Hello, everyone, and welcome to your lesson on Preparing an argument about Dr.

Roylott.

I'm Miss Sutherland, and I'll be teaching you today.

Our learning outcome for today is to be able to plan a convincing argument, and we'll be doing this on the character of Dr.

Roylott and his involvement in the case of the Speckled Band.

These are our key words for today, and they're going to help us better understand the character of Dr.

Roylott.

The first one is primitive.

We also have native.

Next is prejudice.

And finally, avarice.

Pause the video and note down any words that you need.

In today's lesson, we have two cycles.

We're going to start off by meeting Dr.

Roylott and learning a little bit about his character and how he's presented in the story.

And then we're going to move on to writing an argument about Dr.

Roylott and his involvement in the case of the Speckled Band.

So let's start off with meeting Dr.

Roylott.

It is really important to consider the historical context of the story before we meet Dr.

Roylott because this shapes the way in which he is presented.

We need to learn a little bit about attitudes in Victorian Britain.

So let's have a read.

"'The Speckled Band' was written in the late 19th century.

During this time, there was a great expansion in the British Empire and India was a British colony.

Some people in Victorian Britain believed that people native to the colonies were more primitive than the British.

Some Victorian people even feared that there was a risk of British people turning savage if they spent time in the colonies." Of course, this is an outdated view.

"The character of Dr.

Roylott is a British man that spent time in India as a doctor.

This affects how Conan Doyle presents him in the story and how we see Holmes perceive him.

Roylott's presentation gives us an insight into some of the prejudiced beliefs held during the Victorian era." So we've established that some people in Victorian Britain held some prejudice views and that could shape the way in which Dr.

Roylott is presented to us.

I want you to consider how would a modern reader perceive Dr.

Roylott compared to a Victorian one? Pause the video and have a think.

Now let's check your understanding.

Answer this question.

What prejudiced view did some Victorian citizens hold about people native to the colonies? Pause the video and have a think.

Some Victorian citizens held the prejudiced view that people native to the colonies were primitive.

That means some Victorian citizens thought that people that were born in the colonies were less developed and less sophisticated compared to British people.

Of course, we've established that this is a very outdated and prejudiced view that we do not accept in modern Britain.

Now we're going to continue reading the Speckled Band story.

Holmes and Watson are discussing the case of the Speckled Band.

They're discussing Julia Stoner's death and the reports that Helen gave of Stoke Moran, where the family live.

So let's continue reading.

"'And so do I', says Holmes.

'It is precisely for that reason that we are going to Stoke Moran this day.

I want to see whether the objections are fatal or if they may be explained away.

But what in the name of the devil?' The ejaculation had been drawn from my companion by the fact that our door had been suddenly dashed open and that a huge man had framed himself in the aperture.

His costume was a peculiar mixture of the professional and of the agricultural, having a black top hat, a long frock coat, and a pair of high gaiters, with a hunting crop swinging in his hand.

So tall was he that his hat actually brushed the crossbar of the doorway and his breadth seemed to span it from side to side." So what we're seeing here is that a man appears in the opening of Holmes's doorway and that this man is dressed in clothing that links him to farming and hunting.

Let's find out who it is.

"A large face seared with a thousand wrinkles burned yellow with the sun and marked with every evil passion was turned from one to the other of us, while his deep-set, bile-shot eyes, and his high, thin, fleshless nose, gave him somewhat the resemblance to a fierce old bird of prey.

'Which of you is Holmes?' asked this apparition.

'My name, sir, but you have the advantage of me,' said my companion quietly.

'I am Dr.

Grimesby Roylott of Stoke Moran.

' 'Indeed, Doctor,' said Holmes blandly.

'Pray take a seat.

' 'I will do nothing of the kind.

My stepdaughter has been here.

I have traced her.

What has she been saying to you?' 'It's a little cold for the time of year,' said Holmes.

'What has she been saying to you?' screamed the old man furiously.

'But I have heard that the crocuses promise well,' continued my companion imperturbably.

'Ha! You put me off, do you?' said the visitor, taking a step forward and shaking his hunting crop.

'I know you.

You scoundrel! I have heard of you before.

You are Holmes, the meddler.

' My friend smiled.

'Holmes, the busybody.

' His smile broadened.

'Holmes, the Scotland Yard Jack-in-office.

'" We can see here Dr.

Roylott is accusing Holmes of getting involved in his business unnecessarily.

"Holmes chuckled heartily.

'Your conversation is most entertaining,' said he.

'When you go out, close the door, for there is a decided draught.

' 'I will go when I have had my say.

Don't you dare to meddle with my affairs.

I know that Miss Stoner has been here.

I traced her! I am a dangerous man to fall foul of! See here.

' He steps swiftly forward, sees the poker, and bends it into a curve with his huge brown hands.

'See that you keep yourself out of my grip,' he snarled, and hurling the twisted poker into the fireplace he strode out of the room." Answer this question to show your understanding of what we've just read.

Who came to visit Holmes? Pause the video and have a think.

Well done if you said Helen Stoner's stepfather, Dr.

Roylott, came to visit Holmes.

How is Dr.

Roylott presented when he visits Holmes? Pause the video and have a think.

Dr.

Roylott is presented as aggressive when he visits Holmes.

We know this because he throws the poker stick at Holmes.

We know he's not friendly or apologetic because he threatens Holmes and is very angry at him for getting involved in the case in the first place.

I now want you to read independently from "He seems a very amiable person" to "that and a toothbrush are I think all that we need." As you read, consider the following questions.

Number 1, how does Holmes feel about Dr.

Roylott? Justify your answer.

What document did Holmes obtain when he went to the doctor's commons? What would it mean for Roylott if one or both of the Stoner sisters got married? And, who does Holmes think is now a prime suspect for the murder of Julia Stoner and why? Pause the video, begin your independent reading, and answer those questions.

Great job on your work there, everyone.

Let's share our ideas.

Number 1, Holmes is not fond of Roylott and thinks that Roylott is rude and violent.

We know this because he says Roylott has been "insolent" and calls him a "brute." Number 2, Holmes obtained the will of Julia and Helen's mother when he went to the doctor's commons.

Number 3, if one or both of the Stoner sisters married, Roylott would be left with little money.

And finally, Holmes now thinks Roylott is a prime suspect for the murder of Julia Stoner as he has a strong motive.

His motive in killing her would be to keep a large sum of the income bequeathed to him from his late wife.

Well done if you got those questions right.

Let's move on to the next part of the lesson.

We're now going to write an argument about Dr.

Roylott and how Holmes sees his involvement in the case.

You are going to pretend you are Holmes and write an argument about who the prime suspect in this case is.

To make your argument convincing, try and use a clear range of evidence, emotive language, repetition of words and ideas for dramatic effect, rhetorical questions, and direct address.

Let's take a look at an example argument.

Here is Jun's response.

He has pretended he's Holmes and he's written his argument about who the prime suspect in this case is.

He says, "I think that Dr.

Roylott is guilty because he is a mean and horrible man.

Have you ever met such a horrible man? I don't think so.

Not only did he beat his butler in India, but he even threatened me, Sherlock Holmes, would you believe it? Do you think that is acceptable? Furthermore, he has every reason to kill his stepdaughter, as without her, he loses the income from his former wife.

Surely you cannot doubt that he is guilty." I want you to discuss what he has done well and what Jun could improve on to make a convincing argument.

Pause the video and discuss.

Firstly, Jun has attempted to use emotive language.

He's used the words "horrible," "beat," and "threatened." However, the words "horrible" and "mean" could definitely be made more powerful to evoke a more emotive response from the reader.

Next, Jun has used rhetorical questions such as, "Would you believe it? Do you think that is acceptable?" But they do not necessarily get the audience reflecting on their actions as they are not deep enough.

When you use rhetorical questions, you really want your audience to look inside themselves and take action depending on how that question's made them feel.

Jun also uses clear evidence from the text, such as that Roylott beat his butler and that he has a clear motive.

However, he could comment on the effect of Roylott's actions to make it more emotive.

So he could say what the consequence of Roylott's violence is.

Now, Jun has improved his work in accordance with that feedback.

"I present to you a callous, heartless man who is capable of beating his innocent, native butler mercilessly to death, a despicable criminal who has spent considerable time in prison, a bully who has reduced his stepdaughter to a trembling, frightened wreck.

How can we call ourselves a civilised society when we allow evil, threatening behaviour such as this? You have a duty to shield those who are vulnerable from ruthless and immoral predators such as Dr.

Roylott.

You have a duty to put a stop to the greed and avarice.

You have a duty, in short, to vote guilty today.

I want you to discuss with a partner how exactly has Jun improved his work? Pause the video and have a think.

Firstly, Jun has upgraded his emotive language.

He has changed words like "mean" and "horrible" to "heartless" and "callous." This will make the reader feel a sense of horror at the violence of Dr.

Roylott.

Jun's also added in words like "despicable" and "vulnerable," etc.

, to create a more emotive response from the reader.

Next, Jun has kept his clear evidence, but he has enhanced it because he's spoken about the effect of Roylott's actions on Helen Stoner.

So he's not only said that he has been violent to his stepdaughter, but he has said that his stepdaughter is now a trembling, frightened wreck as a result.

That makes the argument more convincing for the reader.

Next, Jun has added in repetition of the direct address, "You have a duty," for dramatic effect and to make the audience feel responsible.

And lastly, Jun has upgraded his rhetorical question.

It is now a deep question allowing the audience to reflect on themselves as a humane society.

"How can we call ourselves a civilised society when we allow evil, threatening behaviour such as this?" Let's check you understand how to write a convincing argument.

What is important to consider when constructing your argument? Pause the video and have a think.

Well done if you said emotive language.

It is important to consider using powerful emotive language when constructing your argument to make the reader feel impacted by your words and eager to make a difference.

Which word here is the most emotive? Because we want to be using very powerful emotive language.

So pause the video and have a think.

Well done if you said ruthless is the most emotive, it is more emotive than unkind and harsh because ruthless conveys a sense of having no mercy upon others and acting cruelly, no matter what.

It's now time to pretend you are Holmes and write your argument about why you believe Dr.

Roylott is the prime suspect.

To make your argument convincing, remember to use a clear range of evidence, emotive language, repetition of words and ideas for dramatic effect, rhetorical questions, and direct address.

Pause the video and write your argument.

Great job on your writing.

It's now time to self-assess.

Reread your work and highlight where you've included the following.

Where have you got a clear range of evidence, emotive language, repetition of words and ideas for dramatic effect, rhetorical questions, and direct address? Pause the video and self-assess your work.

Great job in today's lesson, everyone.

Let's go through what we've learned today.

Some Victorian readers had prejudiced views about people who were from and spent time in British colonies.

Dr.

Roylott is presented as an aggressive and brutal man.

Dr.

Roylott has a strong motive for killing Julia Stoner.

He would lose money if she survived and went ahead with her wedding.

Holmes believes Dr.

Roylott is behind the murder.

And you can construct a convincing argument using emotive language and a range of rhetorical devices.

Thanks for joining me in today's lesson, everyone.

I look forward to seeing you next time.