Flight of the Sparrow: A Novel of Early America

(Contains spoilers)

This is a well written, nicely paced, fictionalized account of a real person, Mary Rowlandson, an English-born Puritan who was brought to the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a young child. Rowlandson wrote an account of her captivity among the Indians during King Philip's War (1675-1678). Her book "The Sovereignty and Goodness of God" became America's first 'best seller,' and began a genre of captivity narratives.

The novel rests on a framework of historical reality. In February, 1676, Mary Rowlandson was living in the frontier town of Lancaster, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. She was in her late thirties, was married to the town minister, and had several living children. While her husband was away in Boston, trying to show more get troops to defend Lancaster, a large (~1500) force of Indian warriors attacked Lancaster, burned the entire town, killed most of the inhabitants, and returned to the woods with plunder and captives. Mary and her children were among the captives. Her youngest child, Sarah, had been shot through the intestines with a musket ball (the same ball inflicted a lesser wound on Mary as well), and Mary carried her as she and the other captives were marched to an Indian encampment. There she was sold to a female sachem, Weewatoo, a person of considerable power and importance among the Nipmuc.

Sarah died within days, and the grieving Mary began her duties as a slave. Her life was precariously poised on a tight rope above disaster, but she was fed as generously as her captors fed themselves. She was not raped or seriously mistreated. Mary was unable to spend any time with her two older children, and wasn't even sure of their fate, which must have been agonizing for her.

The Indians moved camp frequently, engaged as they were in a war with the English colonists. As the winter turned to spring, the Indians and their captives began to starve. Their leader Metacomet, also known as King Philip, began negotiating with the English. In May, 1676, Mary was redeemed to the English for 20 pounds. Her son was redeemed later, and her daughter managed to escape on her own.

The historical events alone make a pretty good story. Much of the novel consists of a fictional story about Mary's growing respect and appreciation for the Indians and their ways. There is also a romance novel sort of plot about Mary's growing attraction to a handsome, kind, English-speaking Nipmuc named James Printer, also known as Wowaus. James Printer was a real person, though I'm not clear if his paths ever crossed with Mary's in real life.

The latter part of the novel tells of Mary's life after her return to the English. Historical figures such as Increase Mather and John Eliot play roles in the fictional plot, which deals in part with the difficulties that arise between Mary and her husband Joseph, as well as her challenges readjusting to Puritan life and society. Mary's marriage is severely affected by the fact that her captivity changed her in many ways, among them that she is no longer content being submissive to Joseph. To complicate things, everyone, including her husband, assumes that Mary was raped by the Indians, so her social reputation is compromised, and her husband won't touch her.

For Mary, the thorniest problem is that she is in love with James Printer. This is the other part of the post-captivity plot.

The book includes one additional reference to historical people, stitched into the start of the book. In the author's fictionalization, Mary's neighbor's daughter, Bess Parker, gives birth to a a child out of wedlock, whose father, Silvanus, is an African-American slave. (Bess and Silvanus were real people). The baby is claimed as property by Silvanus's master, and Bess is packed off to Salem, where she is bound into service, and where she later drowns herself.

The purpose of this separate little story, not directly related to anything else in the novel, appears to be to help establish that the fictional version of Mary Rowlandson not only becomes an admirer of the Indians, but also becomes a firm opponent of slavery, no matter who the slave owner is.

A question or two arises from reading this book. Did the novelization of Mary Rowlandson's narrative improve on the original? Since I haven't read the original account, I'm not prepared to answer that. I intend to read it soon.

Is the novel accurate and fair in its depiction of both the English Puritan colonists and their American Indian adversaries in King Philip's War? I raise this question, because historical fiction dealing with early America often follows a simplistic formula, which can be summarized as "Native American = Noble and Good, White = Deceiving and Bad." Real life is never that neat and simple. Gross historical injustice toward Native Americans is undeniable and a lasting shame to the USA. That doesn't mean that they were all as individuals better than all whites, or that their cultures were superior in all respects. Real people are much more interesting than that.

I'm happy to discover that this book seems fair in its depiction of both American Indians and Puritan colonists in seventeenth-century New England. The two cultures are treated as quite different to one another, to the extent that they have trouble understanding one another, even when language is not a barrier. But I don't think the book leans toward treating one culture or the other as superior.

Both cultures are portrayed as being wont to engage in cruel behavior. Interestingly, in these respects they seem rather like mirror images of one another. The Indians and the Puritans are both ruthless in war, sparing no one and enthusiastically committing what we today would call serious war crimes. Both societies practice slavery, including trading slaves for profit.

In other areas of culture, the Indians and Puritans are nothing alike, and it is in these differences that Mary appears to find the Indian way more attractive. We today are also likely to see the Indian way, as depicted, as more attractive, because it is in closer harmony with our own 21st century values. The hard core Calvinism of the Puritans, practiced in an intolerant theocracy, where everyone is watching everyone else for back sliding and missteps, (and God help you if you are suspected of witchcraft), sounds to a modern person like, well, hell.

The Puritans live in a strict social hierarchy, with enforced conformity in all aspects of life. The Indians appear to value freedom very highly, and though they have a hierarchy as well, it seems to leave more room for individuals to live the way they want to.

The Puritans practice stern corporal punishment of their children, and consider it wrong to show them affection. The Indians dote on their children, let them run around as much as they like, and don't appear to punish them physically.

The Puritans codify the subjection of women to the inescapable authority of men, and women are relegated to hard lives of de facto slavery. The Indian women can hold positions of genuine authority, including over men. They are generally free to act on their own behalf.

The Puritans treat idleness as a serious sin. The Indians seem to relish their down time, and accord some idle time even to their slaves.

When dealing with individuals, the novel depicts neither Indians nor Puritans as stereotypes, noble or otherwise. The sachem Weewatoo's husband Quinappin is a pretty nice guy. Weewatoo, on the other hand is a piece of work. Monoco, who wants to take Mary as a wife because he likes her red hair, but is told by Weewatoo to take a hike, feels a little dodgy. Mary's fellow slave Alawa is kind, and considers Weewatoo an acceptable mistress, which implies that if the mercurial and violent Weewatoo is a good slave owner, you wouldn't want to meet a bad one.

As for the Puritans, Mary's husband Joseph is the second most orthodox Puritan in the book, exceeded only by Increase Mather, with whom he likes to pal around. So, at first, he might appear to be something of a stereotype. As you read further into the story, though, it becomes clear that he is unable to live up to the stern and inhuman code of behavior he preaches (literally, preaches, since he is a minister). The way the author depicts him, I feel that these weaknesses humanize him, while not making him seem overly hypocritical. Increase Mather, on the other hand, is a manipulative old reptile.

John Eliot as portrayed is genuinely benevolent and kind, and a strong advocate for the Indians, even at a time when the survival of the colony seems threatened. (According to Wikipedia, the Indians attacked half the towns in the colony, and destroyed 12 of them). On the other hand, Eliot is trying to convert them, which has its own ethical problems.

Whichever culture and people you find more attractive in this story, you do have to acknowledge that the historical events in the book end in a sad and disturbing way. The Indians lose King Philip's war. The English settlers are not magnanimous in victory. They kill many of the Indians, even after surrender. They enslave many others, transporting them to the West Indies (and making a tidy profit, no doubt). A few of the Praying Indians (converts to Christianity), are sequestered in prototypical reservations, where they languish and starve. The English, of course, take the Indians' land.

Would the Indians have been more generous in victory, if they had won? Or would they have driven the English into the sea? It's a counterfactual, and we will never know. What did happen is nothing to be proud of, especially for those of us who had Puritan ancestors in New England. show less

Mary Rowlandson was captured during King Philip's War, when a group of allied natives under King Phillip (Metacomet) raided various Puritan settlements in New England. She spent a few months as the slave of sachem Weetamoo and her husband Quinnapin. She is then ransomed and returned to the English. She later wrote the story of her captivity, which became the first published "captivity narrative" and the first woman-authored book in North America.

Using Rowlandson's narrative and other sources, Brown has novelized her story. And this novel is very compelling and is fast reading. She admits, in the reader's guide in the back of my edition, that she had to play a bit fast and loose to get the story. Known facts she left alone. But what was show more the relationship between Mary and her husband like? Did someone (who?) edit and add to her narrative, as it is so disjointed with random scriptural references throughout? What was the relationship between Mary and James Printer? And so on. There were Puritans who were anti-slavery and not anti-Indian (Eliot, who is in the novel), and there were Puritans who were expelled because they refused to follow the very strict rules (Anne Hutchison was one, and Brown refers to her).

I have requested her narrative from my library, as I want to read that and see if I feel the same misgivings that Brown did about the narrative. (Does it feel forced? Edited? Would the Puritans have permitted a woman's writing to NOT be edited by a man? Are there any hints of regret? Are her children mentioned at all?) show less

I found this book on the shelf in the mailroom at my condo. People often leave books and magazines they've read to share with others. So this book came to me as a surprise. I had heard of Mary Rowlandson, but did not really know her story. Flight of the Sparrow was a well-written and compelling account of Rowlandson's time with the Nipmuc Indians during King Phillip's (Metacomet's) War on the English settlers. After the sheer gory horror of the Natives attack on Rowlandson's home, in which her sister died, and she and one of her children were shot, her house burned down, and she was separated from her other children and forced to march with a rope around her neck for many miles, you'd expect her to have nothing but hatred for the show more Natives. You wouldn't expect her to survive, especially after her six-year old dies in her arms. Yet she did. Her courage and endurance are amazing. She was a slave during the three months she spent with the Nipmucs, sometimes treated kindly and others, harshly. In this account she develops something of a respect for the Natives and their way of life, falling in love with a captive Native from another tribe and wistfully hoping to remain with the Natives. Once I had raced through this account, I had to read Mary Rowlandson's own account so I could compare them.

In the historical account there is no sign that Mary wished to remain with the Natives. Belding Brown suggests that the Puritan minister Increase Mather heavily edited her manuscript, adding Scripture at every turn. We will never know how much he changed, but I do find myself wondering how someone raised in the English Puritan culture could have wished, within weeks, to cast off her cultural identity and wear the mocassins, as Belding Brown's fiction suggests. It's a lovely fiction, but I think it's borne more of our modern notions of individual freedom than the likely reality that Mary was happy to be released from captivity back to her albeit straitlaced culture. show less

This is the first book I've read outside of my usual genre (southern fiction/upmarket commercial) in quite some time, and I really enjoyed it! I especially appreciated the Author's Note at the end which explained that quite a bit of what took place was based on the true accounts/records kept. I had no idea when I started out this actually happened. It reminded me of another story I read years and years ago, RIDE THE WIND, which was also about a white woman captured by Indians, although the time frame was different, about two hundred years later than this story.

I loved that Belding Brown included many details about the MC's life led while held in captivity - although...the MC, Mary, really began to appreciate certain freedoms, (the show more clothing, being able to walk around, noting that woman were held in high regard, children weren't whipped, and were allowed to play freely, etc.) and eventually came to the conclusion that in many ways, her captors way of life was better than that which she came from. show less

I will admit that my interest in the Native Americans and the early settlers was what attracted me to this book. The differences in lifestyle was what I was interested in learning about. I had just finished reading The Heretic's Daughter and the savage Indian raids were mentioned so this was a good choice to follow up with. I did not know this story was based on an actual person until I was finished. As a whole I feel Ms. Brown wrote an engaging fictionalized story that I enjoyed reading. I did have to question several times how in only 3 months of captivity Mary attitude toward the Indians was so changed but I also kept thinking of how restrictive her puritan life was. I went into the story biased toward the Indians and was glad she show more found their ways more natural and compassionate even though she was a captive but I think after witnessing the brutality of the raid on her village and the deaths of her family members the trauma would have just been much to bad to have gotten over so quickly. Ms. Brown does make the story believable as you are reading most of the time and there is definitely a lot of material to discuss in a book club. show less

Another book read for the book club at work.

This is a book that should have been interesting. I liked the history, the setting, but I found it incredibly dull. Which is odd because the book is written quite well. Its a bit like eating a dish that is almost perfect, but missing some sort of critical ingredient.

It felt as if all the characters were written in shades of light gray- no joy, no sadness, just unending grayness. It isn't that the book is boring, the story is interesting, but it really is missing something deeper. If I wasn't reading this for the book club, I suspect I'd have stopped a long time ago.

However, the book does give a lot to think about - slavery, religion, women's place in society, and ultimately, how much it sucked show more to be a Puritan. show less

A well-narrated, captivating, thought provoking, and at times difficult story. Difficult, because I’m sure it’s an accurate depiction of life as it was, in the early years of the new colonies. Even so, a story worth the time. There are no black/white absolutes.
,