Amending this to “mostly great but at times questionable science.”

Disclaimer: This is not a critique of the quality of this book. I love Brandon Sanderson. I love Tress of the Emerald Sea. It might, in fact, be my favorite Sanderson book. Don’t be angry with me for overanalyzing the world building.

I’m writing a Bad Science post for this book because I have questions. Don’t read this if you don’t want questions raised that you may have overlooked. If you want to exist happily in your suspended disbelief, I completely understand that.

But I think it’s worth talking about, if only so I’m not alone in my “but wait, what??” The main thing that nagged at me (and yeah, I’ve dismissed it because I love everything else about this book) is the fact that blood and sweat trigger spores. According to this book, two things kill spores: silver and salt.

Now you might have come to the same conclusion I did… don’t blood and sweat have salt in them? Is it because the amount of salt isn’t enough to actually kill the spores before they react to the water? The people of the Rock don’t mind the salt in their tea because theoretically it can protect them, but perhaps that’s an old wife’s tale rather than actually useful. Maybe something about it being in a solution of bodily fluids changes the way it reacts to the spores, differently from pure rock salt. Maybe the humans on Tress’s planet don’t actually have salt in their blood and sweat and tears.

I can think of any number of reasons this salt issue could be explained away, but it bothers me that it’s never addressed in the book. Sanderson’s world building is often so methodical, so well thought-out, that whenever I’m left with questions, I can’t help but scream but what about this??? I have no idea if this is an oversight or something that he did think about but the explanation never made it into the book. It happens. None of us authors are infallible.

But I still can’t help but to wonder.