A review by gemstonejasper
Good Girl, Bad Blood by Holly Jackson

dark mysterious reflective medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.0

I read this at the same time as my boss. We had a long conversation about our theories, but in the end we were both wrong. I gave the first book a 4.25. This book was still good, but I didn't find it as good. In the first book, while a stretch, it made sense why a high school student would be trying to solve a cold case. In this book, it felt a little more "convenient" that her friend's brother happened to disappear soon after she solved that cold case.

I don't like Pip. I don't see her as a smart or ethical character. That doesn't ruin the story for me because I don't necessarily think she's supposed to be likable. She makes a lot of dumb mistakes and still has the self-righteous attitude she had in the first book. She doesn't understand why people wouldn't like her. She acts like the victim, but she literally aired other people's dirty laundry on a podcast about the cold case she solved. I'd hate her too. As she was trying to find Jamie, she released podcast episodes about it as she went. I was waiting for this to backfire. Realistically, someone would get angry and confront her about talking about their business to millions of people. But that never happens.

I think it also would have been interesting to explore how Pip makes the second season of her podcast about her ongoing investigation so much more dramatic than the situation warranted then. She used the disappearance of her friend's brother to get more people interested in her podcast. Sure, she may have thought she had good intentions of getting tips. But she still used it for views. I think that was a missed opportunity that could have been interesting to explore. The first book seemed to focus more on her obsession with the cold case. But I don't feel it was fully explored. I was hoping to explore it more here but was disappointed.

The story was all over the place. I don't think there was any way I could have figured out what was going on before the climax. I don't feel like the clues were strong enough to lead the audience to the result before it was officially revealed. It was still a fun ride and introduced some interesting ethical conflicts. I enjoyed how this book had pictures of some pieces of evidence. I don't think the first book did. But these pictures didn't give any extra clues, so there wasn't much of a point to them.

There were a few plot points that didn't get tied up by the end. Maybe they will be dealt with in the next book, but they felt like they were never resolved.

I feel like more needs to happen with the Max stuff. The trial is over and he was found not guilty. So Pip vandalized his home and posted a sound recording online. But nothing came of this other than Nat starting to trust her. Would Max not suspect it was her or one of the other witnesses who vandalized his home? But even then, he would surely know that Pip posted the recording. Maybe he would sue her for defamation or something. I don't know how that works or if that would even be possible. I'm just spitballing. I think more needs to happen with this plot line because it felt like an after thought and was never resolved.


Did Tom actually lie? I don't think she had any real confirmation of this. There were other possibilities besides either Tom or Nat lying. Jamie could have gone to Nat's house after she had gone to bed or later than expected or when she wasn't home. Or maybe there was another house in the area with a blue door. If he did lie, what was his motivation? I understand that high schoolers are mean and cruel, but this is a mystery book and I feel there should have been some motivation for him to lie. Whether he lied or not, I can't imagine pouring a drink all over him would have no consequences. He would be angry. Maybe he or a friend would confront Pip. Maybe a teacher or school staff would say something. This just wasn't tied up.


Also, why does Nat's brother (the cop) hate Pip so much? I understand being angry about her solving a cold case that he was involved with and airing his dirty laundry on her podcast. But he literally threatened her, which seems more extreme than is appropriate for the situation. Is there something going on with him, or is this just another loose string?


I did enjoy the ethical dilemma that was introduced towards the end. My boss and I have different opinions on the ending, but that's okay. I'm glad the ending made us think. Click below if you want a tangent about ethics surrounding the ending that isn't specifically related to the quality of the story.

My personal opinion is that Stanley was just as much a victim of his father as Charlie and his sister. He was a child who was manipulated and abused by his father. It ruined his life. He never stood a chance. He spent the rest of his childhood in an institution, then had to move around and change his name and everything. He had to constantly be looking over his shoulder, waiting for someone to murder him. I don't think Charlie was justified in killing him. My boss, on the other hand, thinks that Charlie was justified. While she agrees that Stanley was a victim as well, she says that the trauma of the events justified Charlie's actions. I disagree. Charlie's circumstances were horrible and traumatic and he very much has the right to be angry. I would be too. He felt like the justice system had failed him. I get it. But I don't think that trauma justifies murdering another victim of the same person, even if you see them as being responsible. Get some therapy and work through the trauma. Lots of people are traumatized by others and don't end up murdering the ones responsible, let alone other victims that they associate with the trauma. Anyway, that's just my opinion.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings