In the novel Spies, by Michael Frayn, the principle of trust is being evaluated.

The book is
set in the 1950san era of great conflict, when people are forced to watch their own backs at all
times. Stephen Wheatley and Keith Hayward are two childhood companions who, unfortunately,
have fallen apart due to insoluble dilemmas of adolescence. The way Frayn presents the
relationship between Stephen and Keith varies throughout the novel: first lopsided, then Stephen
strives to seek his own identity and balance in their friendship and finally, the relationship comes to
an abrupt end. In the process, it represents a greater awakening for Stephen, through Barbara.
The readers are introduced to Keith as a cold and possibly, egoistic, person as he [stands]
framed in the darkness of the house beyond (Frayn, 2002). This signifies inferiority in the
friendship, as Stephen appears to be conscious of his appearance only when he faces Keith, trying
as hard as he can to please his friend; as if Keith is more superior than Stephen. The unbalanced
relationship is further elaborated by Stephens non-existent presence in Keiths home and
Stephens ludicrous admiration for Keith: he accepts everything Keith says without a doubt. This
can be explained by the social difference between both families: Keith attends the right local
preparatory school (Frayn, 2002) and wears the right (Frayn, 2002) colours, while Stephen goes
to the wrong (Frayn, 2002) school, where he wears the wrong (Frayn, 2002) colours. Although
Stephen may seem to the readers as silly and immature as any ordinary child, he is conscious of
their social distinction reflected on their relationship. The fact that [Keith is] the officer corps[and
Stephen is] the Other Ranksand grateful to be so (Frayn, 2002) clearly implies the difference in
their social status. In this stage, Keith is evidently the dominant onethe leader, whilst Stephen is
the subservientthe led. This is seen through several events where Stephen knows that Keith has
made a spelling mistake, but does not point it out, conceivably fearing Keiths authority. Here, it is
easily imagined that Keith is Stephens only friend, and that Stephen is acutely awareof [his]
incomprehensible good fortune in being Keiths friend (Frayn, 2002) . We can then surmise, that
Stephen and Keith are suitably satisfied with their role in this relationship, which consecutively,
prompts its durability.
Stephens unacknowledged feelings motivate him to provide Keith with subtle suggestions
that mostly get rejected by Keith throughout their interaction. The way he revels in his discovery of
Keiths mum going into the tunnel is enough evidence of his lack of approval by the society. In fact,
Stephen is proud of himself to such an extent that he musters sufficient courage to offer
suggestions in support of his original insight (Frayn, 2002). However, Keith acts as if he still has
everything under control by going in front of Stephen, leading the way, trying to retain his
supremacy over their friendship; maintaining an attitude of judicious caution about [Stephens]
proposals, to remind [Stephen] that [Keith is] still leader of this expedition (Frayn, 2002). This
portrays a feeling of insecurity in their friendship.
At this point, the emergence of Barbara in the secret hideout when Stephen is alone
symbolises a new emotional stimulation in Stephen. Stephen realises for the very first time, that
though he initially labels Barbaras comments about Keith as her being spiteful as usual, he soon
concedes to a tinge of evocative memory, the undeniable truth that [he] can feel the wordstaking
hold somewhere inside [him] like germs (Frayn, 2002). He is tempted to disclose the top secret he
has been trying hard to conceal, which indirectly indicates the burden he is forced to carry in this
friendship, and once again, his desperate desire of gaining approval from others, despite the
solemn oath that he is about to break.

It is interesting, therefore, to note that Stephen, as a growing pre-teen, is naturally keen on

indulging again in the sensation of pride that has overwhelmed him not so long ago. Thus, the idea
of him going into the tunnel alone at night strikes the readers as a sign of Stephen declaring to the
world that he is not a weakling. Yet, Keiths caustic remarks is believed to have dented Stephens
ego when the whole valorous expedition turns out to be a disappointing, old sock. The contrast of
language used: Keith demands (Frayn, 2002) while Stephen suggests humbly (Frayn, 2002),
adds to the emphasis on their one-sided relationship. The self-abasement and embarrassment that
leads to his breakdown evoke a sense of retaliation in Stephen; he discerns a sheer unfairness of
[Keiths] accusation that undermines [him] (Frayn, 2002), but is too humiliated to fight back. Later,
as Stephen conveys a triumphant vindication (Frayn, 2002) when he realises that Keith is equally
a little baby (Frayn, 2002) as he is, the readers grasp a trace of Stephen being more frank and
bold to identify his own feelings, resembling a hint of psychological maturity. And for once, Keith
does not object when Stephen leads the team to make the old man in the Lanes more frightened,
even following along. This event implies Stephens success in earning a little more balance in their
relationship.
As the plot thickens, Stephen, though unconsciously, allows Barbara to gradually takeover
the special space in his heart that is originally reserved for Keith. Jealousy and suspicion start to
arise in his mind with the help of Barbaras sceptical criticisms. These negative emotions
concomitantly tear the two friends apart. Moreover, smoking and kissing, which are thought to be
grown-up through a childs viewpoint, arouse Stephens attitudes on adulthood and sexuality,
likewise imparting new evidence and theories to Stephen; ones that he has never considered,
making him see all kinds of things [he] never saw before (Frayn, 2002) and giving him a wider
perspective towards the whole mystery.
As a consequence of Stephen giving way to Barbaras taunting, the slit on Stephens throat
which Keith is responsible for, brutally marks the end of their friendship. Theres nothing more to
sayHe lost his nerve a fraction of a second before I lost mine. The world has changed yet again.
And again, I think for ever (Frayn, 2002). The violence that Keith cannot restrain any longer
induces real fear in Stephen. And Keith too, may have been engulfed in guilt, perhaps even startled
by the savagery ingrained in him.
Works Cited
Frayn, Michael. Spies. London: Faber, 2002.