In Toby Miller’s book Spyscreen, he includes an entire chapter on the The 39 Steps and examines how the portrayal of Richard Hannay reflects on the position of the film within the genre of spy fiction in the late 1930s.  His analysis not only sheds light on the importance of the character for the film’s release at the time, but also  examines the films attention to everyday life and normality in contrast to many other spy works of the time.

Toby Miller asserts that The 39 Steps is, relative to other spy film works of the time, a “conservative text” due to both it’s  “faith in the ‘talented amateur’ and it’s abhorrence of the crowd” while still portraying very standard, everyday life. This is notable, he argues, at a time when most spy films were centred on the revelation of a secretive, hidden world of espionage. For Hitchcock to portray an everyman is notably different from the more extreme spy films of the era and this makes it, Miller argues, “not a case of spy fiction allegorizing or adequating to the real, but of contributing to it.” In other words, Hitchcock’s choice does not seek to escape any sense of reality, but rather revels in the capability of the everyman working within the confines of everyday life.

Toby Miller, like many critics of Hitchcock’s work, appreciates the role of the everyman in his spy films. Richard Hannay works within the confines of his own abilities and the resources of everyday life to rise to complete a task far above what could be expected of him. This portrayal is a reflection of Hitchcock’s conservative approach to spy films and flaunts the less realistic, overly dramatic spy film options of the time.