Not Wanted on the Voyage

Generally speaking, most novels are written from a single narrative point-of-view: first person, second person, or third person. However, while this novel is primarily presented from a third-person-omniscient point of view, there are frequent instances in which the style indicates the perspective of the characters bleeding into the narration. Examples of this include rare slips from third person into first person. The first of these concerns Mrs. Noyes— “I had to give it lemonade” —describing an instance in which Japeth had brought a demon home (36). Other instances include narration pertaining to Dr. Noyes (222), and Lucy (338). Since these instances are so rare, it is difficult to ascertain whether these were intentional stylistic choices on behalf of the author or if they were errors not caught by the editing process.

In addition to these instances, the narration style does seem to noticeably shift depending on which character holds the focus of the scene in question. The story may have a mild case of what is called a “unreliable narrator”—a narrator who is not fully unbiased. This is due to the more subtle aspects of including elements of a character’s perception in the third-person narration found in the book. This is more likely to be intentional than the above noted changes in person. Examples would include characters opinions being presented as fact—even when they are extreme, biased, and/or factually incorrect. There are several instances in which a certain character’s opinion or inner reflective process is presented by the narrator as factual, such as in the discussion of how Mrs. Noyes felt gratified without civilization: “What a burden it had been!” (146). 

Some of these are fairly innocuous, but others betray a misogynistic undertone, which would not be altogether unexpected given the attitudes of the characters in question. For instance, there are references to the women needing to be “put in their place” (13, 48); fault being ascribed to them when further story explains that they had done nothing wrong, such as “[a]nd this was all the fault of the women!” (32); and the framing of Japeth’s quest to find the strength to rape his 11-year-old wife as heroic (23).

The flood is the manifestation of the vengeance of an angry God who chooses to wipe out the human race rather than suffer the continued indignity of its mistreatment. As the principle crisis of the book and vessel of change, the flood represents the end of the old and beginning of the new, an existential shatter point after which nothing will ever be the same as it was. This is explicitly addressed by Hannah: “All our terms of reference have been changed forever. Now, everything will be ‘before the flood,’ and ‘after the flood’” (257).