Red Ashes

by Margaret Pedler

317 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1925

About the author

Margaret Pedler was a British novelist, who wrote popular works of romantic and mystery fiction.
Initially Pedler studied piano and singing at the Royal Academy of Music, and published several songs for which she wrote both the music and lyrics. Over her career as a best-selling writer, from 1917 to 1947, she produced 28 novels.

Reviews

[Dorcas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is my third Margaret Pedler, and as much as I enjoy her style (similar to Ethel M. Dell) I'm beginning to fear that M.P. it's a 'one track wonder'. The characters change names but the crux of the story stays the same. This is how a M.P. story goes:

The hero is black-balled by some reckless event in his past and he is doomed to live the life of a recluse for time immemorial or bring shame to all who attach themselves to him. A tug of war follows when he inevitably falls in love. Tsk tsk tsk... "I love you so much.." "Stay away if you know what's good for you... Finally, after much back and forth, things seem to fit in place until something happens to sunder the pair once more and it starts all over again. Usually, an act of heroism is needed to clear the air for a HEA.

So in this particular novel the male protagonist is a doctor who with one slip of the knife makes the worst mistake of his career. A man dies.

The question is, can something so ghastly be forgiven? And if so, does that forgiveness stretch to personal hurt? In other words, there are some mistakes we can forgive someone if they don't touch us personally. But what if they do? What then? Is all lost?

This may have been a four star read for me if it had been my first M.P. but as my third and as they're so similar I can't really go higher than three stars.

CONTENT:
a few "d's" and some anti Semitic remarks at the beginning.

[Joanna Chaplin · Rating 3 out of 5]

An old romance book with some ethical thinking women into it. I had some problems with the anti-foreigner sentiment, especially the antisemitism. But on the whole, it's well-meaning for its time, which was 1925. One thing I particularly liked was the discussion about whether or not there is a difference in forgiving a sin generally not against you but against a stranger, and forgiving a sin against you personally, that hurt you in some way. I found the answer to be interesting in plausible. It's not ethically consistent to forgive one but not the other, but forgiving the sin that hurts you personally is harder. You have to push against the inclination to strike back for revenge

I got this book from my grandmother, who got it at a used book sale. The original owner carefully inscribed the inside cover with her name and the date, 1927. Inside was an old postcard from a family reunion, and on the back was recorded the date of ever reread. She must have read it at least three times. I suspect that one read will be good enough for me.

[Sophie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Young woman falls in love with older man whose secret past threatens their newfound love.

I guess if a formula works, you stick with it. This is the second Margaret Pedler title I've read, and it was pretty much a carbon copy of the first. Details are different, situations vary slightly, but in essentials, it's the same book. Amazingly, they were published within a year of each other. Nobody at the publishing house noticed? Was concerned that readers might find it repetitive? Guess not.

Anyway, I liked the first novel I read, Yesterday's Harvest, better than this one. I thought it was more understandable that the hero's dark past didn't bother the heroine overmuch and that it didn't long impede their relationship. In the case of Red Ashes I thought the hero's past was much more of an obstacle. One I didn't see how they could get around. "I killed your brother, get over it" just doesn't seem like much of a foundation for a relationship.

I also liked the characters better in Yesterday's Harvest. In Red Ashes—especially the first part—it almost seemed like the author was trying to portray the English aristocracy as the most appalling people on the planet. Dog thrashing, hunters insisting on their right to trespass, riding down and injuring the landowner who tries to stop them from trespassing, and then whining about being expected to pay for the damages they caused in their headlong pursuit of a fox. Bizarrely, I don't think she meant the portrayal to be unflattering.

All in all, it was a rather odd book. And I really don't get the author's fondness for putting the non-word "Belovedest" in her hero's mouths. But I'll probably read another Pedler offering, just to see if she stuck with the same formula for her entire career.