Lanyon: a curious character.

Hello and welcome to today's lesson.

My name is Mr. Young and this lesson is all about Dr.

Lanyon and in particular, we're gonna focus on whether Dr.

Lanyon is really the respectable Victorian gentleman that he first appears.

So on that cryptic note, let's get started.

So today's lesson will have a very clear learning outcome, which is as follows.

So hopefully by the end of today's lesson, everybody should be able to make links between the characterization of Lanyon and Stevenson's purpose.

And just like in any lesson we have our keywords that will follow us again throughout our learning.

So do pause the video if you'd like to spend just a little bit more time with any of these words and their definitions.

But our key words for today are foil, pedant, rational, complicity, and concealment.

So in today's lesson we'll have three very clear learning cycles and they're of course all about Dr.

Lanyon.

Dr.

Lanyon is a character I love to study and analyse for lots of different reasons, but mainly because of his hypocrisy and we're gonna explore that in our opening learning cycle.

We're gonna look at the extent to which Dr.

Lanyon can really be considered a foil to Dr.

Jekyll, and then we're gonna move on to learning cycle two, where we're gonna look at complicity and concealment.

So all of those fantastic things are hidden throughout the novella and that that really drive the tension in this story, particularly those pertinent to Dr.

Lanyon.

And then finally, I'm super excited to see how you got on with learning cycle three, where we're gonna bring all of that fantastic work together and produce a really nice piece of writing about Dr.

Lanyon.

So let's get started.

Okay, so I'm gonna throw it over straight to you then for the start of this lesson with a quick discussion question.

So can you tell me, please, in what ways are Dr.

Lanyon and Dr.

Jekyll similar, and in what ways are they different? Pause the video, have a go and then push Play when you'd like to continue.

Okay, some lovely discussions taking place there, really enthusiastic start, and it's wonderful to hear all of your comparisons between these two men, so let's kick off with the similarities.

Well, the first one is a very obvious one, but I think it's definitely worth pointing out, is that they are both doctors, they have the same shared profession.

They may approach that profession differently and we'll explore that a bit in a minute, but they are certainly both doctors.

And again, they are both privileged and respected.

What we mean by that is they are from the upper middle classes of Victorian England.

So they're reasonably wealthy and they're reasonably respected throughout Victorian society.

Again, they're both interested and curious in science's potential, so they both see science as a way of kinda furthering human knowledge.

How they choose to do that, again, is a bit of different, but it's certainly a personality trait they both share.

And finally as well, we also have this idea that they are the only two people that witness this transformation from Hyde to Jekyll and back again.

The other characters kinda suspect it or hear about it, but they don't directly witness it and it's only these two characters that do that.

And we also hear about that in the context of the end of the novella when we learn about both men's death.

So you can see there are quite a lot of similarities between these two men, and well done if you were able to identify anything similar in your own discussions.

But now let's kind of draw a bit of a line between them, so how are they different? Well, the first thing that kinda leaps out to me about Dr.

Lanyon is he's scientifically conventional.

What we mean by that is he is pretty mainstream, he doesn't rock the boat, he doesn't really push the boundaries of science and again, he's violently opposed to duality.

So when he witnesses this transformation, he becomes almost incapable of accepting it and this kind of has a lot of ramifications for Dr.

Lanyon, which kind of ultimately leads to him not being able to accept living in a world with such duality.

It's heavily insinuated in the novella, that this kind of brings about his early death, for example.

Again, and this is totally different to the character of Dr.

Jekyll.

So he is scientifically experimental and we get this from all of these kind of really transgressive experiments that he's conducting throughout the novella, so a total difference to Dr.

Lanyon.

And again, with the.

in regards to how he accepts his duality, he's perfectly happy to accept this kind of split personality that he's created with this Jekyll and Hyde persona, in a way that Lanyon simply isn't.

And finally, he's not just welcoming of it, he's happy to accept it.

So he's happy to accept being able to embody this Hyde persona, something that Lanyon seems to find disgusting and almost impossible to believe.

So well done if you picked up on any of those differences and similarities in your own work.

Okay, so let's explore the differences between the two men a little bit further.

So we have two direct quotations here from each scientist, so Lanyon said of Jekyll, "Henry Jekyll became too fanciful for me.

such unscientific balderdash!" So balderdash means nonsense.

And then Jekyll said of Lanyon, "A hide bound pedant, an ignorant, blatant pedant.

I was never more disappointed in any man than in Lanyon." So some really interesting comments about each other there, which we'll unpick in a little bit more detail, but my first question for you then is what does Jekyll's quote tell you about how he views Lanyon? Pause the video, have a quick discussion and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback.

Okay, great job on that and I really like those groups that focused on that word, pendant.

Remember, pendant is someone who focuses unnecessarily on small and minor details.

So I would be saying that kind of Jekyll's view of Lanyon is something like this on the board now.

So Jekyll's quote shows he sees Lanyon as hide bound, someone that blindly follows convention.

He also views him as a pedant, someone obsessed with minor insignificant details and not interested in moving science forwards.

Lanyon is presented as respectable and conventional, he follows the rules and laws and believes wholeheartedly in the rationalism of science.

So that is a really nice example there of how Jekyll views Lanyon and well done if you picked up anything similar in your own pieces of writing.

So let's unpick in a little bit more detail, those comments that Lanyon said of Henry Jekyll 'cause I think we can learn an awful lot about how he views the other man.

So Lanyon said, "It is more than 10 years since Henry Jekyll became too fanciful for me.

He began to go wrong, wrong in mind; and though of course I continued to take an interest in him for old sake's sake, as they say, I see and I have seen devilish little of the man.

Such unscientific balderdash," added the doctor, flushing suddenly purple, would have estranged Damon and Pythias.

So it's some really interesting comments there, so let's unpick them in a bit more detail.

So the first thing that leaps out to me is this bit at the beginning, "It is more than 10 years since Henry Jekyll became too fanciful for me." So we have this idea that they have been estranged for some time.

If you become estranged from somebody, it means you no longer have regular contact with them as a result of kinda some incident that happened.

So he also notes that he became too fanciful for him.

So I think this could actually allude to Jekyll's scientific practises, suggesting they are just too unconventional for Lanyon, suggesting Lanyon has some awareness of what Jekyll was trying to do and doesn't really approve of it.

Again, we've got this here, "He began to go wrong, wrong in mind." Again, I think this is a really nice piece of writing from Stevenson, and it's quite kinda ambiguous and vague.

We don't exactly know what he means, but we know he's alluding to something quite negative.

So Lanyon gives the reason for their estrangement here and he uses the word wrong, perhaps alluding to the fact that Lanyon believes Jekyll's experiments do contravene some kind of laws or ethics or some kind of scientific orthodoxy.

And again, I would just be focusing on this, this is one of my favourite quotes and I think if you want to remember just one quote by Lanyon, I would definitely say it's this one.

He says, "Such unscientific balderdash." So Lanyon describes Jekyll's scientific experiments as scientific balderdash and here, Lanyon is really representing scientific rationalism.

And what we mean by that, is he kind of views Jekyll's more metaphysical approach to science as sheer nonsense, he just thinks it is ridiculous what Jekyll is trying to do.

And then we've got this bit here where he flushes purple, and again, I think that's quite interesting because we learned at the beginning that they have not spoken regularly for 10 years, yet Lanyon is flushing purple, kind of indicating that he still gets kind of emotional or angry about their falling out.

And again, he makes this really interesting and really nice reference to Damon and Pythias, which is a Greek myth.

That is a Greek myth of two friends that were such good friends, they were willing to die for one another.

So we get this idea that perhaps the friendship between the two men was incredibly close, but broken due to some as yet unidentified incident.

Okay, so quick check for understanding for me then, please, so which two phrases does Dr.

Lanyon use to describe Dr.

Jekyll and his work? Pause the video, have a go and then push Play when you'd like to see the correct answers.

Okay, great job if you identified B and C, unscientific balderdash and wrong, wrong in mind.

It is not the other two because they are from Jekyll to Lanyon.

Okay, so well done if you picked up on that distinction.

Okay, now we are going to look at a foil and in particular, a literary foil.

So what is a literary foil, I hear you ask.

Well, in literature, a foil is a secondary character whose purpose is to highlight or accentuate some aspect of the main character.

I find that a little bit confusing and I've always found foils a bit difficult just to understand in isolation and I always find them much, much easier if I use an actual example.

So the example I love to use is that from "Macbeth." So I would say, in the play, "Macbeth," the character of Macduff acts as a foil to Macbeth and that's because his loyalty, bravery and integrity, highlight Macbeth's treachery, cowardice and dishonesty.

So you can see those things that Macduff embodies and does, are a real direct contrast to qualities and flaws that Macbeth has, making him a really, really nice foil.

So I have a quick question for you then, please.

So can you think of any other examples of foils in literature? Pause the video, have a discussion and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback.

Okay, great job on that, and yeah, you're absolutely right, you see foils all the time in literature and beyond.

You see them in video games, in movies and TV shows.

So well done if you were able to identify any of those in your own discussions.

So my second question there, let's bring it back to the novella that we are studying.

So thinking of the strange case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which characters do you think may serve as foils and why? So once again, pause the video, have a quick discussion and then push Play when you'd like to crack on.

Okay, I heard some really nice discussions there and principally about Dr.

Lanyon and the extent to which he is a foil for Dr.

Jekyll.

So let's pause those ideas 'cause we're gonna explore that in a little bit more detail now.

So a quick check for understanding for me, please then before we move on to looking specifically at Dr.

Lanyon.

So in literature, a foil is a secondary character who contrasts with the main character.

Is that true or false? Pause the video and have a go.

Okay, well done to all of you who said that is true, of course, that is true, that is exactly what we have just spoken about.

But let's add a layer of complexity to this then, please.

So how would you justify that answer for me? Is it A, they are the complete opposite of the main character in every way, or B, they have particular qualities that highlight or accentuate a quality of the main character? Once again, pause the video and have a go and push Play when you'd like to see the correct answer.

Okay, great job to everybody who identified B, they have particular qualities that highlight or accentuate a quality of the main character and well done to all of you who kind of referenced that Macduff and Macbeth example, the character of Macduff having those particular qualities that contrast with Macbeth.

Okay, so let's bring this back to the strange case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and in particular, Dr.

Lanyon.

So we have some student statements on the board in front of us.

So we have Sophia's argument here and Sophia said, "In the novella, Dr.

Lanyon is clearly a foil to the character of Dr.

Jekyll." So what I'd like you to do then, please, is have a quick discussion and in particular, what information from the text could support Sophia's argument? Pause the video, have a think, and then push Play when you'd like to continue.

Okay, great job on that, people are identifying lots of really nice pieces of information across the text that could respond to this statement.

The things that jumps out to me were as follows though, so I would say that Lanyon's scientific rationalism and propriety, and propriety means doing the right thing, acts as a foil for Jekyll's reckless and unethical approach to science.

So I would say there is a direct contrast there that we could arguably say serves the purpose of a literary foil, kind of Lanyon's rationalism.

And again, I would also say, witnessing the transformation traumatises Lanyon, ultimately leading to his death, whereas for Jekyll it only leads to more and more experimentation, he doesn't seem to be outwardly bothered by this transformation.

Again, I would say that is a direct contrast that could neatly kind of lend itself to Lanyon being a literary foil.

However, Jun had a different statement, Jun said, "I totally disagree.

In the novella, Dr.

Lanyon simply does not act as a foil to Dr.

Jekyll." So my next question then is, thinking totally oppositely now, how could we find some evidence that might support what Jun is saying? Pause the video, have a think and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback.

Okay, again, great discussions and I totally agree with that as well.

We could also find some evidence that would suggest Lanyon isn't a foil.

The things that jump out to me as follows; I would say that Lanyon also succumbs to his curiosity by choosing to witness the transformation.

Unchecked scientific curiosity is arguably the trait of Jekyll's that leads to his destruction.

Lanyon can't be considered his foil, as he too possesses this, which incidentally leads to his destruction too.

So the argument there is this idea that both men share this kind of unchecked curiosity that leads to their downfall.

So we couldn't possibly say they are foils because this key part of them is identical and it doesn't really serve to expose one or the other.

And that is a little bit confusing, isn't it? Well, on the one hand we're saying that he's a foil, and on the other we're saying isn't.

And that kind of gets to the heart of the point I would say about literary foils.

So for me, whether Lanyon is a foil for Jekyll is debatable.

Whilst he has certain characteristics that seem to directly expose Jekyll, for example, his scientific rationalism, I would also say he has similarities to Jekyll, their deep curiosity for the mysteries of science, for example.

So it really remains debatable the extent of which Lanyon is a direct foil.

Okay, quick check for understanding for me then, please.

So the extent to which the character of Dr.

Lanyon acts as a foil to Dr.

Jekyll is debatable, is that true or false? Push pause, have a go, and then push Play when you'd like to continue.

Yep, absolutely, it is of course true, it is debatable the extent to which they are foil.

But why is that so then, please? Is it A, the character of Utterson is arguably a better foil for Dr.

Jekyll as the two are significantly different, or is it B, although there are key differences between the two, they also share similar traits such as curiosity? Keen to see how you would justify this one.

So push Pause, have a quick go and then push Play when you'd like to continue.

Yep, it is of course B and well done to everybody who picked up on that, they share key differences but also similarities such as curiosity.

So it's not as kind of cut and dry that they are a direct foil of one another.

Well done if you're able to pick up on that.

Okay, so before we get a chance to put all of that fantastic work into practise in our first practise task, we are just going to remind ourselves about using comparatives.

So when comparing two separate characters, we can use the following phrases to compare, these are really useful in our essay writing.

So we can say firstly, both x and y.

So this would be used to show some similarity or commonality between the two characters.

So in the example of Lanyon and Jekyll, we might say both Jekyll and Lanyon are doctors.

Again, we've got this second phrase, which is whilst X is, Y is.

Again, this is quite a useful one and this is really good to show a clear difference between the two characters.

So for example, whilst Jekyll is scientifically experimental, Lanyon is much more conventional.

And again, perhaps the most useful one of all, which can really show nuance in our essay writing, is despite X being, Y is.

and this is used to show that although in some ways the characters are similar, they differ in regard to that detail.

So a good example of that would be, despite both doctors witnessing the transformation, it is Lanyon who has the more negative response to it.

So really excited to see how you can use these in your own writing comparing Dr.

Lanyon and Dr.

Jekyll.

And we are going to do that now with our first practise task of today's lesson and that practise task is as follows; so write a comparison of Dr.

Jekyll and Dr.

Lanyon using the comparatives below.

So they are both X and Y.

whilst X is, Y is.

and despite X being, Y is.

So if I was looking at this, I would really be trying to focus on the following things; so potentially their approach to science, their views towards duality, and their fate in the story.

So really excited to see your comparison of these two men and seeing you put all those things we've studied so far in to practise.

So hit pause, have a go, and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback to this task.

Okay, great job on that task.

It is really fantastic to see you bringing together all of that work we've done in learning cycle one into a really nice piece of writing about these two men.

So there is an example paragraph on the board in front of you, but don't worry if yours isn't identical, this is just a way you could have approached the task and excellent work if you were able to identify any similar ideas in your own writing.

So the paragraph goes, both Dr.

Lanyon and Dr.

Jekyll are men of science, however their scientific outlooks are markedly different.

Whilst Lanyon is a conventional, rationalist concerned with scientific explanation, Dr.

Jekyll is much more experimental, pursuing scientific inquiries that are almost spiritual in character.

Despite both being the only two characters that witnessed Jekyll's transformation into Hyde, they have different views towards it.

Jekyll is ultimately content living in a world of such duality, if only he can banish the alter-ego of Hyde and continue to live as Jekyll.

However, Lanyon seems ultimately incapable of living in a world of such duality, his witnessing of the transformation seeming to be the catalyst for his rapid and untimely death.

Whilst Dr.

Lanyon could be considered a foil to Dr.

Jekyll in some regards, his scientific rationalism as a contrast to Jekyll's experimentation, for example, they also share a common flaw.

Both characters are curious as to the limits of science and this arguably leads to both of their destructions.

A really nice paragraph and well done if you picked up anything similar in your own work.

Okay, so we have reached learning cycle two, so well done on all of your fantastic work so far in this lesson.

So this learning cycle is all about complicity and concealment, particularly with the character of Dr.

Lanyon.

So potentially exploring the idea that he might be responsible to some extent, for the crimes of Jekyll and Hyde.

So on that note, let's get started on learning cycle two.

So at the end of the novella, both Lanyon and Jekyll have independent chapters detailing their own personal narratives in the first person.

We have Dr.

Lanyon's letter, and we have Dr.

Jekyll's full statement on the case.

And this is interesting because I think this allows us as the reader to make direct comparisons between the two men.

So my first question then is a quick plot summary question for you.

So what do we learn from Dr.

Lanyon's first-person narrative towards the end of the novella? So hit pause, have a discussion, and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback for that question.

Okay, great discussions there, and yeah, absolutely.

We learn an awful lot, don't we, about Dr.

Lanyon in his final narrative.

But the things that really stick out to me that I think are really, really important are as follows.

So we learned that Jekyll asked Lanyon to help him retrieve the potions from his home to allow him to transform back from Hyde.

And he even said, "My life, my honour, my reason depend upon you." And we also learn that Lanyon was given a choice and chose to witness the transformation from Hyde back into Jekyll.

"I've gone too far in the way of inexplicable services to pause before I see the end." So those are two really, really interesting things that Lanyon learns, and we're gonna look at the implications of those now.

So before we do that, let's have a quick check for understanding.

So which word is missing from this quote from Dr.

Lanyon, "I have gone too far in the way of blank services to pause before I see the end"? Is it inexplicable, intellectual, indecipherable or intolerable? Pause the video, have a quick go and then push Play when you'd like to see the correct missing word.

Okay, it's of course inexplicable.

So I think this is a lovely quote actually, a really nice one for exploring the extent to which curiosity kind of underpins the character of Dr.

Lanyon and he's almost as curious as Dr.

Jekyll really, and I think this quote kind of shows that.

So in Lanyon's chapter, we learn that he has deliberately concealed his knowledge of Jekyll's transformation at least until after his death.

So to be complicit is when someone is involved in an activity with others that is unlawful or morally wrong.

So my question for you then, is how could it then be argued that Dr.

Lanyon is complicit in the crimes of Jekyll and Hyde? So a really challenging question that one, I'm really excited to see how you get on with it.

So pause the video, have a discussion and push Play when you'd like to continue.

Okay, great work on that and I agree with everybody, I think he absolutely is complicit to some degree, in the crimes of Jekyll and Hyde and the reason for that is as follows.

So by witnessing the transformation of of Hyde to Jekyll, Dr.

Lanyon becomes aware that they are the same person.

He then realises that the crimes of Hyde are the crimes of Jekyll, so the murder of Carew and the trampling of the child.

But instead of reporting this to the police for justice to be done, Dr.

Lanyon continues to conceal this information and arguably becomes complicit in Jekyll and Hyde's crimes.

This is potentially because Lanyon caress more about protecting the reputation of a friend and colleague than the truth being revealed.

So kind of a real sense of hypocrisy here and his kind of real desire is to protect reputation rather than see justice be done.

So quick practise task for me then, please, so I would like you to tell me a bit more about Dr.

Lanyon.

So you have three sentences below about Dr.

Lanyon and they are as follows.

Dr.

Lanyon reveals the true nature of the transformation only after his death because.

Dr.

Lanyon reveals the true nature of the transformation only after his death but.

And Dr.

Lanyon reveals the true nature of the transformation only after his death so.

Trickier than it looks, this one so I'm really keen to see how you get on with these sentences about Dr.

Lanyon.

So pause the video, complete the task, and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback about Dr.

Lanyon.

Okay, great job on that, I find it really challenging sometimes when we use those comparatives 'cause I think they really help us challenge our thinking, which is a good thing, but it can certainly be tricky with the task.

So well done on all of your hard work on that, and particularly well done if you identified anything similar to the ideas that are on the board in front of you now.

So you could have approached this task in the following ways.

So Dr.

Lanyon reveals the true nature of the transformation only after his death because he wishes to protect the reputation of his friend, and potentially the wider class he belongs to from scandal.

Dr.

Lanyon reveals the true nature of the transformation only after his death, but we can see that the shock of the transformation has arguably contributed to his death.

And finally, Dr.

Lanyon reveals the true nature of the transformation only after his death, so it could be argued that he's complicit in the crimes of Jekyll and Hyde by preventing justice from being done.

Some really nice ideas there, and well done if you were able to replicate anything similar in your own work.

Okay, well done for reaching learning cycle three.

What we are gonna do now is put all of that hard work that you've done in learning cycle one and learning cycle two into practise in producing a really, really nice piece of writing about Dr.

Lanyon.

So let's get started.

Okay, so before we do that, let's just recap those really important things we need to know about Dr.

Lanyon.

He's a relatively minor character, but an important one.

So I think if you are looking for revision or some important things to know, this is what you need to know about Dr.

Lanyon.

So firstly, he represents the conventional and rational side of science, in direct contrast to Dr.

Jekyll's more experimental approach.

Dr.

Lanyon and Dr.

Jekyll were once good friends and it's alluded to that Jekyll's increasing eccentricity, contributed to their falling out.

The extent to which Dr.

Lanyon is a direct foil for Dr.

Jekyll is debatable; they both possess curiosity for the mysteries of science.

Dr.

Lanyon conceals knowledge of Jekyll's transformation, arguably making him complicit in Hyde's crimes.

Dr.

Lanyon is unable to live in a world where such transformation is possible and it brings about his early death.

So really looking forward to putting some of these into our essay writing later on.

But before we do that, a quick check for understanding.

So the extent to which Dr.

Lanyon is a direct foil to Dr.

Jekyll is what? Hit that Pause button, have a go and then push Play when you'd like to continue.

Okay, is of course debatable, it's debatable 'cause although they are similar in some ways, they are also different in others, so they are not a true foil of one another.

Well done if you picked up on that.

Okay, we have made it to our third and final practise task of today's lesson.

It is a really challenging one, but one I'm sure you are gonna do a fantastic job on because of all of your hard work throughout today's lesson.

So let's take a look at what it is.

So using the planning group below, write an opening paragraph to the question, "How does Stevenson present Dr.

Lanyon as a blameless character?" See, I told you it's quite a hard one, but I think this is a really good opportunity, this question, to really explore the nuances and the hypocrisies of the character of Dr.

Lanyon, so I'm super excited to see how you approach it.

So what I would like you to do in this task is the following things.

So I would like you to include those key points on the left hand side.

So all of these verbs I think are really, really good at introducing points about Lanyon and they are; to represent, to symbolise, to mock, to highlight and to criticise.

Again, I think we have some really important words we could use when describing Lanyon, and certainly, that will make our response a really high level one and those words are foil, rational, conventional, conservative, traditional and fanciful.

And finally, I think there's some really important ideas that go hand in hand when analysing the character of Dr.

Lanyon and those are this kind of conflict between experimental and progressive science and conservative science, this idea of the contrast between knowledge and ignorance, the dangers of scientific progress and the typical pious Victorian attitudes.

I think these are all things that could be weaved into a really nice response.

So once again, really looking forward to how you get on with this, good luck with this, pause the video and then push Play when you'd like to see some feedback.

Okay, great job on your hard work on that one, as I said before, that is by no means an easy task so I'm super impressed with everybody that was able to do a great job on that.

So I would like you to do a bit of self-assessment for me then, please.

So self-assess your work and ask yourselves the following questions.

Did you contrast Dr.

Lanyon with Dr.

Jekyll? Did you include contextual references about their different attitudes towards scientific progress? Did you discuss the extent to which Dr.

Lanyon is a foil to Dr.

Jekyll? Did you use keywords like rational, traditional, conventional, in discussing Dr.

Lanyon? And did you use verbs like mock, symbolise, highlight, to show Stevenson's purpose with a character of Dr.

Lanyon? If you did all of those things then fantastic, that is a first rate piece of work and you should be very, very proud of what you've achieved.

If you haven't done any of those things, don't stress, don't worry, they can be a really nice target for you for next time.

Okay, we have made it to the end of the lesson, well done, we have learned an awful lot today, so let's recap exactly what we have looked at.

So firstly, Lanyon may seem like a foil to Jekyll, but ultimately, he also succumbs to his curiosity.

Lanyon and Jekyll have opposing scientific views, Lanyon more conventional, whereas Jekyll pushes boundaries.

By including their two first person narratives at the end of the novella, Stevenson invites comparisons between the two men.

Despite the tension between them, Lanyon continues to protect Jekyll's reputation until after his death, and Lanyon makes an active choice to witness Hyde's transformation, suggesting that he shares in the blame for his death.

Great job today, everyone, you've done a fantastic amount of work and I'm super proud of all that you've achieved.

I really look forward to teaching you on another lesson in this sequence, thank you very much and goodbye.