Based on the story:
The Narrative of the Captivity and the Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson (1682).
Mary Rowlandson is an interesting person, at least with the way the narration spotlights her. She is a woman of many sorrows and hard times whom against all hope had hope. The biblical promise of hope could have quite conveniently been for her children, perhaps children's children, but her brisk response and personalization of any hint from scripture is unsullied. Theologians of all ages debate on what biblical scripture is for who or what, but not as far as Mary is concerned. This woman wants help; she wants salvation; and she wants it now.
Mary watched the Indians mercilessly destroy her community. She saw the brutal killing of many of her neighbors and friends. She watched her little child contend with death, and saw her give way eventually. For Mary, this cruelty was enough to condemn the Indians before God, and make them the enemy. Their unfamiliar culture and rituals were hedonistic to Mary, which from her bible was another evidence of their ungodly status. Well, tough luck, the Indians did not have a bible - oh, one of them threw the book with English inscriptions away from the wigwam. What else could prove their alienation from God?
Apparently, the only reason the Indians spared some of the victims was to sell them. As one can only imagine, this could have be the only thing worse than death, but for Mary's kind of hope, because the victims would live their regrets and depression in an unfamiliar environment - without love or loved ones. Unsurprisingly, some of the English people chose the inhumane death of the Indians rather than suffer the pain of endless misery. Families were scattered around the area to their new masters and sometimes, as Mary expressed, never reunited again. The Indians, it also seems, were nomadic and could not adequately sustain their families, let alone their slaves. Like Mary, many of the slaves depended on their crafts and the ever-changing goodwill of others in the community.
Perhaps, one of the most touching things about the story, was the sad feedback Mary Rowlandson got every time she inquired about her husband or the remaining of her family. Mary desired to go home, but might have been slow to realize that home, as she previously knew it, did not exist anymore. Her husband, Mary's only survivor of the carnage, must have been as bitter about the loss of his household especially in his absence - one can only imagine how he repeatedly wished he was in the village at the time of attack to have rather died protecting his family. What's more, he might not have had the luxury of distractions that Mary had in her bondage. He could have had ample time and freedom to think and mourn his losses. He was a free man, but was enslaved by his own regrets; hence melancholic.
Mary's hope paid off after some English people helped ransom her. I hope Mary found her freedom to be all she had imagined. At least, life as a free woman in a familiar culture would have been much better than bondage among strangers. Nonetheless, Mary, even before her redemption, seemed to have toughened up. She seemed to have learnt the Indians well, and despite the odds, she remained quite a strong woman. Finally, I wonder if Mary ever got over her 'doleful' events - life must have never been the same. Here is freedom, but the enemy still lingers. Just for how long will this freedom last?
Mcmichael, George, and James S. Leonard, comps. "The Narrative of the Captivity and the Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson (1682)." Concise Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2006. 148-65. Print.
