Losing Battles works as a mirror image of Delta Wedding in some fascinating ways. Eudora Welty is still working within the tradition of Southern literature’s family drama. In both novels, a private family gathering becomes a introduce the complex relations within a community of related people as well as their family culture, traditions, values, and idiosyncratic tendencies. The family here, the Beecham and Renfro clans, is economically marginalized in contrast the Delta Wedding‘s Fairchilds, who were members of the Southern aristocracy. Welty shows that it does not matter what side of the class line you sit on. Family can always be an oppressive force in your life, stamping out individualism. In both tales, the inward perspective of the family has a purpose to protect the family. Being at the top of the social hierarchy, the family in Delta Wedding‘s obsession with purity and maintaining the integrity of the unit seems odd. The Beecham’s, a family under real threat, carefully protects itself, creating a political narrative of their victimization. They go so far as to defend incest within the family from the attack of powerful outsiders. On the surface, the Beecham’s are more sympathetic than the Fairchilds, but nevertheless, we are reminded by Welty that family is the source of our identity and one of the hardest shackles to free ourselves from in our search for freedom.
The situation is a family reunion concocted to celebrate the 90th birthday of the family matriarch Elvira Jordan Vaughn. Almost immediately we know we are in the realm of poor whites. We hear about the installation of new tin roofs, we see girls wearing homemade clothing that is passed down from older sister to younger sister (identified by the fading colors), and women working at home maintenance. In Delta Wedding all the real work was done by the background characters identified only as “the Negroes.” It is a more delightful and alive setting. “Now there was family everywhere, front gallery and back, tracking in and out of the company room, filling the bedrooms and kitchen, breasting the passage. The passageway itself was creaking; sometimes it swayed under the step and sometimes it seemed to trembled of itself, as the suspension bridge over the river at Banner had the reputation of doing. With chairs, beds, windowsills, steps, boxes, kegs, and buckets all taken up and little room left on the floor, they overflowed into the yard, and the men squatted down in the shade. Over in the pasture a baseball game had started up. The girls had the swing.” (444)
The central couple in this tale is Jack Renfro, Gloria Renfro, and their 2 year old daughter Lady May. Jack is scheduled to get out of jail the day after the birthday party, an unacceptable proposition, so he flees his confinement and returns home a day early, again breaking the law. Jack feels he was unjustly punished by the Judge Oscar Moody. Gloria turns out to be Jack’s cousin. Their daughter, who Jack had not seen until this day, shows none of the signs of genetic defects that encouraged the state to ban such marriages. The clan is much bigger, with many stories to tell, but the Renfro couple provides enough for us to see that this is a family that is in opposition to the law. They have their own way of working in the world. In a sense, they function like the intentional communities that were so popular in U.S. history (something I have not yet had much reason to write about). The worrying thing is that although transgressive in respect to the external legal authorities, such organizations tend to be internally quite oppressive.
Jack returns in triumph in time for the reunion and tells a story of how he helped a man free his car from a ditch. Jack learns that this man was Judge Oscar Moody. Jack returns to the road to undo this act or take back the good act. The plan goes awry and with some comic splendor, Welty describes how Moody’s car ends up stuck on a roadside sign. They are unable to get the car down of receive any help. Jack eventually invites the Judge over to the home. This sets up the main tension in the novel, which is the encounter between the legal realm of the state government and the moral economic realm of the Beecham/Renfro clan. While the rest of the family is not happy about the invitation, they can use Judge Moody and his wife’s arrival to complain about how their family has been mistreated by the powers that be.
As we learn in Lexie Renfro’s story about Julia Mortimer, the clan can be very oppressive to individual expression and even cruel when faced with the suffering of an outsiders. It is in this sense that they are not so unlike the Farchilds, aloof to anyone outside of their community. Lexie was taking care of Julia in her final days but abandoned her to attend the reunion (Julia’s funeral is the event that brought the judge to the town). Before this, Lexie physically and psychological abused her patient. More troubling is the acceptance and even tacit approval given by everyone else for Lexie’s abusive actions.
In the final sections of the novel we hear more stories from different members of the family, but we also see the voice of the state (Judge Moody) express himself. While embracing the strict objectivity and legalism we would expect from a servant of the court, we also learn that his position allows him to empathize with outsiders to the clan (such as the scorned and abused Julia Mortimer). While the family insists that Jack was wrongfully convinced and that they had the correct narrative of the trial, we have real reason to doubt their objectivity. Their approach is subjective, as we suspect are the internal logic, history, and policies of all large families. The Judge, in a sense, is less a voice of the state than a possible perspective on a universal morality. In the last section of the long novel, when asked about her religion, Judge Moody’s wife says: “I’m neither one [Methodist or Baptist], and gladder of it every minute.” (847)
I am not sure this is an easily resolved tension. I do think it is likely that without some form of legal apparatus, we are likely to descend into clannish or tribal mentalities. This is not a defense of the state, as much as it is a criticism of whatever it is that leads us to create oppressive or Byzantine systems at the local level. I, for one, find the logic at work in families like the Beechams, Renfros and Fairchilds horrifying.