Stephen´s violent outburst at the end of chapter 6

“You cannot cheat with the law of conservation of violence: all violence is paid for, and for example, the structural violence exerted by the financial markets, in the form of layoffs, loss of security, etc., is matched sooner or later in the form of suicides, crime and delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism, a whole host of minor and major everyday acts of violence.” P Bourdieu (1998)

In Bourdieu's view, a violent act sets in motion a chain of violence: someone who has suffered some sort of oppression  will later commit new acts of violence. The conception of the French sociologist is useful to explain  Keith´s violent outburst in chapters 6.

In chapter 6, when Stephen and Keith realise that there is somebody hiding in an underground tunnel under a piece of corrugated iron at the end of the Lanes, Stephen takes a metal bar and starts hitting the man´s makeshift roof with a self-assured violence that is unusual in him: “We rain blows down until the iron begins to dent”.  For the first time, he takes the lead.

If we think of Stephen's behaviour in terms of Bourdieu´s theory, we may say that his sudden eruption may be explained by his pent-up anger for always feeling in an inferior position.    

At school, he was constantly bullied by his classmates. Besides, he is constantly manipulated by other characters whom he considers superior in different ways (Barbara, Keith, Mrs Haywards.) Moreover, we may say he is consistently violent with himself, not accepting his personality, bringing himself down and criticizing his own actions. Finally, he also suffers some structural violence for his social position in the Close. He feels that his family doesn't quite fit with the rest of the families in the Close, and that they  will never fit. He also seems ashamed of the state his house was in when he lived there, ranting about the bald lawn his father never gave importance to, or the entrance to the house itself.

At the end of the Lanes, at last, he finds somebody who is at the lowest level of the social scale, even lower than himself:

We´ve come on a journey from the highest to the lowest- from the silver framed heroes on the altars in the Hayward`s house ; through the descending social gradation of the Close, from the Berrills and the Geests to us; from us to the Pinchers; on down through the squalors of the Cottages and their wretched occupants; and then reached even lower, to an old derelict taking refuge under a sheet of corrugated iron in a stinking elder bush, without even a  dog to speak up for him. Without even a privet to go to the lavatory in.

For the first time, Stephen feels superior to somebody: “He (the man under the corrugated iron) is scared. Scared of Keith, scared of me. He's that low in the table of human precedence”.  This new feeling empowers Stephen: he becomes confident enough to release the rage he has been accumulating as he had to suffer so many acts of violence. But his pent-up anger comes out only to reproduce and continue the chain of violence he has formerly been a victim of.

The Wheatleys: appearance and reality

At the beginning of the book, when Stephen introduces Keith´s family, it is clear that he regrets having been born a Wheatley and would have liked to be a Hayward instead. Keith´s parents have a glamour his own parents don't seem to have: “I think I feel a brief pang of admiring jealousy for yet another demonstration of his unending good fortune. A father in the Secret Service and a mother who´s a German spy- when the rest of us can´t muster even one parent of interest!” As for her own mother, Stephen believes “There's something so hopelessly ordinary about her that it's difficult to take account of her existence.” As regards his father, he considers Mr Wheatley´s job was “too dull to describe”, and that his father´s appearance is as “unsatisfactory” as his own. Besides, his father uses words which are “embarrassingly private” as nobody else in the Close uses them. Stephen seems to envy even the way in which Mr Hayward punishes Keith, as he comments about his own father: “ (...) the worst punishment he could contrive was a generalised swipe at their heads, which they effortlessly ducked.”

The tittle of the novel

  The title of the novel  may describe different characters. The most important spies in the story are Keith and Stephen. However, the curious thing is that they become spies because they  believe Keith´s mother is a German spy. So they spy on a spy! They start observing all her moves and following her around. They believe Mrs Haywards may be spying on neighbours in the Close and passing information to the Germans.
At the end of the story, we discover that Mrs Haywards is not a spy at all and that she behaved suspiciously due to the fact that she was having an affair with Uncle Peter, who had deserted from war and was hidden at the Barns. We also found out that the real spy in the Close was the character we least suspected from: Stephen´s father. He was a German Jew who was helping the British side with his knowledge of the German optical industry.
   

Keith and Stephen´s relationship in chapter 6

In chapter 6, we notice Stephen gets a new awareness of the unfairness of the criticism and contempt he suffers from Keith.

 At the beginning of the chapter, we are reminded of all the secrets  Stephen is hiding from Keith : the fact that his mother told him to stop spying on her or that Barbara Berrill visited their hideout.  But, in spite of this, we see that Stephen remains completely faithful to his friend, and is determined to please him. He bravely goes out in the middle of the night to look for a piece of evidence that may prove his friend's hypothesis. Stephen explains he does this just to prove his allegiance and his value to his friend.: “One single heroic deed to lay at Keith´s feet in the morning” Moreover, when his parents question him about his night excursion to the other side of the tunnel, the only questions he answers are those which involve protecting his friend.

Stephen´s inarticulacy

In spite of his vivid imagination and the rich workings of his mind, Stephen seems to become inarticulate  when he has to interact with most of the other characters in the book.

Stephen´s difficulty with expression can be clearly seen when Mrs Hayward comes to Braemar to talk to him in chapter 5 .

What information do Barbara Berril and Mrs Hayward provide as regards Keith's personality?

  In chapter 5, both Barbara Berrill and Mrs Hayward provide some new information as regards Keith, which throws light on his character. Up to this point, we have only learnt about him from Stephen's point of view, and according to him, Keith has a very strong personality that made him the leader of all their conjunct projects. Keith admired him blindly and  felt extremely grateful to be his only friend.  However, what the female characters comment on Keith  give us a new insight on his character.

On the one hand, Barbara Berrill says nobody likes Keith because he is very bossy and arrogant. The reason  nobody visits Keith is because he doesn't have any friends and that’s why Stephen is so welcomed at Keith's house. Therefore, we understand Stephen's gratefulness just stems from his sense of inferiority, because he shouldn´t be grateful to have to suffer Keith´s haughtiness. On the other hand, Mrs. Hayward confirms what Barbara commented about Keith:` “It's such fun for Keith,” she says “ finding a real friend, because it does get a bit lonely sometimes if you don’t have any brothers or sisters, and he doesn’t make friends easily.”´ However, her next statement about Keith astonishes Stephen completely: “But Keith’s easily led, as I’m sure you realise”. In Stephen's view, Keith is always “the instigator and commander of every enterprise”. Having a different perspective make us wonder if Stephen may have played a more active role in their adventures than the one he is convinced he has. The question arises:  What did Mrs Hayward observe and know about her son that made her get the idea that he was influenced by Stephen? Could it be that even though Keith suggests the ideas for their projects, Stephen is the one who gets carried away by them and the one who keeps them going? Could Stephen´s role be more important than what he himself realises?

In conclusion, the female character´s comments on Keith confirm the unreliability of the narrator, and make us question his perspective on the roles they played in their relationship.

Keith and Stephen’s Relationship

All along Chapter 3, there are many sentences that suggest that Stephen is convinced of Keith’s total superiority and that he accepts it blindly, disregarding any evidence that points to the contrary. His low self-esteem and his sense of inferiority can account for this conviction.

The narrator uses a clear metaphor to describe Keith and Stephen´s asymmetrical relationship: Keith is the “hero” whereas Stephen  is just his “sword bearer”. Therefore, Stephen`s role is limited to follow, help and obey his friend´s orders.  At times, Stephen´s subordination is shown in the way he copies his friend's words:  “‘Nothing´ says Keith. ‘Nothing’ I confirm.” But mostly, Stephen´s voice seems to be annihilated by Keith´s, as the following quotations illustrate: “One of my tasks as his sword-bearer, though, is to prompt his imagination by offering useless suggestions.” “If theories involving secret passages, rockets, time travel, and the like are to carry conviction, they have to be uttered in his voice, not mine.” Moreover, Keith seems to have the power not only to silence Stephen but also to govern his behaviour and thoughts: “(…) I humbly wait for Keith to announce what we’re to think and what we’re to do”.Evidently, their relationship seems to be more an autocracy than a democracy.

Stephen´s admiration for Keith goes so far as to speak of him as a deity: “(...) he is more than a protagonist in the events we are living through- (...) he is in some mysterious way their creator.” Like God´s in the Book of Genesis, Keith´s words have creating power: “In each case he uttered the words, and the words became so. He told the story and the story came to life” The six words “my mother is a German spy” generated a new world for the children, as well as the story of the novel. Stephen does not possess this same power. When he says his father is also a German spy, the only reaction Keith has is a faint movement of his lips in  “a slight dismissive amusement”

If Keith is a God, Stephen is his most faithful acolyte. Not only does Stephen praise Keith all the time in these chapters, but he even silences any doubt he may have about the legitimacy of his friend's  leadership: “I have private reservations about the spelling but keep them to myself, as I do any of the other small occasional reservations I have about his authority.” His low self-esteem and his inferiority complex are the two conditions for this admiration not to be shaken by any conflicting evidence. If Keith misspells a word, Stephen dismisses his doubts, and blindly accepts Keith´s spelling. In chapter 5, he is even ready to own up to his friend's mistakes as if they were his own: “I want to lie and say it was me to spare Keith´s shame (...)”.

Will Stephen´s subservience continue all along the book? Well, that is the question we will have to answer as we go on reading.

Keith's Spelling

Keith had a lot of spelling mistakes in comparison with Stephen. Although Keith went to the "right" school and Stephen to the "wrong one", Keith's spelling was far from perfect.

There are many examples of these mistakes in chapter 3. When Keith and Stephen found the exercise book that they were going to use to record their investigations, Keith wrote on its cover: "LOGBOOK -SECRIT" meaning secret. One of the first entries in that logbook was  Keith's mother conversation with Mr. Hucknall, the butcher: "1053 hrs. Phones. Asks for 8087. Mr. Hucknall. 3 muten chops. Not to fat", meaning "mutton" and "too" Another example of Keith's spelling mistakes was when he wrote "Privet" on a tile at the entrance of the passageway. He didn't want to refer to the plant, what he really meant was "private".

These mistakes clearly show that Keith is not superior to Stephen in all aspects, as Stephen believes, As we have said in other posts, that is Stephen´s opinion, but he is not a reliable narrator as -among other reasons- his point of view is tainted by his low self-esteem. 

Stephen knew the spelling of these words was wrong but he preferred to keep it to himself because he felt inferior. He was used to being "the led" and to accepting anything Keith said. He never dared to question the leader. Keith is like a god to Stephen and he admires him and he thinks that whatever he does is right and should be humbly accepted.

Picture of Stephen

Click here to see Victoria Milin´s picture of Stephen

Tags by: Miguel Garcia Haiyashi

Stephen's and Keith's bedrooms

The story is narrated by Stephen, who is always comparing  Keith with himself. One of the comparisons he makes in chapter 2 focuses on their rooms, and shows a lot about their characters.

As it happens with the rest of the house,  Stephen´s description of Keith´s playroom focuses on its luxury and perfection. Keith´s playroom is neat, organized and impeccable. Besides, as he is an only child, he has  his toys all for himself: "All Keith's toys are his own, neatly ranged in drawers and cupboards, often in the boxes they came in" There is a great variety of expensive and elaborated toys and  all of them are in working conditions. Stephen´s admiration is clear all along the description.

In contrast,  Stephen doesn´t have a playroom. He has to play in his bedroom, which he shares with his brother Geoff. Therefore his space is smaller than Keith´s. His toys are all broken, and his toy cupboard is a mess. Besides, the room seems untidy, disorganised and neglected. All over the place there is "a hopeless tangle of string and plasticine and electric cord and forgotten socks and dust, of old cardboard boxes of mouldering butterflies and broken birds´eggs left over from abandoned projects in the past". The description is very negative and shows how disagreeable and shameful his room is for him in comparison to Keith´s.

In conclusion, these two rooms reflect the personality and family background of each character. Keith is methodical and structured, probably because of the influence of his father. His toys show the comfortable economic position of his family as well. Instead, Stephen´s possessions are damaged and dirty. His room is messy, and proves that neatness and looks are not his family's main concern. Besides, Stephen´s low self-esteem makes him look up on Keith and his family, whom he considers superior in all aspects, and the view he has of his friend's room is no exception to this. In Stephen´s opinion, Keith´s room is admirable, while his own is just humiliating.

Is the narrator reliable?

Even though we haven't got enough information yet to answer this question fully, we've noticed a few clues and hints in chapter 2 that point towards a conclusion. The whole story is told from Stephen's point of view, so we can agree from the very beginning that it's told in first person. This alone already tells us a little bit about the narrator's reliability. No story narrated in the first person can be completely objective, and so  there will always be something that is based on the narrator's point of view. And this of course happens with Stephen: he is constantly giving his opinion on what's going on in the story, often comparing his perspective as a kid and his perspective as a grown up.

There are many ways in which the story makes us doubt about the narrator's reliability. One of them are the sweeping generalisations Stephen makes when  he introduces Keith Hayward in chapter 2. One of the generalisations we've found so far is that he describes Keith as being absolutely perfect, whereas he considers himself  the worst of the worst when compared to his friend.  Even though it may seem Keith is in a much better economic situation than Stephen, it is obvious that he can't be superior to Stephen in all aspects. However, Stephen makes it look as if he were superior to him from all points of view. He talks about Keith's life as if everything is perfect. For example, Stephen refers to the colours of Keith´s school as an epitome of excellence:  "Yellow and black are the colors of the right local preparatory school..." but he talks about the colours of his own school as if they were some sort of disgrace compared to Keith's: "Green and black are the colors of the wrong school..." To us, he is emphasizing the words 'right' and 'wrong' as he uses them again to make the following  controversial deductions and sweeping generalizations: “Cycling is plainly the right way to go to school; the bus which Stephen catches each day at the cracked concrete bus stop on the main road is plainly the wrong way. Green is the right colour for a bicycle as it's the wrong one for a belt or a bus” "...everything about him was yellow and black; everything about me was plainly green and black." This shows he thinks everything (not just social class) in Keith's life is great and everything in his life is miserable. Besides, not matter what Keith does, it is always correct but whatever Stephen does is always incorrect. This is evidently  his point of view. This is just what he thinks, and we doubt if these ideas are not just an indicator of an inferiority complex.

He also uses extremely hyperbolic descriptions to talk about the Haywards. As these descriptions are highly exaggerated, we can't say that they are 100% reliable. From Stephen´s perspective, “the Haywards were impeccable”. Everything related to them is perfect. The text is full of positive adjectives describing how neat and special their home and all their possessions are.  Keith´s playroom is an example of a tidiness and a carefulness which is rarely found in children his age: "All of Keith's toys are his own, neatly ranged in drawers and cupboards, often in the same boxes they came in." Even their chicken coop is described in that way: “Even the chickens at the bottom of their garden lived irreproachably elegant lives”.All his descriptions of the Haywards  are clearly hyperbolic, but it is only because that is the way he sees them.. And, once more, this subjectivity takes away from the credibility of the narrator.

Finally, one of the reasons we doubt about whether the narrator is reliable or not, is Stephen's sense of inferiority. He is so certain of his unworthiness that he cannot explain the fact that the Haywards allowed him to play with their only son: “ What puzzles me now as I look back on it is that Keith´s parents had ever allowed their son to build underground tunnels and overhead cable cars to Stephen´s house, (...) to invite him to play (…)“” I was acutely aware, even then, of my incomprehensible good fortune in being Keith´s friend.” Moreover, the narrator has always seemed to feel inferior to others he has  had a close relation with, no matter who they are. When he talks about Keith he makes it clear that, for some reason, he has always seemed to be the dominated individual in a relationship: "I see now that he was only the first in a whole series of dominant figures in my life whose disciple I became." This is important because the fact that he feels inferior to others means that he is used to admiring and looking up to everyone else, thus he is not giving an objective point of view. As he's always worshiping the person he is relating with, his opinions stem from this admiration.

In conclusion, these clues and hints given so far in the story make us doubt about the reliability of the narrator. Up to this point, we have agreed on saying that the narrator (Stephen) is unreliable due to all these reasons: his constant sweeping generalisations, his hyperbolic descriptions when talking about Keith and his family and his own sense of inferiority.

How is Stephen Wheatley introduced? (Essay writing)

Tips to write a good text-based essay

A text-based question  is different from other kinds of questions in the exam, because it always refers to just one passage of the novel, which should be analysed in detail. In other questions, you may be asked about an aspect of the whole book, and you may need to refer to different passages, but in a text-based question you need to focus just on the given extract.

1)  Read the question carefully and make sure you understand all aspects of it. (Remember you can´t answer just one part of it and leave the rest aside)

Example:Text-based question

 In this question,  you have to 1) describe
                                                2) explore

To describe, you may say that grey is the colour that seems to characterise Stephen. But you also need to "explore" this information, so that means that, for example, you will have to consider the connotations of this colour.

Besides the word "how" in this question suggests that you will need to say something about the way in which language is used in this description.

2) Read the passage and start thinking of the question. Mark everything that may help you answer it.

3) Start planning what you´ll say and how you will organise your ideas.

4) Try to think of a good thesis statement that may help you organise your thoughts. The thesis statement is the sentence that summarises the main point of your essay.  For this passage, we thought of three possible thesis statements:

a) When the old narrator introduces the young Stephen, he tries to detach himself from his childhood version as much as possible, because he doesn't seem to recognize himself in the boy
b) The narrator uses sensory images to introduce the young Stephen to make him come alive from the recesses of his memory.
c) The narrator introduces the young Stephen in relation to his surroundings (home and neighbours) to show how different he is from the other children in the Close.

You have to include the thesis statement in the introduction, and let it govern your whole essay. Everything you say needs to develop and prove your thesis statement.

Here you can read two essays that use the first thesis statement (a):
Martina´s essay
Mia´s essay
(These essays were written by two Senior IV students, who are re-reading the book this year.)

Stephen´s and Keith´s houses in chapter 2

Click here to see a chart comparing Stephen´s and Keith´s houses.