Father Comes Home From the Wars

by Suzan-Lori Parks

Finalist, 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Drama "The finest work yet from this gifted writer."— The New York Times Offered his freedom if he joins his master in the ranks of the Confederacy, Hero, a slave, must choose whether to leave the woman and people he loves for what may be another empty promise. As his decision brings him face to face with a nation at war with itself, the ones Hero left behind debate whether to escape or wait for his return, only to discover that for Hero, freedom may have come at a great spiritual cost. A devastatingly beautiful dramatic work, Father Comes Home from the Wars (Parts 1, 2, & 3) is the opening trilogy of a projected nine-play cycle that will ultimately take us into the present. Suzan-Lori Parks became the first African American woman to receive the Pulitzer Prize for Drama for her play Topdog/Underdog in 2002. Her other plays include The Book of Grace , In the Blood , Venus , The Death of the Last Black Man in the Whole Entire World , Fucking A , Imperceptible Mutabilities in the Third Kingdom and The America Play . In 2007 her 365 Days/365 Plays was produced at more than seven hundred theaters worldwide. Parks is a MacArthur Fellow and the Master Writer Chair at the Public Theater.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Historical Fiction, School, Fiction, College

192 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2015

About the author

Suzan-Lori Parks is an award-winning American playwright and screenwriter. She was a recipient of the MacArthur Foundation "Genius" Grant in 2001, and received the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2002. She is married to blues musician Paul Oscher.

Reviews

[Jerrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saw this play tonight. I’m interested in the rest - supposed to have 12 parts total.

[Aaron Piccirillo · Rating 3 out of 5]

“He dangled it in front of me. My Freedom. Like a beautiful carrot. Like a diamond. And those scraps of uniform and the diamond Freedom glittering. As he promised it, asking me to see it, to smell it, to touch it, try it on for size. But while I so wanted to I was still thinking on the bald fact that in his service I will be helping out on the wrong side.”

actual rating: 3.5/5

definitely suzan-lori parks’ most traditional play in terms of style and writing but it was still a really good show. not a lot really happens but it was still an interesting story and parks is such an intelligent person like she has the biggest brain energy. kind of surprised that there was no lincoln reference in this show considering how there is always some random reference to him in her work. overall i think the story was interesting and was a different look at the civil war and slavery but i wish there was more of a story and more character development throughout the show considering it’s literally split into 3 parts but i just really respect parks’ work even if it is not my style.

[Rachel Pollock · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first play assigned to the script evaluation committee at work, and WOW, what a script. I could imagine how this would play out in my mind as I read it, and my lord but is it full of important history. The interpersonal dynamics in this serve to truly dramatize and actualize many of the egregious ethical travesties committed by slaveholders upon enslaved people.

And, on a selfish note, there's a spectacular hat mentioned in the dialogue and several Civil War uniforms (Union and Confederate both), plus one character plays a dog so this would be potentially great for costumes.

[Molly Nash · Rating 5 out of 5]

wowowowow read this in two days. this is a play in novel form, three parts, all impeccable. examines the civil war, slavery, agency, and loyalty in an eye-opening and astounding way. Parks is efficient and sharp in her writing, introducing nuance into already complex issues and decisions. would definitely recommend.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

19th century blues x brecht x the odyssey x the african-american experience

hard to do justice to this beauty in description; it's a minimal and sly play(s). impossible to refute.

[Jem · Rating 3 out of 5]

hero sucks

[daniela · Rating 3 out of 5]

the book was good, and i liked the story. i think it would be very cool to see a stage production of it. my only issue with it was that i really did not like hero at the end of the play. spoilers: it just made m so mad when he told penny he was marrying someone else. i was also in shock when he almost killed homer. i legit sat there for a minute staring at what i read because i was so surprised. also he should have just read the others the proclamation instead of just letting them runaway. that was rude.

[Xiu Lim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parks balances comedy and horror, levity and gravity, in a way that’s so grossly engaging it feels like watching a Tarantino movie. As a reader, I felt she was in absolute control of the story; nothing in this work feels unintentional or half-thought-out.

[Gurldoggie · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant 3-part play set just before, during, and immediately after the American Civil War. A multi-layered epic, the play succeeds on many levels - as a window on Black culture during this dark moment, as a contemporary gloss on Homeric myth, and as a philosophical examination of the practical and existential implications of freedom. But it's also a very human story, with moments of humor and great sadness. A heartbreak and a triumph.

[Jessica López-Barkl · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started and finished this play today, a snow day here in the Catskills... I was thinking about doing a season of plays about parenting or fathers or something last year, and then the election happened and I decided I had a responsibility to present a season on American Identity. I suppose this play would have fit into that structure, but I hadn't read it, yet, and I was in the middle of directing a new jam-band musical adapted from Shakespeare's MEASURE FOR MEASURE, and, that, of course, along with teaching, took all my time...

So...I held onto the play, and I am now buckling down to reading several plays in preparation for the play reading series I create every year that allows the SUNY Sullivan students to experience play readings and to vote on their next season.

This is a subtle and striking play. I'm always amazed by Suzan-Lori Parks' ability to craft a world and a language unique to each play that can catch the audience off their guard with a reality that they must face. There are so many themes in this play that are often taboo subjects in different communities. I'm excited to see the other six plays that will come from this cycle of nine. I feel as though the spirits of August Wilson and Eugene O'Neill with their dreams of cycle plays are smiling down on this amazing playwright.

I have so many women in my program, right now, that this play might not be a good fit for us, but I will say to other professors and teachers of theater out there that the scene work is good and there are a lot of wonderful monologues for students to explore.

[Tom O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

The three plays are more like three acts but that does not dilute the ingenuity and glee of the structure. There are deliberate breaks with 'reality' everywhere but they serve only to highlight the harsh truths of the story rather than detract from it. Wonderfully well written and poignant in places with some real and heart rending moments amongst the playful theatrics.

[Harry McDonald · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very American. Quite old-fashioned. Part 2 is by far the best of the bunch.

[Aaron Thomas]

I think this is my favorite of SLP's plays. I love the classical references (especially to Æschylus), and I love the beautiful way it twists and adapts the old story.

[Kahmal Sealey · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great play; it reads like the journey of an enslaved man who is looking to free himself both literally and mentally.

Part 1 – enslaved
What is the better option: to suffer, but find solace in the fact you’re suffering as a group and have a shared understanding and camaraderie; or to try and improve your situation but have to hurt someone else in the process?

Hero sold out Homer for a chance at freedom, that is a fact but where is the line between wrong and right in this situation? You can lean on morals and argue that it’s wrong to harm others for your gain, there needs to be ‘honor among thieves’, but none of them chose slavery so didn’t agree to the unspoken loyalties you ‘need’ to have. If this was the case, how do you respond when the gun is pointed at your head and you’re told to chop off Homer’s foot or be shot yourself? Do you justify that Homer shouldn’t have tried to escape so he’s bought this on himself, or do you die holding your values?

It was almost the ‘house versus field’ situation in Part 1, with Hero having the ‘leg up’ by being in his master's ear and having a perceived better position to the outside, but still very much in a difficult situation. The rise and fall of Part 1 was poignant, with his friends saying they don’t feel comfortable calling him by his own name of ‘Hero’ as they were so let down finding out he sold out Homer.
Part 2 – working for freedom
Meeting another enslaved man thrusts Hero onto a journey of introspection, culminating in his choosing to free the man.

What I will say about Part 2 is the speech that the Colonel gave, which perfectly sums up the absolute weight of slavery. In essence, he says:

“Despite how much money he may or may not have, if his farm fails, his wife or child passes away – he can always be thankful that he is white and doesn’t ever have to fight ‘the battle of darkness’ and that ‘there is a comfort that if the lord decides to improve his economics, he will be grateful but if not he will be comfortable. Unlike a lowly house, which will always remain lowly, no matter how high they climb”

This perfectly sums up... everything. Slavery was a system in place designed not only to exploit black people but to systemically hold them down. Hero’s release of Smith, the captive, shows him empowering his people and trying to reverse this trend.

Part 3 – Freedom
In all honesty, Part 3 is what let this play down for me a bit. I get that the talking dog may have been stylistic in the form of an odyssey but as the play was so grounded before, it took me out of the suspended disbelief for a moment (but that could be my own ignorance).

Part 3 however was a culmination of the story, him finding freedom but at the price of what? He found a new wife and his wife, who waited on him left him. His dad has died. He has freedom, but ultimately has nothing.

[Avery Horton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to give this a 4 because of how fantastic part 2 is in particular. There are some historical discrepancies, but they are not the main focus of the plays so I will refrain from expanding on them. Much of the book is extremely smart and it is absolutely worth reading! Suzan-Lori Parks appears to switch modes between parts which is definitely an interesting choice, and her use of "rests and spells" to represent moments of tension (as she does in Topdog / Underdog) works incredibly well in this piece. The author also makes explicit parallels to Greek classics and mythology throughout the three parts - with part one using a stylistic mode highly reminiscent of the Iliad & Odyssey.

Beyond the stylistic parallels, the character names are also clearly referencing the aforementioned Greek epic, with characters such as 'Homer', 'Hero', 'Penny' (Penelope), and 'Odyssey Dog'. My main gripe with this is that it is not exactly clear if these allusions have any meaning beyond the surface evaluation: Hero goes on a journey (an Odyssey, if you will) and returns home a changed man (although Hero has not truly changed except in name and garb). But why is Homer's character named so? I have my theories, but none seem to quite fit with his actions. Likewise, Penny might simply be named as such due to her being the veritable wife of Hero, but that is a less-than satisfying answer. I digress.

This aside, the play's portrayal of the toxic cycle of racism and how it takes root in the mind's of both White and Black people is unrivaled. I imagine that the impact is even greater seen staged than read. If nothing else, it is now on my theater-bucket-list to see part 2 performed live. That section alone is worth the price of this book!

Bonus: Park wrote several songs to go along with these plays! This edition includes the music at the back of the book which was a pleasant surprise, as many plays will leave the tune of songs up to the readers imagination.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

2015 Pulitzer Prize Finalist for Drama

Father Comes Home From the Wars (Parts 1, 2, & 3) is a 3-part play about enslaved people and the promise of freedom in the midst of the Civil War. In Part 1, Hero wrestles with going to the front with his Confederate enslaver or running away to freedom. To complicate matters, his enslaver promises him freedom if he fights on the Confederate side. We are also introduced to his love interest, Penny, and friend/acquaintance, Homer (these names Homer and Penny and later Odyssey and Ulysses should ring some bells). In Part 2, Hero is on the front with Colonel when he takes a Union soldier as prisoner. Once again, he must wrestle with the idea of loyalty to his enslaver or freedom. In Part 3, there is a perspective shift as Penny, Homer, and other runaways wonder if Hero has survived.

This was a quick read that really captured my imagination. The script is written in such a way that it is easy to imagine the play in your mind. There's bits of humor (such as a talking dog character, contemporary slang, and jokes) and quite a bit of tragedy (particularly in Part 3). Apparently there will be a "Part 4, 5, & 6" at some point in the future. I look forward to reading that.

[will · Rating 4 out of 5]

"And what beautiful promises they were. With every day they grew fuller and riper. I'd imagine sitting at a head of a fine table and eating my fill. That's how real they were. I could taste them...I would feast on them." - pg. 155

The Odyssey meets Song of Solomon. The clear references to the Ancient Greek epic add a fascinating additional lens to see this play through with more than enough unique characters/plot that makes it stand on its own. The adaptation to a Civil War-era story of one (new) man, the literal "Hero" of his own story, and his own complexities is brilliant. The themes of names, the action of choice, how violence manifests itself alongside power, and above all the inter-racial dynamics of the time period resonate through all three parts. I would give the reading a 3.5/5 but I'm going to give it 4 stars because the live-action would definitely add another fascinating element to this already substantively dense play. Much like Morrison's books, I feel like I have to sit with this for a while to fully (or however much I can) appreciate the complexities within this work.

[Priya Hendry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok so I'm rating this as 5 stars now but that's kind of in anticipation of the fact that I'll actually be seeing it in a couple of months and I think watching it will fix the feeeeeew issues I currently have with it.

First off, the writing is absolutely gorgeous. It's like reading a poetry collection (or like Shakespeare?). That's one of the main reasons I'm so excited to see it live. It just has this gorgeous musicality to it.

Overall, I think that there was just a lot of real creative and experimental story telling and I'm ALWAYS a fan of that in theater. I liked the use of the chorus as a collective. I liked the inclusion of Odysseus (no spoilers here ;)) I liked the role of the Captain in the second part. There were a lot of really incredible conversations about the difficult choice of fighting for what you believe in and recieving your own material needs in the moment. My only issue was the treatment of the one female character in the third part specifically, but again I'm hopeful that seeing it live will fix that.

[Georgia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Had to read this for school so that kind of already sets the tone for this review. I felt that the pacing of this play was really unusual and the characters at certain points felt irrelevant to the plot and didn't progress the storyline as quickly as I wanted. I was able to finish the book quickly but not without extreme boredom and disappointment. I understand why it is an important text to read and there were some interesting plot points at times but overall I felt the text was confusing and uninteresting. The characters felt very surface-level and lacked complexity and any sort of personality making it hard for the audience to connect with them or forge sympathy for them in any way. And the splitting of the play into the three parts felt too staggered and ruined any sort of pacing they had developed. Again, I'm not the intended audience probably so I'm sure others have a deep appreciation for it but this book was not for me and I felt that the writing could've been so much better for such an acclaimed text.

[Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let's say 4.5 stars on this. Imagine classical Greek drama recast with one cruel master's enslaved people as the chorus and Hero, who must decide whether to go off with him to the Civil War as the protagonist, and you've got the idea. Part one focuses on the decision of whether to go (based on a promise that Hero will be freed) to the war. Part two captures a particular experience during the war, where Hero has to decide whether to free a Union soldier captured by his master. Part three looks at what happens when Hero comes home (that's not too much of a spoiler, it's in the title after all.) There are many parallels to The Odyssey. What I like best is how the play dramatizes some of the conundrums that the horrible institution created in the relationships between one enslaved person and another. Parks also includes folk songs, and I would like to see a production to get the full effect, but this also works on the page.

[zz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am grateful every day that God made me white. As a white I stand on the summit and all the other colors reside beneath me, down below. For me, no matter how much money I've got or don't got, if my farm is failing or my horse is dead, if my woman is sour or my child has passed on, I can at least rest in the grace that God made me white. And I don't ever have to fight the Battle of Darkness. What difficulties I may encounter will at least never be those. Life might bring me low but not that low. And I know that I will be received in most any quarter. And if the Lord should choose to further advance my economics, then I will be received in all the great houses. Not so with the lower ones. The lower ones will always be lowly. No matter how high they climb. There is a kind of comfort in that. And I take that comfort. For no matter how low I fall, and no matter how thoroughly I fail, I will always be white.

[E.H.]

I'm not sure how to say anything even a little bit useful about this, so maybe I won't. It's one part The Odyssey, plus the entangled, intersectional threads of racial and gender-based oppression as Parks imagines the life of an enslaved man who chooses to go to war for the Confederacy. Hero's rationale for not running away made the Marxist in me angry, but in the end it all worked with his character, which was complicated (and anyway, it's set in 1863, so fair play).

About halfway through part two, I texted the person who had put me onto Parks and asked if the characters said the stage directions out loud. It felt like a ridiculous question, but she thought they did. I'm still chewing on that. I think I would like to see the play staged someday.

Part two had a twist that really surprised me. The songs were good too.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the one! I've always been a big fan of Parks's experimentations. However, they've also often been bereft of plot and character to the detriment of their power. The early experiments sometimes seemed a bit too much like "experiment for experiment's sake." But in this play (or, better, series of plays), she was finally able to nail the balance between meaningful experimentation and just enough plot and character development for that experimentation to have a base within which to mean. In this way, she finally put together her most powerful and meaningful play--a true accomplishment in which the experiment yielded fruitful results. Bravo.

[Martina · Rating 3 out of 5]

the odyssey reimagined as a man's quest for freedom from slavery. there's a lot to love here, with the tension between fidelity and freedom that Hero struggles being especially compelling to read about. part 2 is fantastic, as is much of part 3. yet something about parts 1 and 3 fell flat for me. perhaps it's because this play in its entirety is supposed to have 12 parts, but it felt as if the story was constantly building up for something greater which i would brace myself in anticipation for, only for, ultimately, nothing greater to ever come. the play has tremendous potential that, unfortunately, doesn't match up to its somewhat disappointing culmination.

rating: 3.5/5

[Karli Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was really good! I definitely liked part 2 the most, the idea of “freedom” for each character is the thing that intrigued me the most, the conversations throughout about freedom really was the most enjoyable part for me. Each characters stance on freedom and the way that it effected the dynamics and the conversation about war in general (would have loved more discussions about the ongoing war but I wasn’t shocked it came back to slavery obviously) overall this part had me STUCK to the screen 🫠

Smith and Homer were my fav characters 🫩

And hero or “Ulysses” can kiss my black ass that man pissed me off so bad in the third part.

[Craig Werner · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a card-carrying Joycean, I've read a ton of mythic literature--see T.S. Eliot's essay "Ulysses, Myth, and Order" for the working definition--and I love some of Parks' previous work. But this suite of plays fell flat. It might be because I need to see it staged, or it might be because I understand this is the first part of a larger piece. But neither the classical resonance with the Odyssey nor the engagement with contemporary politics goes anywhere unexpected. I'll reserve further comment for when I have a larger context.

[Chadkovski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really loved reading this play after some of Chekhov's. Excellently written, layered with Homer's Odyssey. The characters are strong and have a philosophical and systemic representation of certain meta-narratives. Penny was an important character to me that represented a bigger philosophy of double oppression, of white people and the black men as well. Penny leaving to the North without Hero is a high point of the play for me.

[Lisa McCoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a great book- Excerpt from Bartleby

"Father Comes Home from the Wars follows an enslaved man named Hero as he struggles with identity and loyalty during the American Civil War (1861–65). The play explores Hero’s complicated relationship with Boss-Master, his ideas of home, and his loyalties to the wife who loves him and the man who owns him. Faced with multiple opportunities to abandon Boss-Master and run north, Hero must decide for himself the value of loyalty and freedom"

[Jake Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

[backlog]
ngl i read this is one two hour sitting during a class which was a discussion on this play which i forgot to read over the week before. as they say, improvisation is the better part of planning. this is actually one of the texts which really emphasized to me why the western canon (or more broadly, just the existence of “canon” in general) might be genuinely important—if you build upon something you need canon, if you want to destroy something you need canon, if you want to create something wholly new you need to show how it differs from canon.

[Daphne · Rating 3 out of 5]

So complex and diverse, I enjoyed this story a lot. Each character was so nuancedly crafted; they completely jumped out as individuals even though they're just words. As an actress, something that I found particularly interesting are the stage directions with thoughts. How would an actor sufficiently portray that? I also have another big question: Why are Ulysses and Penny both unhappy about each others' infidelity if they cheated themselves as well?
Truly, a meaningful play.