In his book Hitchcock: The Murderous Gaze, William Rothman includes a fascinating chapter on The Thirty-nine Steps in which he elucidates the identity of the protagonist Richard Hannay. Rothman argues that Hannay is “exempt from having a self” and this lack of identity enables him to “face death without anguish” as he is free of any responsibility. It is his identity as a wanderer without an identity that gives him the freedom to pursue  the mystery of Annabelle’s death and the concurrent plot.

Rothman argues that Hannay’s trip to Scotland is neither a “spiritual journey or a rite of passage.” He asserts that Hannay would not engage in a struggle for selfhood because “he is exempt from having a self.” From the first time the audience is introduced to Hannay in the theatre, he is marked as a n outsider and “outside the rigid system” by which we judge the other members of Mr. Memory’s audience. This transcendence of the limitations by which other characters hold to and are judged places Hannay in a totally different sphere. Rothman argues that this is a place where Hannay is “not a character.” His lack of identification through comparison with others combined with his easy acquiescence to Annabelle and willingness to help leave no way to clearly identify his character, Rothman argues. He is simply “reacting within a situation in which he is no more the author than we.” Hannay is a wandering force who happens to be drawn into this scenario and has the capability to see it through.

William Rothman’s chapter on The Thirty-nine Steps presents a unique perspective on the character of Richard Hannay. Rothman argues that because he has no explicable identity within the film, Hannay has the freedom to run off at a moments notice and defend the secrets of his country. It is only within this construct that his actions can be explained.

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.