For some time, my editors keep pointing out several unaddressed issues in my stories. Typically, I have a ready answer, as those are issues I planned for when compiling the story, but which simply never found their way into the story.
However, now I'm getting several critical messages from active readers, asking the same kinds of things. The items are all good, valid points, but they (like not including honey bees on a ship traveling to distant alien worlds) were cut because they never moved the story forwards, or the rapidly unfolding dialogue between the characters ended up bypassing an appropriate opening.
In the old days (of Heinlein and Asimov) authors routinely dumped these details in the prologue, and were routinely criticized for it as their prologues ended up bloated with non-essential details that made the reading so slow, many readers gave up on reading prologues entirely.
But now, I'm rethinking my position. Since those writers didn't get such immediate feedback as I do, they likely got lambasted in published reviews for not detailing minor, obscure points, so they began dumping it all into the prologues to ensure there were few outstanding questions, and then focused on the story itself in the later chapters.
So I'm now questioning he wisdom of dropping these many points which don't advance the plot.
What do each of you think? Is it better being concise, and addressing issues only when raised? Or should we dump every questionable curios point in the prologue to keep technical questions at bay? I'm of two different minds on this at the moment because I've gotten so many (only three) in only the past couple weeks.