Right from the beginning the relevance of perspective is demonstrated. In the first chapter, the reader gets to know how the biblical story of the Deluge proceeded according to the view of an outsider. However, even though it is demonstrated explicitly that the narrator was not wanted on the ark (cf. 4), the true identity is only revealed at the very end of the story (30). An exemplar of this species, namely a woodworm, would usually not be considered a reliable source, especially in this case, since he was not able to observe everything himself (18; 23; 25), but the woodworm provides some plausible arguments in order to underline the truthfulness of his account.
First, the woodworm points out that he is aware that “accounts differ” (4),
…show more content…
Thus, he raises awareness for the inconsistencies of the biblical version. For instance, he clarifies that, consistent with the vast amount of animals on board, there was not only one ship, but a flotilla with eight vessels (4f.) and that due to the food preferences of some of the species it was not a harmonious but rather a hazardous voyage on a “prison ship” (4). Thus, by drawing attention to the unlikeliness of certain parts of the biblical story, his own account of the event gains credibility. Furthermore, the woodworm points to the absence of many negative aspects in the biblical version. For instance, he clarifies that the “puzzling leaps in the spectrum of creation” (13) are based on the fact that a ship with a huge amount of animals was lost together with Noah’s fourth son (13), and that additionally many species were eaten by Noah’s family, who regarded the ark as “a floating cafeteria” (14). In this context, the woodworm explains that humans tend to cover up or try to forget the truth since “ignoring the bad things makes it easier for [us] to carry on” (29). According to these elaborations, he attempts to convince the reader that his account is more trustworthy than the official story transmitted and believed by