Work In Progress

In this paper, I will examine some of the mythic elements of “Noon Wine.” Specifically, I will look at how Porter uses psychic distance to illustrate Mr. Thompson as a flawed hero, undone by his own hubris.

In an interview with Barbara Thompson, Katherine Anne Porter stated that “any true work of art has got to give you the feeling of reconciliation—what the Greeks would call catharsis, the purification of your mind and imagination” (Porter).  Mr. Thompson’s farm is a literal representation of catharsis.  In mythology, the hero is called to adventure, called away from his ordinary life into an unknown (often magical world).  In “Noon Wine,” Mr. Thompson doesn’t leave the comfort of his home, but rather, the magical world is literally brought to his doorstep.  When he hires Mr. Helton as a farm hand, Mr. Helton transforms the Thompson farm, almost magically, from a rundown, cluttered old farm into an admirable abode, one with a “strong gate that Mr. Helton had built and set firmly on its hinges,” where the “piles of trash around the barns and house disappeared” (243).

The house as a figure of catharsis is also a representation of Mr. Thompson himself–the house being a universal/mythical symbol for the Self (Jung).  As the stories progresses, the house becomes less of a hovel and more of a functioning structure; the animals are well-kept, the garden is fertilized, the cows milked, the butter churned.  The Thompson farm has become a well-oiled, archetypal machine.

Porter shines in her presentation of archetypal roles and in her ability to move deftly along the psychic distance spectrum.  It is through this craft maneuver that the readers become intimate with Mr. Thompson’s hubris.  In the beginning of the story, Porter writes: “In spite of his situation in life, Mr. Thompson had never been able to outgrow his deep conviction that running a dairy farm and chasing after chickens was women’s work.” When Mr. Helton begins to thrive on the Thompson’s farm, Porter states that “Mr. Helton had never heard of the difference between a man’s and a woman’s work on the farm.”  These are just two examples of how Porter maintains a relatively even level of psychic distance in the first half of the story, while also giving the reader subtle hints into Mr. Thompson’s judgments (235).

In the second half of the story, Porter reels in the psychic distance.  When the bounty-hunter, Mr. Hatch visits the farm, the reader is suddenly brought in very close to Mr. Thompson’s thoughts.  Throughout the scene, Porter zooms in and pulls out masterfully.  In doing so, the reader enjoys witnessing the unfolding of Mr. Thompson’s judgment (or hubris).  Consider the following two lines:

• “He couldn’t remember when he had taken such a dislike to a man on first sight” (243).
• “The man was no good, and he was there for no good, by what was he up to” (250).

In the first example, Porter keeps us at a moderate distance.  The reader is still being told to filter the story through the speaker: “HE couldn’t remember.”  In the second line the filter is removed and we are much closer to Mr. Thompson: “That man was no good.”  The reader is brought into an intimate space with Mr. Thompson.  We are no longer being told that “he” felt this way, but rather that “the man was no good.”  There is no question.

Porter works along this range of psychic narrative throughout the scene with Mr. Hatch.  The method produces various effects.  First, when the reader is pulled closer to Mr. Thompson, it magnifies the tension of the scene.  Were the scene written without these interludes of psychic closeness, the tension would diffuse.  Because we are deeper inside Mr. Thompson’s head, we are allowed to join him in his judgments, join him in his own trepidation and discomfort.  Second, the reader is also allowed more access into Mr. Thompson’s hubris.  The further along the conversation with Mr. Hatch progresses, the more Mr. Thompson is pushed into that zone of discomfort.  Therefore, the hubris becomes more transparent.  Porter writes:

“Mr. Thompson began to feel that Mr. Hatch was trying to make out he had the best judgment in tobacco, and he was going to keep up the argument until he proved it.  He began to feel seriously annoyed with the fat man.  After all, who was he and where did he come from?  Who was he to go around telling other people what kind of tobacco to chew” (249)?

Here we see a progression from moderate psychic distance into close psychic distance.  The section begins with “Mr. Thompson began to feel,” and moves into “Who was he to go around telling other people?”  In short, we see Mr. Thompson begin to unravel before our eyes.  Mr. Thompson has much to lose—the wellbeing of his farm, the vitality of his land and family.  Going off the web definition at wisegeek.com, hubris is defined as:

Hubris, Greek for “insolence,” is a protagonist’s tragic flaw of overbearing pride, and leads to his or her reversal of fortune or downfall. Terrible consequences befall the tragic hero when hubris causes the violation of a moral code, the neglect of a warning from an authority figure or god, or an attempt to overstep normal human limits” (Morrow).

Mr. Thompson’s “insolence” may appear more empathic to the reader (who has enjoyed the fruits of Mr. Helton’s labor along with Mr. Thompson), but it also serves as a point of contention in the story: if Mr. Thompson loses Mr. Helton will he, in turn, lose prosperity?

The reader is aware of all that Mr. Helton has contributed to the health of the farm (or at the archetypal level, the health of Mr. Thompson’s conscious self).  Because the reader has invested in this progression, the varying levels of psychic distance heightens the tension in the scene.  Not only are we privy to Mr. Thompson’s thoughts and judgments (as well as his apprehension in losing Mr. Helton as a positive, nurturing force in his life), but as the scene progresses with Mr. Hatch, we begin to sense an impending dramatic turn in the story.

Porter writes that Mr. Hatch would “put Mr. Thompson in a fix,” that it was “a terrible position” and “he couldn’t think of any way out” (255).  Yet, instead of moving in close to Mr. Thompson, in terms of psychic distance, Porter opts to pull back:

“ . . . and then something happened that Mr. Thompson tried hard afterwards to piece together in his mind, and in fact it never did come straight.  He saw the fat man with his long bowie knife in his hand, he saw Mr. Helton come round the corner on the fun, his long jaw dropped, his arms swinging, his eyes wild” (255).

During this passage, Mr. Thompson displays no element of judgment.  Though the scene is playing out through Mr. Thompson’s perspective, the reader is given no insight into what Mr. Thompson is experiencing at an emotional level.  As a matter of fact, Mr. Thompson is so far removed from the reality of the situation that he cannot “piece together in his mind” all that occurred.

Given the aftermath of the story’s climax—Mr. Thompson attempting to regain his reputation and the suggested suicide at the very end—Mr. Thompson becomes the epitome of the fallen hero.  The “terrible consequences” outlined in Morrow’s definition of hubris befall Mr. Thompson in a way that one can only liken to the Greek tragedy.

Sources / Cited Works

• Jung, Carl. Man and His Symbols. New York: Dell, 1968. Print.
• Morrow, Licia. “What is Hubris?.” Wisegeek. N.p., 2003. Web. 19 Mar 2010. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hubris.htm>.
• Porter, Katherine Anne.  Interview with Barbara Thompson, in Katherine Anne Porter, a Critical Symposium, ed.  Lodwick Hartley and George Core.  Athens, GA, 1969, p. 14.
• Porter, Katherine. The collected stories of Katherine Anne Porter. New York: Mariner Books, 1979. Print.