The Boys from Biloxi

Keith’s father, Jesse, is the other “good guy” in the book, setting the path that Keith follows. However, Jesse is likewise not 100% pure; in fact, his character seems to embody the phrase, “Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” The narrative clearly paints Jesse’s trajectory from purely a “good guy” to a morally questionable character. As a young lawyer, he has such a polished reputation that others approach him to run for DA to “clean up the Coast” (61). At this point, Jesse’s family’s safety is his priority, and he declines. Later, however, he changes his mind. In his first DA race, Jesse still plays by the rules: When Jesse informs the current DA, Rex Dubisson, of his plans to challenge him by running for DA. Rex warns him, “There’s nothing clean about politics around here, Jesse. You’re being naive. It’s a dirty game,” to which Jesse replies, “It doesn’t have to be” (114). However, later Jesse is no longer so adamant, resorting to plenty of dirty tactics himself.

The most poignant example of Jesse’s fall from grace as “the good guy” comes when he extorts Lance to force him into a plea deal involving prison time. Joshua, Lance’s lawyer, tells Jesse, “This is ruthless” (284) and calls his tactic “blackmail,” implying that it isn’t just morally questionable—it’s also illegal. Jesse has essentially become a criminal in his attempts to put another criminal behind bars. However, this all remains secret, and Jesse is lauded as the DA who helped “clean up the Coast” (61) in the book. In death, he becomes a martyr of sorts; even though he wasn’t the perfect good guy, the general public isn’t aware of it. This highlights the book’s argument that the good/evil dichotomy is generally overly simplistic. In reality, most people operate in moral gray areas, as Jesse exemplifies.

Keith’s counterpoint in the narrative, Hugh, is the other Biloxi “boy.” While Keith goes the path of the “good guy” (though no white knight himself), Hugh goes that of the “bad guy,” falling into the criminal underworld like his father, Lance. He gives up baseball in favor of boxing, starts hanging around his dad’s clubs, and accompanies Nevin on missions to beat people up—all while still a teenager. Hugh’s zealous desire to follow in Lance’s footsteps leads to his death; he’s executed for arranging Jesse’s hit. The book foreshadows Hugh’s demise early on: “Career gangsters like Lance Malco went to prison, or took a bullet, or they died in prison. That was Hugh’s future too” (170).

Hugh’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unquestioning loyalty and insistent adherence to familial legacy. Lance had the money and means to arrange any number of other paths for Hugh—he could have gone to college and become a lawyer like Keith, theoretically. However, the father needed someone to whom he could pass his empire to, and the son was the logical choice. The narrative paints Hugh as a bit of a fool; his own father doesn’t even have confidence in his abilities. With Lance facing prison time, he knows he needs to make plans for his businesses: “Hugh was confident he could run the businesses in his father’s absence. His father wasn’t so sure” (269). It’s troubling that the devoted son, eager to earn his father’s approval, doesn’t seem to have his father’s confidence.

The book’s antagonist, the main “bad guy” in the narrative, is Lance. From the start, he clearly has no issue with violence, including murder, to protect his businesses and his reputation. For example, in Chapter 10, Lance arranges for the intimidation of Marcus Dean Poppy and the murder of Earl Fortier, after the two cheat him out of a club deal. This is just one of many instances in which Lance participates in what is essentially gang warfare. However, Lance never gets his hands dirty, always relying on Nevin to do the grunt work, like contracting hitmen. This exemplifies the book’s point about how hard it is to shake corruption; the people at the top always have underlings to protect them.

Lance seems eager for Hugh to follow in his footsteps early on: “Hugh was only sixteen but was mature for his age and could certainly take care of himself. He was showing no interest in college and that was fine with Lance as well. The boy was needed in the family business” (102). Just like Jesse and Keith’s dynamic, the father essentially charts out the son’s path. Hugh is just as loyal to Lance as Keith is to Jesse. The book again calls this level of loyalty into question when Hugh has Jesse killed in revenge for Lance’s imprisonment. Even Lance seems to question Hugh’s extreme loyalty: “They [Lance and Hugh] talked about everything but the obvious. Jesse Rudy’s death was never mentioned. Lance had not been involved in it, and he was worried that his unpredictable son had done something stupid” (339).

Nevin is Lance’s main henchman—the guy who does his dirty work. After Lance goes to jail, Nevin supports Hugh as his second-in-command. Nevin’s character demonstrates how crime and corruption tend to continue unchecked because the people in charge of criminal operations always have “middlemen” to take care of criminal acts. For example, it’s Nevin who deals directly with the hitmen that Lance (and later Hugh) engage. Judge Oliphant confirms how this approach—never allowing “the boss,” the man in charge, to have any direct contact in such deals—protects them: “Contract killings are virtually impossible because the guilty party touches nothing” (332).

However, having henchmen do one’s dirty work only works if they remain loyal. Nevin is initially loyal to the Malcos but ultimately turns against them, betraying Hugh by testifying in his trial and confirming that Hugh was the one who had the idea to take out a hit on Jesse. Nevin’s character thus speaks to the book’s theme of The Dangers of Loyalty.

Ginger’s character primarily serves as a plot device, in varying ways. First, she’s one of Lance’s competitors, helping demonstrate how cutthroat the world of crime can get. This is also evident in more minor characters, like Dusty Cromwell (Lance pays someone to burn down Dusty’s bar; Dusty has the arsonist killed and sends his ear to Lance in the mail). More significantly, Ginger is one of Jesse’s first points of attack in his crusade to “clean up the Coast” (61). She serves as an example to Lance of what he may face if Jesse is successful in his crusade.

Additionally, Ginger’s case serves another purpose: to help explicate the legal details of the “nuisance law” that Jesse uses successfully to go after Lance. The trial affords in-depth insights into proceedings like jury selection; in Ginger’s case, jury tampering results in a mistrial and Ginger walking free. This highlights why jury selection is so significant to a case’s outcome. Finally, Ginger’s case helps demonstrate the tediousness of the appeals process. It takes almost two years from the time that the appeal is initiated for the courts to rule on it—and only then does the Carousel close, for good. By using Ginger’s case to illustrate these details, the author provides some rudimentary legal knowledge that enables a clearer focus on the dramatics of Lance’s subsequent trial.