In life and writing, I think the combination of humor, horror, and shock makes the difference between a good and bad life, and if we could all terrify some laughs out of each other this semester then I think we've got a good thing going. I don't have much interest in the real things in this world, so through writing I like to create other places to set my head.
But why would someone who strives to write about false towns harboring false characters carrying out false events have any interest in reading, let alone writing anything as tangible as science? The answer, in short, is Gillian Anderson, better known for her stiff scientific portrayal of "Scully" in the X Files.
As a lifelong fan of reading supernatural horror and all things that hover around the abyss of the unexplained, I've noticed that a story's ability to put me on the edge of my seat generally relies on how well an author can get me to believe that what is happening is actually plausible, despite all worldly possibilities. The best way to persuade an audience quickly (within the span of a novel or short story) is with factual statements that can connect the impossible dots to draw the unthinkable conclusion.
My head is generally in the clouds, wondering how an amputee alien with Alzheimer's disease might see life, or whether or not we could shove a couple USB sticks in the right orifices of humans to steal their memories. Normal, day to day shit like that. But all of these brewing stories have no basis without scientific background. I don't know anything about Alzheimer's, or the ratio of gigabytes to human brain capacity, and even when I go to look it up it's full of jargon and devilry that I just can't comprehend.
This class will help me bridge the gap between the utterly absurd and completely plausible.
