makes much more logical sense to say this quotation is really useful in presenting Jekyll as a prisoner to his dual identity.

That isn't to say that there aren't loads of quotations that are really useful for showing how he embraces this identity, but it's, I don't think this is one of them.

Alright, let's look at our second statement then.

Stevenson is highly critical of the hypocritical upper classes who acted as gatekeepers to the societal moral code whilst flouting the rules themself.

So this statement is saying that some of the upper classes kind of, they were the ones who decided whether they felt people were behaving morally or not, maybe they were the lawmakers or the religious figures in society.

So they almost like held the rules of the moral code and they got to decide who they felt met it.

And here this statement is arguing that actually Stevenson is very critical of these who might have been very judgmental whilst at the same time, they might have been living secret lives themselves where they were flouting and breaking the rules that they position themselves to upkeep.

So I want you to think about how we might prove this statement.

And of course we might mention ideas from the text, but this time I want you to use contextual information as well.

Anything you know about real life, historical or social examples, maybe you know something a little bit about Stevenson's upbringing or maybe you know something about what life was like in Victorian Britain.

But I'd like you to use these examples to really help us justify this statement that Stevenson is being critical of the hypocritical upper classes.

Alright, pause the video, have a think.

If you've got a partner you can discuss with them.

Otherwise you can work through this yourself.

Pause the video, give this a go and press play when you're ready to share some responses.

Really nice ideas there.

Let's compare our ideas to that of our eight pupils and see if we've got anything in common.

So Sam said that, arguably, Enfield and Carew's questionable behaviour, and particularly they're wandering the streets in the dead of night, could be indicative of the hypocrisy of some upper class men of the time who often use their respectable facades to hide their illicit behaviour.

Okay, let's unpack this for a minute.

Some great ideas here from Sam.

So first of all, they've highlighted that this behaviour of wandering around London in the middle of the night is actually quite questionable and not behaviour you'd expect of respectable men.

Both Enfield and Carew are guilty of this and we know both of them have respectable careers.

So Sam is saying that actually maybe this is an indication that there are some men, notice they said some, not all, we don't want to make sweeping statements that all upper class men behaved in this way, but some upper class men often use their respectable facades.

Facade means kind of the outer, the outer face that we see.

And they used the fact that they were respected by society that people trusted them to actually get away with, to hide, to harbour some of their illicit and immoral behaviours.

A really interesting point there, Alex agreed with Sam and said, "Stevenson perhaps influenced by his own rejection of Calvinism seems to be highly critical of the 'black and white' nature of morality and those who see themselves as gatekeepers to it.

Specifically, Lanyon, who describes Jekyll's experimentations as 'unscientific balderdash', later hypocritically chooses to observe Hyde's transformation." Again, this is really, really interesting here because Alex talks about this idea that in some sections of religion, they might have seen morality as a really black and white issue.

Either you were good or you were bad, it was binary.

You are either one or the other.

And actually when people act as gatekeepers to that, they get to decide who they think were good people or who they think were bad people.

And I really like how we use as an example here that specifically like, Lanyon is an example of this, because we see him very early on calling Jekyll's experiments unscientific balderdash.

Yet when he gets the opportunity to see this scientific experiment in action, rather than turn away, he embraces it as well.

So let's have a think about why this is such a great discussion and you can compare this to your own.

Well first of all, it's really well argued and they've developed their ideas really thoroughly.

They both used context, Sam, showing an understanding of how some upper class men might have behaved in Victorian Britain and let's be honest, how some people might still behave today.

And Alex, using a very specific piece of context relating to Stevenson's own upbringing.

In fact, Alex's example is really interesting.

So I'd like to explore in a little bit more detail.

So let's look at this idea of religion and the good, the binary of good and bad.

Well we can say that some puritanical religious faiths, like Calvinism, really rejected the idea of duality, okay? And it again, we don't want to say that all religions rejected the idea of duality.

We don't want to say that all religions just believed in the binary, that people were either good or bad.

That is far too much.

That's a sweeping statement, it's not true.

But we do know that some puritanical faiths, some strict religious faith, like Calvinism, did reject the idea of duality.

We know this because they believed if you were not good then you had no chance of reaching heaven and very specifically in Calvinism, you would actually find out your fate whilst still alive.

This meant that religious figures were judging your behaviour, deciding whether you were good enough to go to heaven.

So if we see that Stevenson rejected Calvinism, and we can also pair this up with some of his more dubious behaviour or alleged behaviour at university, we can see that actually Stevenson himself was not really against the idea of duality.

In fact he seemed to embrace it himself.

What he seems to be more critical of, was not the fact that people had this dual nature inside of them.

He's been more critical of people who acted on this in really hypocritical ways.

And I think that's really, really interesting because that if we hold that, as one of Stevenson's intentions, one of his messages, it really influences on how we read his text and how we interpret his individual characters.

Alright, let's check.

We've understood that 'cause there's some really complex ideas there.

I want you to complete this sentence for me.

Arguably, Stevenson's rejection of blank is due to the fact that it did not embrace the complexities of duality.

So is that, a, the upper class code of morality, is it, b, hypocrisy or is it, c, Calvinism? What word do you think fits in there? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to find out the answer.

Really well done if you said Calvinism.

Alright, over to you for our first task today.

Andeep said the following, he said, "Stevenson actively embraces duality, seeing it as an important part of human nature.

He reserves his criticism for those who act on their dual nature in morally dubious ways." Let's have a think.

I want you to think how far do you agree with Andeep's statement? And you are gonna have a discussion about Andeep's statement here.

So I want you to use examples from the text and real life.

So context to justify your answers.

Here are some sentence starters to really help you formulate your discussion.

So you're gonna pause the video if you've got a partner, this is really straightforward, you can discuss with them.

But don't worry if you're working by yourself at home, you may wish to find someone else in your household to discuss this with and demonstrate how much you've learned so far.

Or you can just work through this.

And you might even want to make a couple of notes and write down what you would say if you were having a discussion.

Either way, it's now over to you to think about to what extent do you agree with Andeep's statement.

Pause the video.

Best of luck with this and press play when you are ready to move on.

Okay, welcome back.

I heard some fantastic discussions and saw some brilliant independent thought as well.

Before we move on, I want just take a quick moment to reflect on those discussions we were having and to see, to check, just check you were really high quality.

So on the screen you can see four coaching questions.

What I would like you to do is ask them to yourself, ask yourself a question.

Think did I do it? And reflect on things you did well and things you want to do even better next time, okay? Pause the video, read through all four questions, ask them to yourself and then press play when you have done all the reflecting.

Alright, over to you.

Alright, really well done there.

So let's move on now to start thinking about how Stevenson uses structure in particular to explore his own messages about duality.

So let's start then with a quick discussion.

How many different narrative perspectives do we hear from in the novella? Why don't you pause the video, if you've got a partner, you can discuss this with them.

Otherwise you can just think through this independently.

Alright, pause the video, over to you and press play when you're ready to find out the answer.

Really well done.

I heard lots of you saying very similar to Lucas that there are three different perspectives for the majority of the novella we hear.

We follow Utterson's perspective, but then we know those final two chapters are written from Lanyon's perspective and Jekyll's.

But Izzy and I, well done.

I heard some of you saying something similar.

It's really important that we note that actually we don't hear directly from Utterson in those first eight chapters.

Instead, Stevenson employs users, a third person, limited narrative voice, which means we follow Utterson around, we watch his experiences very closely, but we don't hear directly from him, unlike Lanyon and Jekyll.

So let's have a think then, what might be the impact of these choices be? How can we link them to the theme of duality? Alright, why don't you pause the video, if you've got a partner, discuss this with them.

Otherwise just think through these questions independently.

Over to you.

Yeah, welcome back.

Some great ideas there.

Maybe you said something similar to Lucas who said really interestingly it could be argued that multiple narrators are a reminder to us that every story has more than one side.

And this links to the idea of duality.

Because actually it doesn't mean that people are good or bad.

That actually there is a truth, there is a space in the middle where the truth can exist.

And Izzy said, well, furthermore, actually the multiple narrators lead us to distrust everyone in this novella.

By the end of novella, I'm not sure I trust any of the characters.

To be honest, the person we hear the most comprehensively from the person whose perspective we hear from the most isn't Utterson because we don't hear directly from him, is actually Jekyll who has the longest chapter at the end where we hear all about his, a very detailed reflection on his creation of Hyde.

But even Jekyll hearing from his perspective, by this point he's been painted as actually being completely untrustworthy.

So there's a real interesting technique here that Stevenson has used because we don't actually trust any of the narrators.

And maybe we can link this back to the idea of duality because hey, it is a reminder that again, rejecting that binary of trustworthy, untrustworthy, good, bad, and remembering there is something that exists in the middle.

There is this dual nature that lives in all of us and we should be aware of that and that will allow us to be maybe a little bit more critical of what we hear and what we accept from other people.

Alright, let's do a check for understanding then.

Let's see how we're getting on.

I want to think about which of the Oak pupils below makes the most logical link between Stevenson's use of multiple narrators and the theme of duality.

Is it Lucas who says Stevenson's clear use of multiple untrustworthy narrators reminds the reader they cannot trust everything they see and hear? Perhaps this structural choice reflects the dual nature that exists in humans, reminding the reader that they should not necessarily take everyone at face value.

Or Izzy, who says Stevenson uses multiple narrators to keep the reader guessing about what happened in the case, right up until the end of the novella.

The fact that we do not find out about Jekyll's dual nature until the end of the novella makes the story more gripping.

Alright, why don't you pause the video.

Have a think, whose response is more logical, more interesting there? Alright, press play when you think you've got a response, you've got your answer.

Yeah, really well done, if you selected Lucas there.

I don't think Izzy's wrong, but I don't think it really has the nuance and really allows us to explore Stevenson's message.

It is just more about, look, this is a good technique for keeping us all interested, which is true, but actually there is a much deeper message that Stevenson is trying to explore through his use of multiple narrators.

And I think Lucas nails that so well done if you selected Lucas.

Alright, let's quickly then think about this in a little bit more detail.

So by, we're gonna do this by comparing different descriptions of Jekyll.

So we see very early on that Utterson describes Jekyll as having, "every mark and capacity of kindness." Whereas in contrast, Lanyon at the beginning of the novella, describes Jekyll as he says, "He began to go wrong, wrong in the mind." And even if by the end of the novella, we know that Jekyll at first describes himself as being very, "fond of the respect of the wise and good amongst my fellow men." We also see him talking about the shame he feels about his dual identity, how he regarded it and hid them with an almost morbid sense of shame.

But we also know that like releasing his dual identity stirred in his soul, that tempest of impatience.

So I want you to think about how do you think these quotations can be used to develop our arguments about narrative voices and duality further.

So think about everything that we have talked about so far in the lesson.

How are these quotations that the language within these quotations, how are they useful for supporting or developing those arguments further? Why don't you pause the video, have a quick think about this and press play when you are ready to continue.

Yeah, really well done, if you identified that all of these quotations, there's so much contrast in these quotations, contrast between Utterson and Lanyon, contrast between what, how Jekyll describes himself that there is this sense of untrustworthiness and we've got evidence now that we can use to support those arguments that it's really difficult to know who to trust because actually Utterson says this about Jekyll, but we find out that Jekyll isn't, you know, you know, how can we describe him as a kind man when we know his behaviour leads to the death of Sir Danvers Carew, for example.

So there is a lot that suggests we can't trust these characters and they're actually giving us very contrasting descriptions of Jekyll.

But all of this can link to duality because actually the reason why they can't give one clear description of Jekyll, it's because he's not one clear man.

He's not just a good man, he's not just an evil man.

He, you know, his, the reality is, he is a kind of a mixture and his dual nature means that it's, there is no binary here.

He is not just a hundred percent a good man, he is not just a hundred percent an evil man.

So these quotations are really useful in again, helping demonstrate how Stevenson presents that theme of duality in his novella.

Alright, over to you now, for our final task.

You are going to write a response to this question.

How has Stevenson explored the theme of duality in his novella? You are gonna do this by writing up one of my plans.

So I have planned a paragraph for you.

You can see the topic sentence at the top, which is, "Arguably, Stevenson himself embraces the idea of duality, instead encouraging readers to question the hypocritical upper-classes who often act as gatekeepers to the moral code whilst harbouring secrets of their own." You can see I collected lots of supporting details from across the text that I would like you to flesh out in your paragraph.

So you can use my topic sentence as it is, and then you're gonna build the paragraph out, using the supporting details that you can see on the slide.

And I've also provided a concluding sentence for you.

So let's now take everything we've learned and write it up into a really clear paragraph.

Alright, over to you.

Good luck with this.

Pause the video and press play when you are ready to do a bit of reflection.

All right, welcome back.

Really great job there.

Really, really pleasing to see so many of you checking your spelling, punctuation, and grammar as well, before you put your pen down.

Alright, let's have a moment of reflection then please.

I want you to reread your work and ask yourself the following three coaching questions.

Can you identify in your response where you discuss how Jekyll's behaviour links to the idea of duality? Can you identify where in your response you've analysed Stevenson's use of multiple narrators? And can you identify in your response where you've used context to explore Stevenson's own ideas about duality? Alright, pause the video and take a moment to reflect on the writing that you have done.

Okay, really well done, what fantastic work you have done in today's lesson.

We've had some really, really interesting discussions and I hope you're feeling much more confident about the theme of duality in the novella.

On the screen, you can see a summary of all the key learning.

Pause the video, read through each of these carefully and make sure you feel really, really confident about all of these before you move on to our next lesson.

Really, really well done today.

It's been a pleasure learning alongside you.

I hope to see you on our lessons in the future.

Alright, have a great day with the rest of your day and I hope to see you all soon.

Bye-Bye.