How Does Fayn Present Keith's Relationship In Spies
Explore the ways in which Frayn presents the relationship between Keith and Stephen in Spies
Stephen and Keith in the novel “Spies” have a unique relationship. It is complex and multi-layered; the characteristics of Stephen and Keith are clarified with the aid of time and perception. We are able to understand from the beginning of chapter 2, that they have an unusual relationship and friendship, given the differences in their background and character.
Keith and Stephen are from different social backgrounds. Keith is seen to be further up the social ladder than his friend, Stephen. This is significant as Frayn uses a series of contrasts in their houses, clothes and even parents. Stephen describes his gate has “rotted drunkenly away from the top hinge”, whereas Keith’s gate has “well-oiled hinges”. Stephens’ clothes are “too short” or “too long”, however Keith’s are “not too short” or “not too long”. Frayn is making a direct contrast. These …show more content…
clusters of contrast clearly suggest Stephens’ feeling of inferiority compared to Keith. A commonly used adjective to describe Keith is “right” as Stephen thinks that Keith can never be wrong, whereas Stephen is frequently referred to being “wrong”, again showing the social divide between the two. The adjectives “special” and “perfect” were used in equal effect. The adult narrator reflecting on their relationship concludes that it was “incomprehensible good fortune” for “him” to be Keith’s friend. He uses third person pronouns as he reflects on Stephen as a child who is “unsatisfactory”. Furthermore he mentions that the Hayward’s were “impeccable and they tolerated Stephen”.
Stephen values the relationship with Keith. This is obvious when Stephen discourses with his father about the “Juice” moving into Trewinnick. He continues the conversation by saying “it’s true … Keith said”. The adult Stephen later goes on to recall on his relationship with Keith, where he says “thank you for having me. Thank you, thank you”. The parroting of the words “thank you” demonstrate how much Stephen valued the times he spent in Keith’s house and most of all, his company.
Stephen appreciates his friendship with Keith despite the unpleasant power difference between the two.
There is a substantial repetition of the phrase “it was Keith who…..” This phrase portrays to us that in the adult Stephen’s memory, it is Keith who initiates everything, all the ideas and missions. For example, Keith takes the lead when they search for clues in Mrs Hayward’s desk. There are also threats of violence from Keith, shown by the incident of swearing an oath using the “bayonet”. There is also a repeated comparison between Keith and his father: “He looks like his father”. This creates a sinister quality to Keith’s power over Stephen that the young Stephen is partially aware of. Keith tends to almost use biblical language, “he uttered the words and the words became so”. This demonstrates Keith’s cogent power. Stephen’s inherent fear is shown through the fact that he twice fails to correct Keith’s spelling of the words “private” and “secret”. His morale is noticeably low, and Keith is able to capitalize on that
well.
Frayn portrays Stephen to be second best compared to Keith. He is the “sword-bearer” and not the “leader”. He is the “logbook” writer, not the hands-on “investigator”. Keith does all the spying, identifying which details are worthy for recording and Stephen writes them down. It is clear that Keith is the dominant boy, whilst Stephen is subservient. The fact that Keith is more than willing to let Stephen follow him, and idolise him, I believe not only shows his vanity, but also his selfish side. In any society, friends are social equals, but here with Stephen and Keith, this is clearly not the case.
Later in the book where the boys follow Mrs Hayward through the tunnel for the first time, it is Stephen’s idea. Stephen is pleased that he has taken some initiative. Keith is said to maintain “an attitude of judicious caution about (the) proposals, to remind (Stephen) that Keith is still the leader of this expedition”. This is further to the point that Stephen is subservient to Keith, who exploits it.
During chapter five, Stephen goes through the tunnel on his own, at night. Not only does it show his determination to overcome fears, it shows that he wants to collect evidence to impress Keith. Stephen feels that he is obliged to do such activities, to impress Keith and continue their friendship. Keith, at this point is still his usual submissive self. We can see this when an upset Stephen says: “my great exploit hasn’t pleased or impressed him… He’s the… hero, not me”. We can see that Stephen feels worthless, because Keith thinks that Stephen’s judgements are always flawed. When talking to Stephen, we are told that Keith “demands” answers from Stephen. “Demand” is a critical verb, which shows that Keith has a lot of control over Stephen.
Their relationship takes a turn for the worse, when Keith was wrongly accused by his father for stealing a thermos flask (the flask that Mrs Hayward took to the barns). Stephen feels guilty for all his “betrayals and failures” to Keith. He talks on a regular basis to Barbara, but he sees less of Stephen. He can see a “looming … catastrophe”, and it is hinted that their relationship is on the verge of ending. Stephen tries his best to “make amends” with Keith, but nothing seems to work out properly. This clearly shows how much he is in awe of Keith, and grateful for his relationship.
When the policeman visits the Hayward’s house, Stephen is looking at Keith’s house with the crowd of children, and a stark realisation sets in: “I’ve ceased to be his friend; I’ve become one of the mobs”. The shortness of this sentence has a definite effect on the interpretation.
Their relationship came to a close, when Stephen shared their secrets with Barbara. Keith felt betrayed and used the “bayonet” to threaten him. Stephen says he can “feel the point of the bayonet against his “throat” while Keith “smiles”. This shows that Keith enjoys the power to frighten his friends. After this moment Stephen never went to Keith’s house. Their relationship had an abrupt ending.
This is the manner in which Frayn presented Stephen and Keith’s interesting yet complicated relationship. We see the relationship solely from Stephens’s perspective. The shifting between the past and present tense, and first and third person adds to the sense of complexity. It is further proof that the relationship can be viewed in many different ways. There obviously existed an uneven power balance in their relationship, as well as fear, happiness and comedy, which all effectively added to the intricacy of the boys’ relationship.
Stephen and Keith in the novel “Spies” have a unique relationship. It is complex and multi-layered; the characteristics of Stephen and Keith are clarified with the aid of time and perception. We are able to understand from the beginning of chapter 2, that they have an unusual relationship and friendship, given the differences in their background and character.
Keith and Stephen are from different social backgrounds. Keith is seen to be further up the social ladder than his friend, Stephen. This is significant as Frayn uses a series of contrasts in their houses, clothes and even parents. Stephen describes his gate has “rotted drunkenly away from the top hinge”, whereas Keith’s gate has “well-oiled hinges”. Stephens’ clothes are “too short” or “too long”, however Keith’s are “not too short” or “not too long”. Frayn is making a direct contrast. These …show more content…
clusters of contrast clearly suggest Stephens’ feeling of inferiority compared to Keith. A commonly used adjective to describe Keith is “right” as Stephen thinks that Keith can never be wrong, whereas Stephen is frequently referred to being “wrong”, again showing the social divide between the two. The adjectives “special” and “perfect” were used in equal effect. The adult narrator reflecting on their relationship concludes that it was “incomprehensible good fortune” for “him” to be Keith’s friend. He uses third person pronouns as he reflects on Stephen as a child who is “unsatisfactory”. Furthermore he mentions that the Hayward’s were “impeccable and they tolerated Stephen”.
Stephen values the relationship with Keith. This is obvious when Stephen discourses with his father about the “Juice” moving into Trewinnick. He continues the conversation by saying “it’s true … Keith said”. The adult Stephen later goes on to recall on his relationship with Keith, where he says “thank you for having me. Thank you, thank you”. The parroting of the words “thank you” demonstrate how much Stephen valued the times he spent in Keith’s house and most of all, his company.
Stephen appreciates his friendship with Keith despite the unpleasant power difference between the two.
There is a substantial repetition of the phrase “it was Keith who…..” This phrase portrays to us that in the adult Stephen’s memory, it is Keith who initiates everything, all the ideas and missions. For example, Keith takes the lead when they search for clues in Mrs Hayward’s desk. There are also threats of violence from Keith, shown by the incident of swearing an oath using the “bayonet”. There is also a repeated comparison between Keith and his father: “He looks like his father”. This creates a sinister quality to Keith’s power over Stephen that the young Stephen is partially aware of. Keith tends to almost use biblical language, “he uttered the words and the words became so”. This demonstrates Keith’s cogent power. Stephen’s inherent fear is shown through the fact that he twice fails to correct Keith’s spelling of the words “private” and “secret”. His morale is noticeably low, and Keith is able to capitalize on that
well.
Frayn portrays Stephen to be second best compared to Keith. He is the “sword-bearer” and not the “leader”. He is the “logbook” writer, not the hands-on “investigator”. Keith does all the spying, identifying which details are worthy for recording and Stephen writes them down. It is clear that Keith is the dominant boy, whilst Stephen is subservient. The fact that Keith is more than willing to let Stephen follow him, and idolise him, I believe not only shows his vanity, but also his selfish side. In any society, friends are social equals, but here with Stephen and Keith, this is clearly not the case.
Later in the book where the boys follow Mrs Hayward through the tunnel for the first time, it is Stephen’s idea. Stephen is pleased that he has taken some initiative. Keith is said to maintain “an attitude of judicious caution about (the) proposals, to remind (Stephen) that Keith is still the leader of this expedition”. This is further to the point that Stephen is subservient to Keith, who exploits it.
During chapter five, Stephen goes through the tunnel on his own, at night. Not only does it show his determination to overcome fears, it shows that he wants to collect evidence to impress Keith. Stephen feels that he is obliged to do such activities, to impress Keith and continue their friendship. Keith, at this point is still his usual submissive self. We can see this when an upset Stephen says: “my great exploit hasn’t pleased or impressed him… He’s the… hero, not me”. We can see that Stephen feels worthless, because Keith thinks that Stephen’s judgements are always flawed. When talking to Stephen, we are told that Keith “demands” answers from Stephen. “Demand” is a critical verb, which shows that Keith has a lot of control over Stephen.
Their relationship takes a turn for the worse, when Keith was wrongly accused by his father for stealing a thermos flask (the flask that Mrs Hayward took to the barns). Stephen feels guilty for all his “betrayals and failures” to Keith. He talks on a regular basis to Barbara, but he sees less of Stephen. He can see a “looming … catastrophe”, and it is hinted that their relationship is on the verge of ending. Stephen tries his best to “make amends” with Keith, but nothing seems to work out properly. This clearly shows how much he is in awe of Keith, and grateful for his relationship.
When the policeman visits the Hayward’s house, Stephen is looking at Keith’s house with the crowd of children, and a stark realisation sets in: “I’ve ceased to be his friend; I’ve become one of the mobs”. The shortness of this sentence has a definite effect on the interpretation.
Their relationship came to a close, when Stephen shared their secrets with Barbara. Keith felt betrayed and used the “bayonet” to threaten him. Stephen says he can “feel the point of the bayonet against his “throat” while Keith “smiles”. This shows that Keith enjoys the power to frighten his friends. After this moment Stephen never went to Keith’s house. Their relationship had an abrupt ending.
This is the manner in which Frayn presented Stephen and Keith’s interesting yet complicated relationship. We see the relationship solely from Stephens’s perspective. The shifting between the past and present tense, and first and third person adds to the sense of complexity. It is further proof that the relationship can be viewed in many different ways. There obviously existed an uneven power balance in their relationship, as well as fear, happiness and comedy, which all effectively added to the intricacy of the boys’ relationship.