“The past was no good to anyone, and digging about in it only brought about unpleasantness. It was best to leave it where it was. Past.”


This kept in line with my ‘spooky’ reads for October thus far. It’s a gothic mystery set in the brooding moors of the Cornish countryside in the 1920s.

There were some unexpected things and then some forgotten things that made this book not my favorite, but I think a lot of people will probably still like it. Plus the ending was ‘mostly’ satisfying which is good.

If you’re looking for a completely supernatural type of book and a murder that is only explained through ghosts or curses, etc, then you won’t find it here. Armstrong wove together reality and supernatural elements throughout the story and some were explained away, but she did leave a bit of mystery and intrigue by the end. I liked the balance as I am not a fan of books where it’s completely about the haunting things.

(We’ll see how I like The Book of Cold Cases which I’m reading next as I know it has some supernatural elements!)


The basic premise is this:

Ruby Vaughn, an orphaned and exiled girl from America who lives with a likable, bookish old man in Exeter, is tasked with taking some ancient and “dangerous” books to a "folk healer” in the Cornish countryside.

A simple task brings her to death’s doorstep at Penryth Hall, the place of heirs and curses.

But Ruby, being a rational and logical thinker is convinced that the death cannot be explained away by a ‘curse.’

“There’s no such thing as magic, Mr. Kivell. No curses. No monsters in the night. None of it. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for what happened to Sir Edward and I intend to get to the bottom of it.”

But if she gets too close to the truth, she might be next!



So who is this Ruby Vaughn character and do we like her?

“Between leaving America, war, and the death of my parents, I’d become a different creature. An almost feral fatalistic thing, living from chance to chance, existing only because death didn’t want anything to do with me. At least not yet.”

I like that she is a strong and courageous and smart girl, though a bit reckless. She spent time during the Great War on the front lines carting injured soldiers to safety. She is no stranger to death or danger.

I also like her relationship to Owen, the father-figure she lives with. We find out Ruby’s parents and sister died on the sinking of the Lusitania ship during the war. (Side note: If that interests you, read The Glass Ocean by Beatriz Williams). Before that happened, though, Ruby was exiled from her high-society life in New York because of a scandal. She was young, only 16, but during a time when men had the upper-hand, her vulnerability to a man in power resulted in her forced departure.

Owen also lost his family— his wife before the war and his sons during. “Leaving him a father in need of a child, and I a child in need of a father.”

I think Owen is my favorite character of the book. I thought he was caring and funny and I appreciated that though they shared familial grief and brokenness, they could do life together and bear each other’s burdens, looking after one another and creating a new family. Owen also has a curious twinkle in his eye and I have a feeling if this book turns into a series as it was hinted at, he’s got a lot of adventure left in him!


Ruby is also a rebellious one. She would be the ‘flapper’ type of girl, throwing parties of debauchery and resisting the restraints of societal norms. Instead of a flapper dress though, you would find her in pants, holding a whiskey, arguing with men, and loving whomever she pleases.

That last trait was one aspect I was not expecting.

The murdered man— Sir Edward— was married to her lifelong best friend, Tamsyn (a female). Tamsyn and Ruby had apparently been lovers to some degree and Tamsyn had broken Ruby’s heart at some point during the war. We are not given a lot of details of this.

Throughout the book we see regularly that Ruby still has feelings for Tamsyn and is struggling between loving her and being mad at her.

“I’d expressly vowed to never set foot in the godforsaken county ever again.”

“‘You walk around looking as if she’s ripped out your heart and is carrying it around with her in her pocket, and you can’t decide whether to go fetch it back or leave it where it is. Anyone can see that.’”

As for sexual content, there is none, but we are privy to Ruby’s thoughts and feelings toward both Tamsyn and another character (Ruan) that tell us of her love.

While I like a courageous woman who is willing to push against certain societal norms, I’m not sure if I liked her character as a whole. I’m not into glorified debauchery and rebellion for rebellion’s sake.

“I’d been around the world, to war and back, and done things that would make the most wicked of men blush.”

I don’t know what she means here, but I know enough to know I’m not a fan of it.

Who knows what direction Armstrong could choose to take Ruby in any future books? For some that may be exciting, but for me, I don’t think I’ll continue to read it.



So we’ve got Ruby as our main character and from whose POV the book is told, but our other main character is the folk-healer— Ruan— also known as the Pellar.

“What is a Pellar, Mrs. Pemrose? The way you speak of him he sounds like a cross between a physician, a witch, and priest.”

Though it didn’t fully come to fruition (at least in this book) we have the makings of an enemies-to-lovers type of situation. They begin at odds because Ruby doesn’t believe in curses or magic. She’s trying to figure this guy out and see what his angle is.

“The man was harder to read than my own penmanship.”

But as the story progresses, Ruby witnesses things she can’t explain. Plus there is some sort of supernatural connection between her and Ruan that adds to the mystery and their special bond.

This is where some of the magic remains a mystery. I’m not sure if the author did this intentionally, but to me, it feels like a loose end that was forgotten.

Ruby says that magic can’t be real "Because if such a thing were real, it opened up a box of questions about my own past that I wasn’t ready to answer.”

We know that Ruby has dreams that become reality. We know that she used to sleepwalk as a child. We know that she was “born in the cowl” which is rare and may or may not have some sort of supernatural effect? We also know that her and Ruan share the same birthday.

These are elements that hint at this ‘box of questions’ about her past. But that’s as far as we get. It was kind of a let down not to know more about her dreams as they are a main feature in this book’s story.

Another odd thing that was confusing was some of the ‘terms of endearment’ Armstrong had her characters use. As we don’t find out about Ruby’s romantic love for Tamsyn right away— it seems like just a really deep friendship at first— it became weird when Ruby’s first interaction with Mrs. Pemrose in the bedroom hints at romantic love as well.

Mrs. Pemrose calls her ‘lover.’ Which I’ve only heard used in a romantic context. The interaction alluded to some sort of memory they shared when Ruby had visited for Tamysn’s wedding. Nothing is further said about it.

It is only until later when another person uses that term ‘lover’ to Ruby in a situation that did not hint at romance that we realize there was nothing further to divulge between Ruby and Mrs. Pemrose.

So I think it must just be a cultural term they used then, as they often call Ruby ‘maid’ as well. But it was weird and misleading, especially considering Armstrong had already introduced an LGBTQ relationship. How were readers supposed to navigate the potential relationships if someone was called ‘lover’ non-romantically?



I was a bit put off by Ruby’s distaste for the vicar. It’s probably because I automatically feel defensive when someone mocks or hates Christianity. I mean the vicar is an immoral guy who has no business leading a church and was probably preaching an unbiblical religion (we have no way of knowing and it’s not a tenet of the story) so I don’t fault her for being against the man. But by hearing all of her thoughts surrounding the church or God in general, I’m not convinced she would think fondly of any vicar.

It’s an easy trope to use an immoral and preying religious man as a villain in a story. I know why it’s done, but I don’t have to like it.



Part of what adds to the ‘gothic’ and moody feel of the book is the Cornish setting.

“The old Cornish folkways predate even the Romans. There are things that occur there no one can explain, no one dares question. After all, Tintagel is the birthplace of Arthur, they say. The seat of kings.”

Many stories of giants, pixies, mermaids, and beasts have their origins in Cornwall. While they talked of pixies (piskies) in the book, I think there could have been more ‘story-telling’ around these myths or curses. The Curse of Penryth Hall is not of the fantasy genre so I’m not sure how much incorporation could still be done in the time period chosen for the story, but I wish there had been more lore intertwined with the curse.

Along those same lines, I think there were ‘secrets’ of the house that were hinted at but not really elaborated on that I think would have also added to the spooky vibes. It was more of an afterthought when they could have been played up more.



Randos

I learned a few interesting things that prove Jess Armstrong did her research. At the beginning it is mentioned that Ruby has constructed an in-ground pool at their house and that she thought it would become popular soon. The first hotel swimming pool in America was at the Biltmore in the 1930s so the timing of this was probably right and also weird to think about!

Also, sunglasses were mentioned. And I realized I had never thought about when those were invented. Sunglasses started to become more popular in the 1920s, so again, timely insertion. Look at Wikipedia's page for sunglasses and you'll find some interesting sunglasses Inuits created to block the sun's exposure.

Lastly, ‘Old Nick’ is another term for the devil. I hadn’t heard that before. It’s odd to be so similar to Old St. Nick (Father Christmas). I did a little research and it appears there is no certain explanation for where Old Nick was derived from.


“‘She was murdered… here?’ I repeated, staring at the rug. ‘It was thirty years ago, maid. I doubt there’s a great house in this country without a death or twelve within its walls.’ she said.”

This quote stuck out to me because I just read B.A. Paris’s book The Therapist in which a woman finds out her boyfriend bought a house where someone was just murdered and didn’t tell her about it and she refused to live there. So it was interesting to see this take and realize older houses have seen a lot of things. So, does the age of the house matter when considering whether or not to live somewhere someone was murdered? I’ve been curious to ponder what factors would influence a person’s choice.



“I was struck by the tenuous line between life and death on a farm. Everything was more real. More vital here than back in the ballrooms and theaters of New York.”

This quote also struck me as I recently heard someone talking about the political climate of a rural area vs an urban area. He mentioned that the closer you get to agricultural industry areas, the more conservative the political views are. That political ideas, thoughts, or plans are less abstract. On a farm, you have to grow something. You have to produce more livestock. Therefore, gender matters in a more real way. You go into a city where you are removed from the vitality of a farm, abstract ideas ‘make more sense’ or have less ‘detrimental’ implications.

Obviously there is lots to debate here, but I think it’s really interesting to think about farmers’ perspectives on life and the world where the line between life and death is “tenuous.” Where abstract ideas are not usually helpful or practical. What do we lose when we live in the abstract, ‘free spirit’ of the urban arts and commerce? What would we lose if we never ventured into the abstract?

Politics do seem to work that way in general so it's interesting to think about factors that play into that. Just some thoughts.



Recommendation

To reiterate: This book had some interesting elements and gave me some spooky Nancy Drew vibes. I was mostly satisfied with the ending and appreciated the intertwining of supernatural with rational. 

There were several unexpected or forgotten things and the somewhat unlikability of the main character that made this book not really for me. 

It’s not badly written, so I know some will like it. There were just elements that didn’t work for me. 

As I also mentioned, it seemed like the epilogue hinted at another book. If that were the case, I would not continue to read the series. 


**Received an ARC via NetGalley*

[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 1 s-word, main character is LGBTQ but no sexual content]