The novel extract that I put online yesterday (a bit about the idea of human choice) needs a bit of explanation. I need to tell you that what was written was from Noah’s perspective. But his perspective isn’t necessarily that of the novel. There are two distinct voices in the novel; Noah’s and Ham’s. Ham has very different view on whether people have much of a choice in their lot, and this is true on about their feelings on most of the major events.
Noah’s voice has more authority (naturally) and he represents an authorised view of history – by which I mean he represents an understanding closest to what we the biblical perspective. His view is lead by his beliefs and precepts about God and the world. Ham’s is a subversive view and it pulls counter to the authorised interpretation of the narrative. Crucially however both their viewpoints are moulded by their experiences, and I hope that that both feel human.
I’m hoping that Ham’s yearning for the past and anger about the flood seem real and even something that the reader can sympathise with. His viewpoint is much more immediate and reactionary than his father’s. He is ruled by his emotions. Its about showing the both the wonderful, celestial spiritual truth of God, of God’s ways; and the down-to-earth suffering and tragedy of the fallen world. Its the marital joy of Song of Songs, to the twisted water bed of Ecclesiastes.
I think
