Robin’s interlude with Pez is, for me, the weakest part of the book and possibly the series. Besides being grossly unethical (snogging one of the two remaining principal murder suspects?), it’s also ridiculously implausible and borderline suicidal.
Robin’s still-evident PTSD (she had a panic attack just hours earlier during Hugh Jacks’ phone tirade) conveniently becomes manageable when Pez thrusts his tongue in her mouth without warning and in public. Fears about her wig shifting and being discovered evaporate as Pez grabs the back of her head and kisses her forcefully enough to make their teeth bang together. Being goaded to drink and the possibility of being drugged and assaulted should be a strobing red light. Yet Robin allows her libido and ego to override her normal good judgement and embraces the role of honey trap. She is risking the reputation and perhaps survival of the agency—not to mention her own survival—for a little foreplay . . . and that’s utterly out of character.
I also wonder how JKR, a strong feminist, reconciles the insights that incels and other maladjusted males might take away from Robin’s encounter with Pez (should any ever read IBH).
With echos of Kosh lines, the Pez Pierce playbook for getting into a woman’s pants can be seen as:
—find some socially sanctioned way to expose your junk to potential dates.
—paint a large, graphic, coital mural on your wall; remember, it’s all about the penis and hard core is a great way to calm their reservations!
—skip bathing—pheromones will always override BO.
—when she’s least expecting it—and without romantic prelude—surprise your date with your tongue! This can be extra effective if you distract her with some pretext, like a neck tattoo, that lures her close enough to strike.
—pressure her to drink up—liquor is quicker!
In short, relentless sexual pressure is your friend! Even educated, “hard-to-get” girls on a first date—like Robin—won’t be able to resist.
Finally, since absolutely nothing of value to the investigation was gained during this contrived interlude, its only purpose was shock value—both for the reader and for Strike.
I’ve grown to appreciate IBH more upon a second reading, but this remains a low point.
Albus, I also find this one of my least favorite parts to re-read, and I think you've put your finder on finger on some of the reasons why. This raises a much larger question of what, if any, ethical code PI's are obliged to follow--- which likely depends on whether or not they are licensed. For Strike, clearly sleeping with an interviewee to get information is not acceptable (though, Morris being Morris, he didn't listen) but the fact that he had to "make this clear" suggests not all detectives have such qualms. But, there also seems to be a double standard in place: Strike ultimately accepted Robin snogging the guy, but it sounded like he would have a problem with a male detective doing the same.
Obviously they try to avoid breaking the law, but even then, they've planted bugs, filmed on private property, trespassed, used forged or expired credentials to get in places and impersonated people (including a government minister) on the phone.
And Robin herself has certainly emotionally manipulated other women such as Holly Brockbank and Shifty's PA, using alcohol and lies to get them both to reveal sexual assaults. Something you'd think she, as a rape victim, would be sensitive to.
Granted, some sort of deception is going to be necessary when your job is to ferret out information that others don't want you to know, but I am curious to know if there are any official guidelines governing the practice.
Louise, from a quick glance online, it doesn’t appear that PIs in Britain are legally required to follow any ethical code. There are no licensing requirements, although the governmental Security Industry Authority has regulatory responsibility for PIs and could impose them. It has drafted binding standards but Ministerial approval is needed before they can be implemented. PIs are currently considered to be “self-regulating,” and there are numerous professional associations that trumpet codes of ethics to ensure legal, ethical and “moral” behavior. In fact, these codes are vague, non-specific and toothless, so it seems Strike and Robin operate in a sort of Wild West where they are guided by their personal codes which, as you note, can be pretty fluid.
I’ve noticed many of the examples you listed where Strike and Robin have crossed the line, and would add Strike sleeping with Nina Lascelles to obtain a draft of Bombyx Mori. One of Strike’s more hypocritical moments happens when he is reveling in Mitch Patterson’s arrest in The Running Grave: “Turns out if you’re going to illegally bug an office, best not to do it to a leading barrister,” gloats Strike. Yet, in Lethal White, he framed their patently illegal bugging of Jasper Chiswell’s office as a “gray area.”
As for Strike ultimately accepting Robin’s tryst with Pez, that too, rang false for me. Actually, throughout the series, his degree of jealousy and protectiveness concerning Robin seem to shift to fit the plot. In Career of Evil, he notices Wardle’s interest in Robin and asks the detective about his wife. In Lethal White, he was troubled by the mere realization that other men (Raf) found Robin attractive. By IBH, Strike seems to have gotten over that—after his initial shock at the abbreviated Pez recording—and congratulates Robin for getting . . . what exactly? The interview produced nothing exculpatory for Pez and everything he claimed about others was uncorroborated. Then, in TRG, we’re back to what can only be seen as toxic jealousy. Strike’s angst about Robin and Murphy allows him to rationalize putting her into what proves to be a rape cult to limit her exposure to the detective.
Love these books but they can be a bit whiplash-inducing.
Anyone else found Nutley to be comic relief? I know I did. As for the online chats, tend to skip them in the audio recording, unless I find something useful. Big fan of thrillers, especially the psychological kind that have you do some critical thinking.
Gonna rant a bit.
Robin’s interlude with Pez is, for me, the weakest part of the book and possibly the series. Besides being grossly unethical (snogging one of the two remaining principal murder suspects?), it’s also ridiculously implausible and borderline suicidal.
Robin’s still-evident PTSD (she had a panic attack just hours earlier during Hugh Jacks’ phone tirade) conveniently becomes manageable when Pez thrusts his tongue in her mouth without warning and in public. Fears about her wig shifting and being discovered evaporate as Pez grabs the back of her head and kisses her forcefully enough to make their teeth bang together. Being goaded to drink and the possibility of being drugged and assaulted should be a strobing red light. Yet Robin allows her libido and ego to override her normal good judgement and embraces the role of honey trap. She is risking the reputation and perhaps survival of the agency—not to mention her own survival—for a little foreplay . . . and that’s utterly out of character.
I also wonder how JKR, a strong feminist, reconciles the insights that incels and other maladjusted males might take away from Robin’s encounter with Pez (should any ever read IBH).
With echos of Kosh lines, the Pez Pierce playbook for getting into a woman’s pants can be seen as:
—find some socially sanctioned way to expose your junk to potential dates.
—paint a large, graphic, coital mural on your wall; remember, it’s all about the penis and hard core is a great way to calm their reservations!
—skip bathing—pheromones will always override BO.
—when she’s least expecting it—and without romantic prelude—surprise your date with your tongue! This can be extra effective if you distract her with some pretext, like a neck tattoo, that lures her close enough to strike.
—pressure her to drink up—liquor is quicker!
In short, relentless sexual pressure is your friend! Even educated, “hard-to-get” girls on a first date—like Robin—won’t be able to resist.
Finally, since absolutely nothing of value to the investigation was gained during this contrived interlude, its only purpose was shock value—both for the reader and for Strike.
I’ve grown to appreciate IBH more upon a second reading, but this remains a low point.
Albus, I also find this one of my least favorite parts to re-read, and I think you've put your finder on finger on some of the reasons why. This raises a much larger question of what, if any, ethical code PI's are obliged to follow--- which likely depends on whether or not they are licensed. For Strike, clearly sleeping with an interviewee to get information is not acceptable (though, Morris being Morris, he didn't listen) but the fact that he had to "make this clear" suggests not all detectives have such qualms. But, there also seems to be a double standard in place: Strike ultimately accepted Robin snogging the guy, but it sounded like he would have a problem with a male detective doing the same.
Obviously they try to avoid breaking the law, but even then, they've planted bugs, filmed on private property, trespassed, used forged or expired credentials to get in places and impersonated people (including a government minister) on the phone.
And Robin herself has certainly emotionally manipulated other women such as Holly Brockbank and Shifty's PA, using alcohol and lies to get them both to reveal sexual assaults. Something you'd think she, as a rape victim, would be sensitive to.
Granted, some sort of deception is going to be necessary when your job is to ferret out information that others don't want you to know, but I am curious to know if there are any official guidelines governing the practice.
Louise, from a quick glance online, it doesn’t appear that PIs in Britain are legally required to follow any ethical code. There are no licensing requirements, although the governmental Security Industry Authority has regulatory responsibility for PIs and could impose them. It has drafted binding standards but Ministerial approval is needed before they can be implemented. PIs are currently considered to be “self-regulating,” and there are numerous professional associations that trumpet codes of ethics to ensure legal, ethical and “moral” behavior. In fact, these codes are vague, non-specific and toothless, so it seems Strike and Robin operate in a sort of Wild West where they are guided by their personal codes which, as you note, can be pretty fluid.
I’ve noticed many of the examples you listed where Strike and Robin have crossed the line, and would add Strike sleeping with Nina Lascelles to obtain a draft of Bombyx Mori. One of Strike’s more hypocritical moments happens when he is reveling in Mitch Patterson’s arrest in The Running Grave: “Turns out if you’re going to illegally bug an office, best not to do it to a leading barrister,” gloats Strike. Yet, in Lethal White, he framed their patently illegal bugging of Jasper Chiswell’s office as a “gray area.”
As for Strike ultimately accepting Robin’s tryst with Pez, that too, rang false for me. Actually, throughout the series, his degree of jealousy and protectiveness concerning Robin seem to shift to fit the plot. In Career of Evil, he notices Wardle’s interest in Robin and asks the detective about his wife. In Lethal White, he was troubled by the mere realization that other men (Raf) found Robin attractive. By IBH, Strike seems to have gotten over that—after his initial shock at the abbreviated Pez recording—and congratulates Robin for getting . . . what exactly? The interview produced nothing exculpatory for Pez and everything he claimed about others was uncorroborated. Then, in TRG, we’re back to what can only be seen as toxic jealousy. Strike’s angst about Robin and Murphy allows him to rationalize putting her into what proves to be a rape cult to limit her exposure to the detective.
Love these books but they can be a bit whiplash-inducing.
Sorry, I meant Geraint Winn’s office.
Anyone else found Nutley to be comic relief? I know I did. As for the online chats, tend to skip them in the audio recording, unless I find something useful. Big fan of thrillers, especially the psychological kind that have you do some critical thinking.
Oh yes, he absolutely is, as are Barclay's reactions to him. I love Barclay's wisecracks.
Same. Fan of Barclay
I was actually kinda bummed we didn't get Bram in the TV version, just cuz he's such a good suspect and creepy AF.
They infused all of his creepiness into Nils, and had a pit left over for Wally and Pez.