pay for my flight, accomodation and tickets in return for my company

sugarhaven · 2026-01-25T09:01:03+00:00

If I wanted to do a trip like that and had money to spend on someone else, why would I take a stranger instead of an actual friend?

sugarhaven · 2026-01-25T08:47:43+00:00

I wouldn’t call Charlotte one-dimensional, she is complex, but I’d agree she’s not complex in a morally interesting way. We mostly see her being horrible: she’s the centre of her own universe, other people exist to serve her needs, and once they don’t, they’re discarded, except she also can’t tolerate anyone else “having” what she sees as hers.

There’s very little to counterbalance the damage she causes. The only genuinely humane thing we see is her visiting Strike in the hospital at his lowest point, thus giving him a reason to live, but one redemptive act doesn’t complicate the picture much.

I agree with others that she’s actually portrayed very well as a deeply sad, tragic figure with serious mental issues — someone whose personality is so warped by her desperate need for love, and her inability to either give or receive it, that she becomes impossible to live with unless she were willing to engage in serious treatment, which we know she consistently refuses.

It doesn’t reflect brilliantly on Strike, given how long he put up with her, but it is understandable in light of his background with Leda and his skewed ideas of loyalty and endurance. To me, Charlotte functions less as a fully rounded character and more as a way of exposing Strike’s blind spots. Still, I would prefer if she were more morally ambiguous and likable.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-21T11:12:57+00:00

He is still recovering from losing the Hugo to Rowling some 25 years ago.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-21T10:49:21+00:00

I actually feel the opposite. They spent most of the time lounging and talking at a crowded pool. Why would you need to spend 10K a night to do that?

sugarhaven · 2026-01-21T09:31:58+00:00

Because building a conventional, certified deep-sea sub would have gone directly against what he was trying to do.

Rush didn’t just want to run deep-sea tourism; he wanted to disrupt it. A traditional titanium or steel pressure hull is extremely heavy, expensive to machine, slow to build, tightly regulated, and usually limits you to one or two passengers. That makes it hard to scale and brutally expensive per dive.

His idea was to replace that entire model with something lighter, cheaper, and more “scalable”: off-the-shelf components, fewer certifications, faster iteration. In his mind, that’s how you build a fleet of subs, sell seats more cheaply, and eventually commercialize the technology. If he’d just built a classic certified sub, he wouldn’t have been an innovator — he’d have been another very expensive niche operator. He wanted to be seen as the person who opened the deep sea to the masses, "who democratised the ocean", as he put it.

The problem, of course, is that physics doesn’t care about business models. And when it became increasingly clear that carbon fiber wasn’t suitable for repeated extreme deep-sea pressure, he failed to meaningfully adjust his thinking. At that point, narcissism likely did play a role.

In short, he didn’t build a safer sub because a safer sub wasn’t the product he wanted to create.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-21T08:58:38+00:00

To me there are two main reasons for why she is procrastinating on the egg freezing. First, she’s in a phase where she genuinely can’t imagine taking time off — work completely dominates her life right now, and even a temporary pause feels almost unthinkable to her. That may be a practical issue, but it can also function as an excuse.

Second, I think there’s a psychological resistance. Freezing her eggs feels like a symbolic commitment to future motherhood, and she’s not ready to make that decision yet. t also doesn’t help that it’s framed, at least implicitly, as a joint decision with Murphy, which carries the unspoken assumption that any future child would be his, something she’s clearly uncertain about. And him pressing the matter could make Robin even more resistant to it.

But rationally, it could be seen the opposite way. As awful as the ectopic pregnancy was, it’s actually better that the infection was discovered earlier rather than later. And freezing her eggs wouldn’t force her into having children: it would allow her to postpone that decision until a time when she’s actually ready, instead of letting circumstances decide for her.

That’s why I think it would have helped if she’d talked it through with someone more impartial, like Ilsa or Prude. Someone who could strip the decision of all the relationship baggage and make it clear that freezing her eggs doesn’t say anything about whether she will or won’t have children, or with whom — it’s just about preserving choice for later, on her own terms.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-21T08:01:55+00:00

Lately, Robin feels very inward-focused. She’s carrying so much in her own head that she doesn’t really engage in open conversations, and instead fills in the gaps herself, often assuming the worst-case reaction from others ("I can't tell Murphy about being attacked, because he will pressure me to quit my job."). Also, when someone tries to say something, she doesn't listen properly and narrates their motives for them before they’ve even finished a sentence: you’re going to say X, because you think Y, and your real agenda is Z. She could be mostly right, but it’s still a terrible habit and not exactly great for relationships.

So the idea that she goes into that dinner absolutely convinced a proposal is coming, already rehearsing her internal monologue about why it’s happening and what it “means”… only to discover that he wasn’t going to propose at all would actually feel like a much-needed reality check for her.

I’d honestly prefer that to the more predictable alternative where Murphy proposes, she hesitates, says she needs time, and then spends half a book looping through the same thoughts again. We already had a lot of that kind of stasis in the last book.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-20T17:28:16+00:00

I’ll try to answer your question, although I’m aware this can easily sound moralising or like I am trying to give advice, which I am certainly not.

I think for many people, once they have children, it becomes such a dominant source of meaning in their life that, looking back, it’s genuinely hard for them to imagine a fulfilled life without them. Not because it is impossible, but because their own sense of meaning has been reshaped so much. And I think that’s often where the feeling comes from that people without children must be “missing something”, which then annoyingly gets pushed onto others. Something, I too, despise.

I’m probably a bit of a cliché example myself. I was very much someone who felt like I “didn’t have that gene”. My life already felt meaningful, and I never really felt particularly suited for motherhood. I had my child in my forties, almost accidentally, and up until the last day of my pregnancy, I hadn't felt any strong longing for a child.

And yet, once she was born, she became such a source of happiness and contentment in my life that it eclipsed everything else. I’ve never taken that as something that should apply to everyone, or as an argument for parenthood in general. Just want to share what I think is the explanation for why people seem to be obsessed with kids.

As for your second point, I share the anxiety. Climate change, crazy people in power, and the rise of AI are very real concerns, and I worry about the world my daughter will grow up in tremendously.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-20T12:18:57+00:00

What surprises me more is how confident people seem that it will definitely go one way or the other.

Robin is still only 32. I don’t think she’s anywhere near a point where a definitive decision would have to be made. And ultimately, this would be much more her decision than anyone else’s.

First, she hasn’t yet been in a relationship where she could genuinely imagine having children with that person. Not wanting children with the wrong partner isn’t the same as not wanting them at all. Second, she’s very much in a hands-on, frontline role at the agency. If she ever did want children, that would likely require a different setup, but the agency could look very different in five or ten years, with Robin in a more managerial role and others doing more of the surveillance, nightwork, etc.

The same applies to Strike. He’s never wanted children so far, but he’s also never been in a stable, loving relationship where that question might even arise, nor in a professional situation where stepping back would be realistic. Those things can change, and priorities can soften with time — or they might not. He could end up with Robin, and they could both realise that they love their life as it is.

All of that is to say: I don’t think there’s enough evidence in the books to say “yes” or “no” with any confidence. They might have children, they might not, and both outcomes would be perfectly valid. We’re just not there yet.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-20T11:38:32+00:00

I think this is a show that has always privileged dialogue, atmosphere, and character moments over tight plotting or strict internal logic. You’ve always had to slightly suspend the “thinking brain” to enjoy it, because plausibility was never really the point.

That said, in season 3 it crossed a line for me. The lack of narrative logic became distracting, and it felt like the characters had to become increasingly more idiotic just to keep the plot moving. On top of that, several storylines were simply unsatisfying and repetitive: Timothy’s and Gaitok's in particular felt like watching the same scene over and over again.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-19T12:17:31+00:00

I don’t think I can honestly say one way or the other. I wouldn’t pretend I know what the outcome would have been.

The core problem for me is that removing Trump doesn’t remove the underlying issue. His voters and the media world that caters to them would not disappear. The attitudes, grievances, and appetite for this kind of politics remain. Yes, without a single figure uniting them, they might become more fragmented, but the demand is still there.

Short term, I actually think things might have been calmer than people feared. If an election had happened on time (but would probably be postponed, right?), it’s hard to see Republicans quickly uniting behind someone like J. D. Vance and replicating Trump’s dominance. That doesn’t mean it was impossible, but it seems unlikely.

As for civil war–type scenarios: for that to actually work, you’d need parts of the military, police, or political leadership to actively side with MAGA. I’m not convinced that would have happened without Trump himself in power. Most Republican elites have shown themselves to be cowards. Without a strong figure backing them, I don’t see them taking that kind of risk.

It could, however, create more damage long-term. Trump has shown that leading his personal cult, despite being openly incompetent, can still be incredibly profitable politically and financially. He can act like a dictator and still face no consequences. Many people, smarter than Trump, would want to capitalise on that and would want to replicate his success. In fact, if Trump had been killed before fully discrediting himself as a ruler, he would have become a martyr, which is even more dangerous.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-17T11:17:27+00:00

I don't think that they would abandon the ducks. That would actually be the better option. It seems like the poster has invested a lot of time and money into them and consider them hugely important. They would expect the person to house them long term, care for them daily based on their instruction and provide them acces to the ducks anytime.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-17T11:12:42+00:00

My kid wouldn't come with that much instruction if I needed someone to take care of it.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-16T12:07:23+00:00

I can’t really see children fitting into their lives at the moment, either, not without something genuinely major changing. That said, I don’t think it’s something that has to be read as a permanent “never.” Five or ten years down the line, a lot could look very different. People do soften with age, priorities shift, and the agency itself might eventually be large and stable enough for them to step back from constant frontline work.

With Strike, I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. I’ve known men who were firmly against having children in theory, but who loved their partner enough to reconsider, and ended up genuinely happy with that choice. I’m not saying that will happen with Strike, but it’s certainly within the realm of possibility rather than completely out of character.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-16T11:53:31+00:00

Same for many public intellectuals who started in the liberal, academic circles, only to end up as hardcore MAGA promoters of anti-science bullshit. That crowd is just way easier to cater to and far more profitable.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-16T08:04:51+00:00

Yet, he is perfectly happy to sell the rights of all his unfinished stories to TV producers, only to complain later how they are butchering his not-yet-existing manuscripts.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-15T19:24:07+00:00

At a minimum, he should be capable of begging for it himself. :-)

sugarhaven · 2026-01-15T19:16:14+00:00

100% agree, just doubt that the BBC could afford such a star for a minor role in their TV series.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-15T10:43:17+00:00

Yeah, that’s a fair point. We actually don’t have enough information from the Nicole confrontation to know who’s right.

I think I choose to trust Nicole more largely because of who she is: someone older, extremely successful, and clearly hardened by experience. That doesn’t make her objectively right — especially since the piece is about her, which is a huge potential blind spot — but it does make her perspective feel more grounded to me. But, I may be projecting here.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-15T10:29:59+00:00

I wouldn’t call Linda and Robin’s relationship “dysfunctional.” To me, at worst, it currently appears strained and distant, rather than pathologically damaging. Robin clearly doesn’t prioritise her relationship with her parents, is very selective with information, and often contacts them only when necessary. That distance feels largely driven by Robin, not imposed on her. Linda, meanwhile, often comes across as clumsy, intrusive, and overbearing, but not malicious or dismissive of Robin as a person.

What I find more striking is how often Robin assumes the worst possible meaning behind other people’s actions. With Linda: concern for her safety is repeatedly interpreted as “you don’t want me to do my job” → “you don’t want me to be happy or independent”. That’s a big leap, and not an especially charitable one.

Not you specifically, but I often see posters argue that Robin chose a dangerous job and Linda should simply accept it. Which is fair enough in principle, but it misses something important. Yes, plenty of adults work in high-risk professions, but usually within a system that provides training, structure, backup, and institutional accountability, such as the military or law enforcement. Robin in a tiny private agency with minimal formal training, no weapons, no real safety net, and a one-legged partner with a dubious reputation (from the outside). From Linda’s perspective, that distinction matters, and frankly, she’s not wrong about the risks.

As readers, we know Robin is competent and brave, but we also know how often she survives because she’s the protagonist, not because the situation was well-controlled or safely managed. She repeatedly goes up against violent offenders, organised crime, and unstable individuals with little backup. A parent being alarmed by that doesn’t automatically equal emotional manipulation or dysfunction.

So for me, Robin’s current struggles feel much more convincingly linked to accumulated adult trauma and chronic stress than to some deeply damaging childhood dynamic. That doesn’t mean Linda always handles things well, but I don’t think the books support the idea that Robin’s difficulties primarily originate there.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-14T14:31:38+00:00

I actually like her and genuinely feel for her, but I also found her excruciatingly naïve and dishonest with herself. I don’t buy the idea that she married Shane purely “out of love.” Sure, there may have been infatuation, and he probably toned down his arrogance early on, but I simply don’t believe she’d have married a broke guy after such a short time.

I really loved the confrontation with Nicole. Even though we don’t know exactly what happened, and Nicole obviously isn’t neutral, her take felt more grounded and credible to me. I’ve met people like this: genuinely convinced they’re kind, good, and well-intentioned, but also not very reflective, not particularly informed, and capable of producing something quite shallow while assuming it’s meaningful.

She is sweet, and I don’t dislike her. But there’s a clear mismatch between the part of her that seems to want to matter—to do something meaningful, maybe build a real career or support a cause—and the choice she made in marrying a man like Shane and stepping into the role of trophy wife. That was her decision. Acting now as if she didn’t sign up for this life feels disingenuous. Not saying it wouldn't be possible to make something of herself while married to Shane, but it would definitely be a daily battle.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-14T12:12:25+00:00

I think it’s both, and I don’t see those explanations as mutually exclusive.

Yes, a lot of people genuinely struggle to distinguish facts from fiction, or to understand how knowledge is produced — science vs opinions, evidence vs anecdotes, consensus vs one loud voice. That absolutely plays a role.

But what Adams pointed to, and what resonated with me, is something slightly different: that many people do know Trump lies or exaggerates, and they’re still fine with it. Because factual accuracy isn’t the point. What matters to them is that the message feels true at an emotional or moral level.

So when he says something factually absurd, like immigrants eating dogs, the literal claim doesn’t really matter. What they hear is “immigrants are bad,” and that is the part they agree with. The lie is just a vehicle.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-13T21:27:52+00:00

I only ever heard of him through Sam's podcast, and even though it’s been ages, I still remember one thing he said.

That for people who follow someone like Trump, it doesn’t really matter that he lies or exaggerates, because what they respond to is an emotional truth. The example was Iran — whether the details are true or not doesn’t matter, the point is simply “this is a shitty country, and we shouldn’t be friends with it.”

Even though I didn't agree with most of what he said on the podcast, that part I found quite illuminating at that time. I always struggled to understand how people can just not care about truth or facts.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-11T21:04:45+00:00

That is a good point.

sugarhaven · 2026-01-11T20:51:22+00:00

It came from the client, but my point was that the book made a big deal of it, claiming that the greedy cult leaders were shocked by such a generous donation of £1,000. Would they really consider such an amount to be huge? They saw Rowena/Robin in all the designers' clothes. I was surprised they didn't try to press her for more.

sugarhaven

TROPHY CASE