Flight of the Sparrow by Fay Sampson
I had to write this on my blog, as I realised it was likely to be rather long for Carla's comments. These are very much my thoughts about the book, rather than a review.I read this book after many years of hardly reading fiction at all. I just about kept up with the Arthurian fiction, and that was about it. But in 1999, I joined the Historical Novel Society, saw a review of Flight and thought it was worth reading. After all, it was one of the few reviewed that was set near my era of interest.
I've always liked first person. It doesn't matter to me that it is only one view. It's quite a challenge to the author, and they have to be particularly adept to make the story successful. For me, Sampson triumphs on all fronts. The reader is shown the inner workings of an Anglo-Saxon king. I find him entirely congruent - his outward behaviour is different from his inner voice. He is flawed and has weaknesses, yet to be king he must not show it. He must impress, be arrogant, find the right woman to marry, choose the religion that will make him win, and keep conquering territories. How many men give the outward impression they are tough, when underneath they are really insecure? Certainly Edwin of Deira is one of these.
Being an Anglo-Saxon king (or an aspriring king) was one of the most hazardous jobs of that era, and that came across very well. I felt that Sampson gave an insightful view of what it may have been like to be an Anglo-Saxon warrior of that period. I don't particularly like him; he's a man of his time, and all that implies. Yet I was sufficiently drawn in by the end to be afraid for him and his death in battle. It is alwalys a gamble to make a character unlikeable, but this author somehow makes it work. Sampson is very good at giving her characters an air of being different to us, of being part of their own time. I am not interested in matters religious, yet this made me interested to see how he handled it.
Flight taught me a huge amount about what I felt was important about an historical novel. When it comes down to it, the story tops the history. Therefore, whatever historical path the author has chosen (and all historical authors chose a path, all the more so with early eras) I will not pick at it unless it is grossly incorrect. Or when the story is also questionable - when the people don't behave congruently, characters are too black and white, or they speak in creaky, unrealistic tones, etc. I didn't even notice the change from past tense to present, I was just carried along.
Yes, I agree with Carla about the political aspects of the 7th century. I don't think concept of conquest of the British is so cut and dried as portrayed in Flight. Though I wonder if it's Edwin's unreliable first person narrative here? He's been brought up amongst the western British, who were likely to have more of a concept of encroaching 'Anglo-Saxon' Kingdoms. However, the same ideas are also given in Sampson's recent book, The Land of Angels; the Anglo-Saxons there also say they should be blonde, blue-eyed (ouch!), etc. This view is out-dated. It's more of a case of who are the Anglo-Saxons? Is it culture or ethnicity, or a mixture of both? Sampson is not writing a reference book. But she has written a book which might inspire someone to look closer at the era, and in the end, that is commendable.
For me, the 7th century was a bit late. My interests centre on the 5th-6th centuries, so I came to the story with no expectations, and no particular vision on how Edwin might be. But now I am very intrigued indeed. I was ready to be swept away, and it was the right book, read at the right time. I almost don't want to read it again now, in case I start picking at any perceived flaws :-)
As regards to my own period of interest, it is dominated by the King Arthur factor (sighs with total boredom at the thought). I think I have now finally past the 'pain barrier' where these are concerned. And boy was there a lot of pain, as authors seemed to cheerfully stomp on the historical side of things. There are so many fictional Arthurs, and I have read a fair few, so I now have a good sense of what I think is important; as a reader I want to be immersed in the quality of the writing. I want to absolutely trust the author to take me on a journey, and I don't want to see the inner workings of the author as that kills suspension of disbelief. If the author has created a congruent world (i.e it fully functions within the bounds created), they can have as many King Arthurs as they like, but the writing must be extremely competent. It must transcend any doubts I have about how they approached the history. Seventh century-set Flight did just that for me.
To me Sampson's Edwin is driven, vigorous, courageous and ruthless. He isn't superman or a flawless hero, and that's why it works. He is human. Not some faceless king, who does the right (or indeed the wrong) thing without thinking. He seemed to leap off the page, a living, breathing person in his own right. The Flight of the Sparrow is a very good book.
9am: Blogger currently won't let me upload a cover shot of the book. Will add it later
posted by Alex Bordessa @ Wednesday, December 06, 2006
13 comments
