Roddenberry also didn't see the need to explain why things work any more than a character of a police drama would stop to explain how his service revolver works and what it can and cannot do.
Granted, but in a novel you have room to include explanations in narration when they're relevant.
I'm aware there's a lot of exposition in Watching the Clock
, and I'm actually a little uncomfortable with the quantity of it. But the story I constructed needed the exposition, because a number of plot points depended on the underlying theory of time travel that I formulated for the book. See, I can't just decide what I want to happen and then make up random rules to justify it; that's not the way my mind works. In order to write about something, I need to have some understanding of how it works. So to do a Trek time travel novel, I had to figure out how Trek time travel worked and then use that understanding to figure out what would happen in the story. I couldn't just have this stuff happen without playing fair with the audience and establishing how and why it happened. Maybe I could've found a defter way to do that than the infodumps, but I couldn't find one in the time I had.
There's lots of Star Trek out there that caters to many tastes. This one didn't appeal to me. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm simply stating why it didn't work for me.
But you did say it was silly, and that implies that there's something intrinsically wrong with the attempt. So should we just chalk that up to a poor choice of words?