Topdog/Underdog -- by Suzan-Lori Parks (2002)

Description
The New York Times recently compiled a list of the best 25 American plays since Angels in America. Seven of the plays are Pulitzer Prize recipients. Interestingly, their order matches quite closely to my rankings. At the top of the entire list is Suzan-Lori Parks's masterpiece, Topdog/Underdog. The title has been near the top of my list of to-reads for some time. Honestly, it has been at the top of my list partially because of the unique title. As you can see with the cover, which might be the best cover of all of the plays, the second word of the title is actually upside-down. I eventually found out the decision to make the word print upside-down is not just fluff -- no, it is contextualized in the middle of the play . . . I will not spoil the fun. A second reason the play has been on my list is because of the sheer praise I have heard for its playwright, Suzan-Lori Parks.

Suzan-Lori Parks is undoubtedly one of the most important playwrights of our generation. She is the first African-American woman to win the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. James Baldwin actually helped mentor her and insisted that she try her hand at playwriting. Thank you, James Baldwin.  Suzan-Lori Parks went from a reluctant playwright to an obsessive playwright: In 2006, Parks completed a behemoth project entitled 365 Days/365 Plays. It is exactly what you think it is. And yes, I want to read it.

Although I have yet to see a production of Topdog/Underdog, I believe I can confidently argue that it's great not only on the stage, but also on the page. From the unique title to the cheeky dedication page ("4 Paul Oscher who taught me how 2 throw the cards"), Parks reshapes American playwriting. She pushes boundaries. The only other playwright who shares a unique perspective and style as inimitably as her, perhaps, is Edward Albee. I say this because of her description of the setting. She boldly writes, "Place: Here. Time: Now" (4). She also invents her own dramatic language. Parks distinguishes the difference in pause lengths for both the actors and directors. She is such a selfless writer. She includes notations for where directors could choose to cut portions of the dialogue. In her notes, she does not tighten her control of the work, but she provides a clearer vision for the interpreters.

The two-person play starred Jeffrey Wright and Mos Def on Broadway. Off-Broadway, Mos Def's part was played by Don Cheadle. I am sure the performances were absolutely electric.

So what is the play about?

Topdog/Underdog observes the relationship between two brothers, Lincoln and Booth. The African-American siblings were named by their father as a joke. Booth pines over his girlfriend Grace while he is jobless. Booth shoplifts and practices 3-card-monte. His obsession with finding success through exploiting the public with the card trick is extreme. Eventually, he declares his name is to change to 3-card. He lives with his older brother, Lincoln. Technically, Lincoln lives with his younger brother, Booth-- the run-down apartment is Booth's. Lincoln is a seasoned 3-card-monte trickster, but his current job is to dress up like Abraham Lincoln and get fake-shot at by the public at an arcade. He loses his job to a wax dummy (The Flick, anyone?). Lincoln is recently divorced. Both Lincoln and Booth hold terrible memories of their growing up and their walkout parents. The play examines race, sexuality, and family struggle. In Parks' introduction, she writes, "This is a play about family wounds and healing. Welcome to the family" (4).

The play is split into six scenes and two undefined acts. The pacing is remarkable and ends with a mind-blowing, pun woefully intended, ending. The crescendo at the end of the play reminds me of Ruined and 'night, Mother. Each play left me speechless.    

Candid Reactions

• Parks is so unapologetic. She writes in her stage directions that the room should have "some other stuff, but not much else" (7). 
• The dashes in Booth's speaking are completely effective. 
• She uses "yr" for "your" . . . I wonder how readers hundreds of years from now will interpret this decision. Will it be a commentary on technology, dialect, attitude?
• Booth has a terrible mouth. 
• The fortune cookie messages are somehow daunting. 
• From the start, Booth accuses Lincoln of his own shortcomings. 
• Lincoln's song is heartbreaking. 
• Booth is delusional . . . Kind of like . . . Booth?
• Booth's description of their father draws clear parallels to himself. 
• Lincoln argues, "Cards aint luck. Cards is work. Cards is skill. Aint never nothing lucky about cards" (35). This argument is a parallel to previous arguments made in the play. 
• Booth is vile and vicious. 
• The social irony is disturbing when Lincoln states, "I cant be worrying about the actions of miscellaneous strangers" (48). 
• Is Booth's incredulity regarding Lincoln's deliberate ignorance a challenge to the audience?
• Ah, now we know why part of the title is upside-down. 
• Uh-oh. Text that is underlined AND italicized? This can't be good. 
• The mounting conflict is so perfectly structured. 
• The room itself plays a major role in developing themes. 
• Oh no . . . Has Lincoln been playing Booth the whole time?
• The characters are centered on pride and overcoming adversity. 
• THE ESCALATION IS TOO MUCH FOR ME TO HANDLE. 
• Man, Parks is just genius. 
• When Lincoln goes to open up the money sack, I can hardly keep reading. I don't want to know!!!!!
• THE THEME DEVELOPMENT. THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 
• Wait . . . WHHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT happened with Grace?
• Oh no. We know how this is going to end. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
• How sad when Booth accuses Lincoln at the end: "My inheritance. You stole my inheritance" (110). 
• I need to catch my breath. That was crazy

Top Two Aspects/Reasons for Winning

I can't concisely categorize two reasons this play won. There are too many reasons to count for why this play won. I may come back to try to unpack these later . . .   

Classroom Implications
The language is atrocious and the graphic recollections clearly put this text out of the classroom. I could definitely see this text being a wonderful text to analyze in higher division college classes.

Personal Takeaway
I love writers with clear style.

Ranking

	Dialogue	Characters	Plot/Conflict	Symbol/Literary Devices	Overall Enjoyment	TOTAL SCORE 9.25
0	Unfollowable; unrealistic; diction does not match character	Undeveloped; does not reflect humanity	Not engaging; predictable; reader can step away from text because it isn’t gripping	Devices are apparent for cleverness and do not enhance the story	Reader has no interest in re-reading play
1	Not consistently realistic	Well-developed; most depictions reflect humanity	Semi-engaging; some unnecessary plot-points	Devices somewhat enhance story	Reader would re-read with pleasure and reminded of work
2	Realistic; connotative; diction matches characters (2)	Fully-developed; depictions reflect humanity (2)	Engaging; unique; reader finds it impossible to put down text because the conflict is so gripping!(1.75)	Devices seamlessly enhance the story and provide rich interpretation (1.75)	Reader would re-read the play on own volition, enthusiastically (1.75)