¥ Not Wanted on the Voyage ¥

It is easy to see how Timothy Findley uses biblical material in Not Wanted on the Voyage; the biblical Flood (Genesis 6-9) provides the framework for the entire novel. However, Findley has twisted characters and elements within this frame to such an extent that the meaning of the story has ultimately changed. So while we can easily see that he has used the framework of the Genesis flood, the reason and significance behind this use cannot be understood unless we discover what the new story means. We can come to this discovery by examining the changes he has made to the original tale, and their effect on the message of the novel.

The first discrepancy that readers notice between Findley’s story and that of Genesis 6-9, is the remarkable characterizations of Yaweh and Noah. In the Bible, we are told that Noah is a “just man”(Gen.6:9) and “righteous”(Gen.7:1), and God’s “way is perfect. . .[He] is a rock . . . strength and power”(II Sam.22:31-2). Findley’s Yaweh, in contrast, is feeble and decrepit, old and inadequate, and Noah is a tyrant. We watch as Yaweh’s angels lie to Him to preserve his sanity (p102), Michael Archangelis describes Him as “on the edge. Unbalanced”(p102), and the horror of the ark forces the mortal characters to question His judgement. As for Noah, we are constantly and horrifically reminded of the evil of his ways: he fathers his daughter-in-law’s child, rapes a twelve year old with the horn of a unicorn, commits infanticide by killing Japeth’s twin, experiments ruthlessly with harmless kittens, and marries his son to an innocent girl so that she will be blamed for his own imperfections. The reader is confused: why did Yaweh choose to save Noah over the rest of humankind? How did “Noah f[i]nd grace in the eyes of the Lord”(Gen. 6:8), when he does not embody anything that is good or worth saving? That these two main players in the story are such a twisted departure from the strong, wise God and the good and worthy Noah of the Old Testament informs the reader that Findley’s novel is not a simply re-telling of the biblical tale.

Another unexpected twist in the novel is the fact that the narrative is entirely horrific. During the course of the voyage, life on the ark becomes such a nightmare of evil that the reader cannot comprehend its purpose. First of all, the ark itself is ugly, dark, dirty and frightening. There is a dismal split of the family and extreme inequity between the two decks, which results in such terrible living conditions for Mrs Noyes, Emma, Ham, and Lucy that it inspires revolutions on board. Japeth goes crazy with authority, and Shem gives in to sloth and gluttony. A virtual bloodbath occurs when Noah authorizes the killing of friendly “pirates”, and the scene in which Noah uses the unicorn’s horn to ‘open’ his twelve year-old daughter-in-law is unforgettable. And religious values become so degenerate that Emma comes to this dark realization: “holy mean[s]: no way out” (p270).

In viewing the horrific chaos of the ark, the reader becomes confused as to the purpose of this journey. If destroying the wickedness of the world and saving the last family of good and religious people was the intent of the voyage, it is certainly not achieving its aim. It seems that instead of preserving the good and faithful, the voyage is refining evil and chaos. Did Findley make this change so that the reader is made to question the judgement of God?

Although the reader may question the decisions of God throughout the novel, this is not the extent of Findley’s purpose. It is in another strange detail of the story that his message becomes clear, exposing the reason why he chose to retell the story of the flood in the first place. This telltale alteration is the idea that God dies. We are first exposed to this idea on page 108, when Michael Archangelis informs Lucy that God is dying. And when Yaweh steps into the crown of flies in his chariot, Mottyl the cat observes that by this act he is “consent[ing] to his own death”(p112). Throughout the rest of the story, it becomes more and more clear that God’s presence is departed from the world. He no longer talks to Noah, provides no further directions, and does not even intervene to save the unicorn, his favorite animal. Finally, Noah wonders, “Everyone else is dead . . . why not Yaweh?”(p350)

This alteration is a vital clue to understanding the meaning of Findley’s story. It reminds us of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous statement --“God is dead”-- made in reference to the changing world of the 19th century. In this period of history, Darwinian theory and new geological evidence threw the world into turmoil, proving that the model of the universe provided and supported by religion was wrong. Blind faith became inadequate as man found himself in a new and unfamiliar world, one older than religion could account for, with an evolutionary trend that the single creation upheld by the church could not explain. Where once scientific evidence supported the theory that God existed and that the scriptures were an accurate description of world history, now scientific evidence disproved these very same beliefs. As everything man had once held as ‘true’ was now questionable, God’s power over the people eventually faded, God essentially ‘died’, and a new era was born. Because Findley’s God also dies, it is highly likely that there is a relationship between the world of Not Wanted on the Voyage and this historic age of uncertainty.

Many examples from the text support the idea that Findley’s Voyage is representative of the conceptual revolution that man faced in the 19th century. Some of the vocabulary in the novel strongly suggests this era, speaking of bathhouses and latrines and icehouses, the electric light (p321), layers of petticoats, jars of gin, trousseau chests full of buttons, buckles, silk ribbons, Chinese silks, Dutch brocade, Egyptian linen, and hooks for backs of dresses (p178). But these are not clues that indicate when or where this story is taking place; the story is set in a fantasy world external to the world of our experience, where animals sing and unicorns talk and everyone knows how to recognize an angel. So we must consider these hints in the vocabulary as symbolic clues to a deeper understanding of Findley’s novel, instead of as clues to the setting

The main characters themselves also support the link between Findley’s flood and the Victorian era, as they reflect the forces at work during this period of history. This symbolism becomes more identifiable when they are split into the upper deck (Noah, Hannah, Shem, Japeth) and the lower deck (Mrs. Noyes, Emma, Ham, and Lucy). When we examine the characters in the upper deck, we find that they embody characteristics of the old world and the old ways of thinking. Noah himself represents the ideas and institutions of the old ways that held fast to the old answers of magic and theology in the face of the new scientific threat. This is made especially clear when Ham describes his father thus:

“You don’t have ‘discussions’ with my father, Lucy. What you have is arguments and edicts. His problem is -- even when you’ve provided him with the scientific evidence -- he finds some way of refuting it. ‘No such thing as a waterwheel, boy!’ he’d shout. Even when I showed it to him . . .A miracle! That he’ll believe. Miracles and alchemy. Even though he’s failed at both.” (p.180)

Accompanying Noah on the upper decks are his symbolic followers: Shem, who represents a strong workman’s ethic that overpowers any need for creative thought, and Japeth, who is eternally frustrated when trying to establish himself in the world as a sexually and physically powerful ‘man’. And Hannah must behave as the Victorian woman who, although educated, is unable to voice original opinions, restricted to dull duties and a low place in the household.

Among the lower deck we find a different set of characters, ones who represent the revolutionary ways of thinking. Ham, the opposite of his father, refuses to consider answers that rely on faith. He challenges the world as a scientist, constantly asking “why” and “what for?”(p338), and only accepts answers that make “scientific sense”(p.180). In this way, Ham represents those who discovered or embraced the new empirical evidence, which inspired them to throw away religious explanations in search of new answers. Like Ham, Mrs Noyes has also disposed with the conventional ‘wisdom’ of the old ways. A headstrong and determined woman who has never allowed her husband to dominate her fully (p15), she represents drastically different ideals than those embodied by Hannah. She also rejects the authority of Yaweh, refusing to pray and often questioning his decision in commanding the ark. And Emma, after the upper decks try to mold her to their old ways, escapes to take an active part in the rebellion of the lower decks, showing that she wishes to be a indomitable woman like Mrs Noyes instead of meek and subservient like Hannah.

But the character who illuminates the metaphor of the Voyage as the revolution of the 19th century most fully is Lucy. We are given enough evidence to know from the beginning that Lucy is really Lucifer, the rogue angel. But instead of the traditional story of Lucifer’s fall from heaven, we hear that she left Heaven willingly, escaping the unquestioning light to find another world in which other ways of thinking would be encouraged (p282-284). Lucy could never accept a world where one supreme being determined right and wrong, where questions and answers were finite, where boundaries were unchangingly set and unquestionably established. Her way of thinking, however, was foreign to her angelic companions, who saw her questioning and exploring as audacious and impudent. Michael Archangelis confronts this: “All you [Lucy] ever said was why? Why this and why that and why everything. How dare you. How dare you.”(p108). Lucy craves an infinite world, one with infinite questions with no authority who defines the answers: a world with places that remain shadowed and unexplored, and populated by people who question and argue and push the limits of their world. that offers questions and challenges. When she reveals herself and her ideals to her shipmates in the lower orders, they find her views similar to their own, and insist, “even if it takes a thousand years -- we want to come with you”(p284).

Another element of the plot strengthens this theme of the ideals represented by Lucy, as well as cementing the ties between Findley’s novel and the Victorian era. This is the problem of the ape children. We must remember that during the mid-1800s, Darwin developed the theory that human beings had evolved from apes, and that this theory played a large role in refuting long-held religious beliefs about the origin of man and hence the role of religion and the existence of God. In Not Wanted on the Voyage, we learn that Noah has fathered two children who were actually apes, and is intent on either denying their existence or blaming them on someone else. He cannot accept that the apes are a part of him, in spite of the evidence. This problem not only ties the novel to Victorian times with a Darwinian reference, but also provides an example of the essence of Lucy’s struggle, for the authorities that Noah represents “will keep on throwing apes and unicorns and demons overboard”(p349): ignoring physical or scientific evidence and creating theological answers that serve their own best interests.

This way of thinking, Noah Noyes’ way of thinking, will dominate for “as long as this voyage lasts”(p349); that is, until the implementation of Lucy’s “infinite” world of questions and indeterminate answers. But when and where will this new world begin? Someone must take a first step towards its creation by accepting the new evidence and taking a new course of action. In Not Wanted on the Voyage, this first step occurs at the very end of the novel, when Noah finally acknowledges that Yaweh is most probably dead (p350). But now, he must face the major question of the Victorian age of uncertainty: if Yaweh is departed from the world, who shall rule? Who is fit to be God after the Lord?

The answer becomes as clear to Noah as it was to the thinkers of the 19th century. It even seems in retrospect that Yaweh chose His successor before he left, in giving Noah His ancient cats and making him in charge of determining who would be saved. In any case, if God is dead, Noah and the Victorians decide that man can now assume the role of God, as there is no longer a power above man. Upon understanding this, Noah pulls the icons onto the altar, sacrificing his old God to the new one: himself. He then goes outside to tell his family “what Yaweh had said”(p351). Man now has dominion over everything. The world is now “delivered into their hands--- forever” (p351).

The correlation between the elements of Findley’s story and elements of the Victorian era is too strong to ignore, and it becomes obvious that Findley is using the Flood story to describe the age of uncertainty. But why use the story of the Flood to illuminate this issue?

In using any biblical references in a work, the author chooses the story so that the reader will bring certain associations to the work. In this case, Findley is relating the Victorian era to the end of a world. Inherent in the Flood story is the theme that sometimes, everything old has to be eradicated and man must start again. This makes it a meaningful story to choose; by setting his characters on Noah’s ark, modern readers can understand the devastation and challenges that the Victorians faced. Once these associations are in place, the author changes elements of the story to alter the message, fitting his/her intentions. So where the biblical Flood’s massive destruction was about setting things straight, saving the good and eradicating the evil, recreating the world for the better under the guidance of a just God, this is no longer true in the Flood of Not Wanted on the Voyage. Findley’s ark is adrift in a sea of uncertainty, abandoned by God and an old school of thought that provided old answers, with no reason to believe that better times will come. Through Findley’s novel, the reader experiences the difficulties that the Victorians faced in creating a new world-view that could provide man with a satisfying place in the universe.

By twisting elements within the framework of the old Bible story, Findley allows his readers a glimpse into the terrifying uncertainty that clouded the late 19th century, when a God who no longer held the answers ‘died’ and the world was delivered into imperfect human hands. And the end result is indeed Lucy’s “new world”, which Mrs Noyes sees through the water as a “real”(p343) world. This is a post-modern world that must be created by the Voyagers: boundary-less, unexplored, and therefore seemingly infinite. What old-world tools the Voyagers decide to preserve to help them in this new world is their decision, but it is clear that the old-world tool of magic can no longer be of any use. Because it provides no easy answers, this new world will not accommodate such constructs such as the unicorn, fairies, and demons. The nature of the world that the Voyagers must create when they disembark (the world in which we readers now live) must be radically different from the world they left behind, as humans now have a responsibility as masters of the answers to the infinity of questions.

Curiously, Mrs Noyes --facing this new world with her old, blind cat in her arms-- feels little excitement at the dawning of this new era. Once a solid supporter of Lucy’s quest for this new world, on the brink of its discovery she is inexplicably moved to prayer, a remnant of the world she once would willingly leave behind. Refusing to pray to “the absent God”(p352), she instead targets “the absent clouds”(p352). It seems that all Mrs Noyes can do-- all any of us can do in the face of a world with no answers or authority save for what we provide ourselves -- is pray for rain.

¥ Works Cited:

Biblical quotations taken from:

The Bible. 1611 King James (Authorized) Version

All page numbers refer to:

Findley, Timothy. Not Wanted on the Voyage.