Hello everybody and welcome to today’s video, analysing the character of Keith
in Michael Frayn’s novel ‘Spies’. Almost immediately, the reader is made
aware that Keith is not a very nice person. He is manipulative, controlling and a liar.
While Stephen seems to believe that Keith has seen ‘a kind of talking monkey’ (p. 18),
the reader knows this cannot be true. As a reader, we do not trust Keith, yet young Stephen does.
Frayn’s use of structure is key here: in undermining the character of Keith so
early in the novel, the reader is in no doubt that he cannot be trusted, and that Stephen’s respect
for him is misplaced. It may take Stephen the entire novel to outgrow his ‘friend’,
but the reader sees immediately how Stephen is far superior to Keith. This makes the
novel all the more satisfying as Stephen slowly recognises the true nature of Keith’s character.
Keith attends the ‘right local preparatory school’ (p. 16), as opposed to Stephen who
attends the ‘wrong school’ (p. 16). Frayn’s use of the opposing adjectives ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
here indicates the fact that Stephen views Keith as being superior to him. Again, the reader
is unlikely to share Stephen’s view that the school one attends is either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
Keith is described as being very tidy: ‘All Keith’s toys are his own, neatly ranged in drawers
and cupboards, often in the boxes they came in’ (p. 17). This meticulous attention to order
presents Keith as a mirror image of his father. Consider the description of Mr Hayward’s garage:
‘The wheels themselves were hung neatly on the wall, alongside a picnic hamper, tennis rackets
in wooden presses, deflated airbeds and rubber rings’ (p. 21). Frayn draws this early parallel
between Keith and his father to foreshadow later, more troubling similarities between the two.
In Chapter 3, Frayn uses language to present the relationship between Keith and Stephen.
When investigating Mrs Hayward’s diary, Stephen pleads, ‘But if it’s something private . . .’ (p.
49). Keith’s response is blunt and demanding: ‘Put it in the logbook’ (p. 49). Frayn’s use of
the imperative verb ‘put’ symbolises the nature of the boys’ friendship:
Keith is clearly the boss. He tells Stephen what to do, with no room for debate or discussion.
As the novel progresses, Keith becomes more and more like his father. In Chapter 4,
Keith begins to mirror Mr Hayward, telling Stephen to ‘Go home if you’re bored, old bean’
(p. 68). The use of ‘old bean’ is an early sign of the emerging sadistic side to Keith,
who is beginning to echo the words of his father. The difference between the two is exaggerated when
Keith’s adult-like behaviour is juxtaposed with Stephen’s childish pondering over the notion that
‘Aunts don’t live in the same street as you!’ (p. 69). However, despite his childish behaviour, we
see that Stephen is often guessing correctly about what he is observing. He wonders, ‘What secrets
do they have, now that they’re grown up? Secrets about Uncle Peter, perhaps’ (p. 70). As the reader
will later discover, Stephen is correct here. Despite his subservience to Keith, his ignorance
of adult life and his dislike of the opposite sex, Stephen is still managing to work his way towards
the solution to the mystery. This greatly contrasts with Keith’s implausible notions.
When the boys discover that Mrs Hayward disappears at the end of the road,
Stephen guesses that she has gone into ‘one of these houses in the Avenue’
(p. 73). He is ignored by Keith, who has his own theory
that his mother has gone down a ‘manhole’ (p. 73). What’s taking place here is known as structural
juxtaposition – the deliberate placing together of two very opposite ideas, used to exaggerate the
difference between the two. Although both boys are ultimately incorrect, it is clear to the reader
that Stephen is thinking logically, whereas Keith is thinking irrationally. Once again,
Frayn forces the reader to make their own judgements outside of the narrator’s tale.
Stephen may feel that Keith’s theory is ‘more probable’ (p. 73), but the reader knows it is not.
Finally, Stephen’s relationship with Keith changes throughout the story.
Initially, Keith dominates and controls Stephen. Stephen sees himself as ‘the loyal squire and
sword-bearer that a hero requires’ (p. 53). This metaphor indicates the nature of the relationship:
Keith is superior in every way, despite the fact that Stephen is often ‘humiliated by him’ (p. 48).
By the end of the novel, we learn that Keith went on to work as ‘a barrister of
some sort’ (p. 232). Frayn’s use of the vague phrase ‘some sort’
indicates Stefan’s lack of interest: he isn’t interested in Keith’s future,
because he outgrew his need for, and dependence on, his childhood friend.
I hope you found this video useful. Please do give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel.