"Ant-Man"

You will, very likely, have noticed that over the years—and it has been almost four years now, that criticisms of other writers have been rare.

In fact there has only ever been one and that was on April 5^th, 2011, in a ‘Blog’ entitled ‘Frillies For Men’.

Other than that any descriptions written here of the work of my colleagues in the writing arena have been, I hope, supportive and admiring.

Example

We all have different styles and genres; our ways of describing people and situations vary as does the geography and topography behind each story.

Some of us like to include detailed descriptions of the surroundings and intimate attention to dress and emotional nuances.

Others of us like to paint in the broad strokes, linguistically, and leave the readers to patch in the detail themselves.

This does not mean that there are times when criticism is not forthcoming. Those are the occasions when I will take to the more private channels of communication and address the remarks directly to the author.

It is times like that when we appreciate someone coming up with constructive criticism because we get so involved, so close, to the story that we do not see the ‘elephant in the room’.

Reviews are a different matter. Here a certain honesty is required because we are dealing with an unknown person who is considering, perhaps, parting with hard-earned cash to make the purchase of a story.

Even then, the words we use can be couched in kindness.

All of us who write stories are aware that you cannot please everyone. We all know that there are people out there who will not like your writing—indeed, someone has returned two of my e-books shortly after purchase and that is their right. Many more have kept the stories and, we hope, enjoyed them.

[How does one return an e-book?]

Why would anyone return this?

That is my policy. Agee or disagree as is your right.  There will be people who say that honesty is the best policy and that a description of the story and a consideration of its merits should be ‘warts and all’.

But I cannot. There is an understanding between writers that we are aware of the effort that goes into creating a story—I have spoken of this elsewhere.

Large production films are another matter.

Here is a story, presented visually and aurally, that has the backing of a large number of people. Some of those people are experts in their fields and may be regarded as advisors to the producers and director(s).

This is where I hit a problem.

Those of us that write science fiction in some form or another (it is a broad scope that is offered here) are always ‘bending the scientific rules’, the laws of nature, physics and the Universe, at some point here and there. It is a necessary part of our stock in trade.

Sometimes, though, the ‘bending’ becomes so severe that the link with the original scientific principle becomes completely lost or broken entirely.

Thus it was, for me, in ‘Ant-Man’.

Yes. This one

Do not get me wrong here. I am a lover of ‘DC Comics’ and ‘Marvel’ productions. Stan Lee is a hero of the first water,

But.

‘Ant-Man’ just left me cold for one simple reason.

Mass.

Dr. Pym, played by the excellent Michael Douglas, and his daughter, Hope van Dyne, were telling Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) who was to wear the suit, that the distance between the atoms and molecules was much reduced (that accounts for the excess mass) and that he would still weigh 200lb.

Must be a spectacularly strong flying ant. The power to weight ratio of the ant must be enormously in favour of the power to support Scott and get airborne!

Hope Pym also explained to Scott that he would, at speed, have a similar effect to a bullet because the force expended by his small size couple with that mass would be hugely penetrative.

At this point my interest expired in everything but Evangeline Lilly who, like me, seemed ‘Lost’!