Writing can be hard work. For me, sharpening my crayons is a constant hassle.
But seriously, folks. In reading reviews of my books, I find, at times, good and interesting questions. One reader asked, in so many words, how plants could survive in the world of my book A Subtle Armageddon. Spoiler alert, if you have not read ASA: all insect and animal life has been eradicated.
Well, how does one answer that? It isn't something which had occurred to me during the writing process, honestly. But plants as we know them need bees and such for pollination. So how can I make it make sense that plant life was still around in my future world?
Or, must I? I think we may be dealing with two basic issues here. The first is whether an explanation is necessary. After all, most readers haven't seemed bothered by it. If a reader is lost enough in a story, and that's what I believe most writers want, then I'm not sure every objection is important. Must everything be explained, down to the last iota? It is a work of fiction, after all. Is it even possible to explain everything away?
Which leads to the second point. The society which brought about A Subtle Armageddon was clearly highly advanced, at least scientifically. What's to stop us from presuming they overcame that stumbling block? Perhaps they developed a way in which plants regenerate on their own. In short, why not allow the reader, if it even crosses his mind, to dismiss the objection on that basis? After all, it doesn't really matter to the point of the story. Well, that I can see, anyway. Yet maybe I'm prejudiced.
I'm just thinking out loud. But I am interested in your thoughts.