Bright Young Women

The introduction of a third timeline focusing on events unfolding in 1974 (four years before the attacks at Florida State University) adds structural complexity to the novel. These sections are narrated in the first person by Ruth, who functions as a secondary protagonist. In contrast with Pamela, whom the novel positions as a survivor, the text conveys that in the 1974 timeline, Ruth is moving toward her death; Tina directly states, “Four years ago, [The Defendant] killed my friend Ruth” (81). By providing direct access to the thoughts and feelings of a woman who is doomed to have her life cut short, the novel heightens the effect of frustration and futility in the wake of violence. The text reveals much about Ruth’s life story, character, and goals, portrays her growth and development, and simultaneously reveals that she won’t live to see the future she’s imagining.

Tina’s character weaves together the 1974 and the 1978 storylines and helps develop the theme of The Power of Female Bonds and Solidarity. Through her interactions with both Ruth and Pamela, Tina validates their experiences and intuition. Ruth and Pamela share significant similarities in that they have difficult relationships with their families and feel significant pressure to be compliant, agreeable, and submissive. Tina can see that they’re both resilient and intelligent; she tells Pamela, “Everyone should be calling you a hero, but I have a feeling I’m the only one” (148).

In addition, Tina’s character allows for the insertion of significant plot exposition when she gets Pamela up to speed with the information she has gathered about The Defendant. Most of what Tina describes about The Defendant is historically accurate with regard to Bundy, including the fact that Bundy was a fugitive when he committed the Florida State University attacks in early 1978. The novel does change the date of the Caryn Campbell murder; Bundy killed a woman with this name near Aspen, Colorado in January 1975. In the novel, this event moves to 1973, before the spate of killings in the Seattle area, but the historical name of the victim and the circumstances of the killing remain unchanged.

The exposition and context for the sorority house attacks helps develop Failure of Authorities and Systems as a theme. The deaths of Denise and Roberta are especially tragic because they occurred after The Defendant escaped police custody not once but twice; as Tina grimly states, “What the hell kind of incompetence happened there, God only knows” (146). The attacks at the sorority house are transformative for Pamela not only because they expose her to the reality of evil and danger in the world but because they show her how fragile and fallible systems can be. As a dutiful student who hopes to become a lawyer, Pamela relies on authorities and believes that playing by the rules will ensure her success. In the wake of the attacks, she grows increasingly frustrated, wondering, “Why couldn’t people just do their jobs? Why was it that I could rely only on myself?” (147).

In the aftermath of the attack, Pamela becomes more independent, resourceful, and assertive because she realizes that systems and authorities will likely fail her. Her suspicion is heightens when Tina shares Ruth’s story and reveals that Ruth’s disappearance has never been solved. It seems increasingly likely that unless Pamela and Tina take matters into their own hands, Roberta and Denise’s murders may likewise go unsolved, and The Defendant could remain at large, killing more women.

Roger’s presence and the revelation that he’s also a violent and dangerous man complicates the investigation into the sorority house attack. Pamela is caught in a terrible ethical dilemma, in that she knows not pressing charges against Roger leaves him at large to hurt others but that doing so reduces the odds of a dangerous killer being brought to justice. Roger’s presence as an alternative suspect and a red herring (a misleading theory or detail) for the police reveals how a broader culture of misogyny and violent masculinity helps enable The Defendant to continue perpetrating his crimes. While The Defendant’s actions are extreme, other men carry out threatening acts of violence; this adds complexity to the investigation, increasing the challenge for police and law enforcement to identify who committed the crime. As Pamela later reflects, “Rogers were everywhere, reasonable-doubt scapegoats waiting in the wings” (314). Roger is also an appealing suspect because if he’s the one who killed Denise and harmed the other girls, then Denise herself can be held partially to blame for these events. Pamela and Tina need to prove The Defendant’s guilt both to bring him to justice and to have an accurate record of what happened to Denise.