Beware of Falling Objects

In recent months I treated myself to a ticket to a certain Broadway play. There was singing. There was dancing. There was a big-name star, and some smaller-name supporting actors whom I recognized. But no, I shan’t say which play it was, because I’m about to give away the show’s ending—and frankly, I don’t need anyone shrilling at me that I’ve utterly and irrevocably ruined a theatergoing experience for them by discussing plot points.

Because I am definitely going to discuss this particular plot point, by gum. God knows the only thing more annoying than someone who insists you insert **SPOILER ALERT** in front of statements concerning age-old plot twists like **SPOILER ALERT** “…and then they hung Jesus on a cross” or **SPOILER ALERT** “Who knew Rosebud was a sled?” is someone who has no actual intention of reading the book, seeing the movie, or watching the play, but loves castigating people for not typing **SPOILER ALERT**.

Anyway.

So I went to see this play. I enjoyed the play. It was a perfectly decent play. I laughed. I cried. I tapped my little toe to the musical numbers. I held my breath during the big-name star’s climactic monologue. I realized the final scene was coming, and I set aside my Playbill so that I could break into applause at the appropriate moment. I was ready.

Then it happened. The last five seconds of the show. Because, after the big-name star took center stage and uttered his last line—well, I can only really describe it by reconstructing the play’s final stage direction, which apparently read:

(OUR HERO looks up into the fly space. Then a stage light drops on his head and kills him. Curtain. THE END)

Everyone around me was applauding. Me, I was on my feet shouting, “WTF, MISTER PLAYWRIGHT?!”

Because it really was that bad an ending. Could it be argued that beaning your star with a falling object is a trenchant way of expressing the absurdity of his very existence? Mmmmmaybe. By some pretentious grad school student, that is. I’m more likely to argue that the guy who wrote the damned thing is probably so scary as a personality and considers himself so much above criticism at this point in his career that everyone associated with the play and its production was probably terrified to approach him and say, “Um, hey, did you know that this ending would get you a raised eyebrow and a D+ in a freshman playwriting class?”

For me, the sheer stupidity of the ending negated all the good things that had gone before. I had two whole hours of good will erased by the play’s final half-dozen seconds. I mean, it’s months later and I’m still grinding my teeth over it.

The ending reminds me, in a way, of the days when I used to love reading Anne McCaffrey’s science fiction novels. They weren’t good, mind you. I just loved reading them. McCaffrey had a canny way of hooking you into her unlikely settings through relatable characters, and for a good twenty years she was at the top of both her game and the bestseller charts. Then the books started to decline in quality as she aged. The good guys seemed a little too much like fuzzy carbons of good guys she’d previously written; the bad guys got a little too mustache-twiddly and one-dimensional. They were bad because . . . well, not because of anything real that had happened to them, but simply because McCaffrey needed someone to work the protagonist’s last nerve.

Then came the book that ended it all for me. I think it was one of the late Pern novels. All the protagonists—because McCaffrey never settled for one good guy when she could have twelve or thirteen of them—were terribly stymied for dozens of pointless chapters because of one bad egg. He’d show up, yell at the good guys, then stomp off in a fit. Right at the book’s end, when absolutely nothing has happened and you’re wondering how in the world McCaffrey’s going to resolve everything in the remaining four pages, a meteorite drops out of the sky and hits the antagonist in the head. Then he’s suddenly no longer a threat any more, being, you know, headless and all. THE END.

It was at that point I kind of wanted to hunt down McCaffrey, gently stroke her hand, and say, Anne, honey. You’ve made a few bucks. Why not retire and enjoy them a little, hon? Bless your heart.

So I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that as a general rule, ending your work by beaning your characters, sympathetic or un-, with precipitating objects is not a good idea. Want to start out the action that way? Go for it. A random house on the noggin did wonders for The Wizard of Oz. But as a resolution for all your fiction’s ills, it’s not going to work.

As a matter of fact, I’ve spent most of the morning wondering if there are any works that might improved by doing a Gallagher smash on the protagonist’s head. “Though sisters, and living almost within sight of each other, they could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands—not until a metallic rock hurtling from without the earthly planes reduced both their worldly estates to ash and cinders!” doesn’t seem to work in Sense and Sensibility. It might be tempting to see the Republic of Gilead brought to its knees by a meteorite shower in The Handmaid’s Tale, but it wouldn’t be likely, and it wouldn’t do any justice to Margaret Atwood’s meticulously-imagined world. And I don’t think that even in Avenue Q, a stray stage lamp killing a faux-Muppet could be played for laughs.

Just beware of falling objects, folks. They might bring your drama to an end, but they don’t solve its issues.