Sci-Fi Author Alessandro S. Scafato Discusses His Novels and Work as a Writer

Alessandro S. Scafato is an Italian author of three novels, The Minds of Mchawi, Quasi-Human, and Empathy for the Devil – A Quasi-Human Story. He lives in Zurich with his wife and Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Hipérbole.

Can you share a little bit about yourself?

Before even starting, let me first thank you for the opportunity of writing for your blog, it’s truly an honour to be featured in Writerful Books. As for myself, let’s begin from the aesthetics: I am the most unimpressive white European nerd in the room, also a scientist. This is what everyone sees at first glance, and I wouldn’t dare to say they are wrong because it’s essentially who I am, all considering.

Nevertheless, I was born in a terrible little town near Naples, which last time I visited looked straight out Gomorra. My parents moved up north when I was about seven years old, which for me turned out to be an even worse experience compared to the Camorra-driven town I had been experiencing until then. I was called an immigrant (in an insulting way) since very young. I did not feel at home or welcome in any way and my parents went from being well-off middle-class to utter poverty in a few years.

I learned to thrive in those circumstances, which is how I started my career as scientist. Scientists are intrinsically immigrants, I firmly believe that an academic that never moved at least three or four places is just someone who works at the University: I studied in England with a Chinese Supervisor, under a Russian Professor, in a research group where there were only two English guys, both of which were students.

In around eight years I had moved from Modena (Italy) to Portsmouth (UK) to take a Doctorate in Biomechanics of Stents and Arteries with Sclerosis. I ended up finishing my PhD in Loughborough (UK) on that same topic, but only after a brief six-months research experience in Tel Aviv (Israel) on the fracture of mining equipment. I found a wife in Portugal and a job in Bristol (UK), designing fibre-optics sensors, waited until Brexit kicked in to move to Eindhoven (Netherlands) to work on scanning electron microscopes and lithography machines, until I finally landed a job in Zurich (Switzerland) designing quadrupedal AI-driven robots.

If you are confused by my professional choices, trust me you are not alone.

In fact, everyone in my life is. I know it’s weird that none of the jobs I took had anything to do with one another, but that is how I learned to live my life: I am a specialist in computational simulations; in other words I make virtual simulations that tell Designers when the thing is going to break and why. I don’t need to be an expert on the thing, I just need to be a master of my method and be humble enough to consult the actual experts in order to make my simulation right.

This also means I can keep my passion for science without having to narrow down to a specific field. Whenever I need to move away from where I landed, I can always move on and simulate something else. It’s a way to ensure I always put bread on my table, whilst accessing a lot of interesting (borderline fictional) technologies. This is part of being an immigrant, whenever you don’t feel at home there is an instinct that pushes you to be ready to change. My day job reflects that spirit. So does the rest of my life.

Can you give got an introduction to the books that you’ve written and why they would grab a reader’s attention?

Writing Sci-fi was the end of a search for a hobby that would merge my need for learning new things, whilst wanting to express my personal views about the world. Journalism could have been the obvious way to go, but it’s not nearly as entertaining. I tried it briefly, but I found it too descriptive for my taste. I loathe descriptions with all myself. It also helped that I could not find a Sci-fi tat satisfied me either. I never got into that whole fascination with space stuff, and I find most dystopian settings a mere caricature of historical facts. Fortunately, I am used to solving my own issues, and all those reasons called for one obvious solution: if I don’t like what’s written out there, I must write my own.

You can always spot a sci-fi by looking at the structure of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: there is a scientist and a technology; a monster that relates to such science in some way; the common folk, being often the innocent victim of both science and monster. The actual book of Frankenstein uses that structure in a way no other Sci-fi seems capable of replicating, enabling us to explore the monster’s existential point of view, the drama of being hated by society just by being born different, without having a choice on the matter. One must also feel for the Dr Frankenstein, who is nothing but a man that dreams of defeating Death.

Sadly, the sci-fi I have come across approximates that archetype by reducing the Monster to a mindless beast (or an absurd dystopia, depending on the narrative style) that threaten society whilst folks innocently complain about how bad it is. Some of these common folks grows into a hero and defeat both science and monster. In each setting, the scientists are often stupid and despicable people, driven by self glorification and ambition, or absurdly incapable to do science without making rookie mistakes, such as letting viruses turn everyone into zombies.

Though as a scientist myself let me tell you something: the mad professor that skips the animal trials for human experiments is not an evil genius… he is an imbecile whose science is irrelevant to the world, no matter the results he gets. Mary Shelley is excused by being someone from the 19th century, when science was very new.

But we aren’t.

I lived most of my life feeling like the Monster of Frankenstein, for very futile reasons. Yet, beyond my narrow (and frankly lame) personal experience, I learned that Monsters are often people with illnesses, or disabilities, or belonging to discriminated minorities. Never, however, the product of science.

On the contrary, science unlocks those people from the monstrosity of their differences by giving them an explanation, sometimes a solution. What drives this search for solutions is the human ambition to defeat Death, to solve problems until the badness disappears. This ambition makes the hero to me.

You should now stop reading for a second and look at yourself: have you thought that humans will never solve every problem and this whole science thing is pointless? If yes, then you are the common folk of the real world. The average person gives up trying to solve issues before even starting, often hiding behind the impossibility of the utopia, whilst braver people fight to find solutions for them.No, these are no white army men in spandex, they are intellectuals.

The common folk blame the dystopia of our world on others: the scientists (psychiatrists are the worst, right Hannibal?), the immigrants (or the aliens, for political correctness), the mentally ill (hello Joker!)… I could go on forever.

Yet the true dystopia is about society sitting back, doing nothing to make the world a better place, and feeding itself off the misery of others and pointing fingers at others. Of course the utopia is impossible, that’s the literal definition of the word! That doesn’t mean we should not strive for it. Who knows? In the attempt, we might even find a balance that works best for us. Yet, without attempting, we are just victims of our own cowardice.

So I could say that what grabs the attention is the scientific accuracy of my novels; that the technologies I speak of exist today as prototypes in some lab and will soon change our way of living. But to say the truth, I think what should really grab the attention of my readers is the shift in perspective on this Sci-fi archetype, showing the product of science not as a Monster but as our attempt as humans to overcome our challenges.

It is also the arguments on the way society discriminates against those who are different and makes monsters out of whenever it is convenient to them, mostly by refusing to understand their difference or their problems, instead demonising them for their circumstances. In all this, scientists are the ones who got rid of the word ‘crazy’ in medicine, by labelling and understanding mental illnesses.

Science enabled people to express their gender freely, and debunked the nazist conviction that white males are genetically superior. It also proved that smoke causes cancer and got us technologies that prolonged our lives, conferring us opportunities we would have otherwise never imagined. It’s easy to attribute telephones and cars to science, though there is a lot more to it. With science we found a system to learn things and establish what’s true and what isn’t. All those cultural shifts that we are seeing are a direct consequence of the things humanity is learning. Believe it or not, science works for our benefit. So how come sci-fi never seems to be learning this lesson?

Can you talk about your work as an engineer and how that informs your work?

Working as an Engineer is what makes my work possible in many ways. It gives me insight on how the science business is in reality. I know the processes that lead to knew technology, the steps taken from academic research to an actual device that can be bought in stores. On the other hand, it also gives me insight on its controversy:How does a tech company gets funds if not from the military business? After all it’s likely the best government-funded industry in their country.

How can a cutting edge technology become bestselling toy from one year to another? Think of the drone: I can’t honestly pinpoint the exact point in time when it turned from a super-special piece of tech into whatever all my geeky colleagues were flying around the office at the expenses of people who were actually working; though I very much know how that happened.

If cutting-edge electronics requires such rare metals, then how can they be cheap and available enough to be sold in some random geek’s gaming rig? Yet they do, despite the fact that they are mined in very remote corners of the world, with an extremely limited supply; just search of Cobalt mining and a whole world of human exploitation will open right in front of your eyes.

I am not overly critical of the industry, but I am of society altogether. Being such a flexible element of the industry, puts me in a sweet spot where I can learn a lot about it without getting overly-passionate. This really stimulates my critical thinking on the topic. My love for science is not one of a groupie at a concert, who doesn’t really care whether the super-star they follow are really who they claim to be. It’s more of an appreciation for the art, which hurts heavily in front of the ugliness surrounding it.

Do you find as a writer you are more analytical or critical of other writer’s work or find yourself comparing yourself to them?

I tend not to compare myself to others.

We live in a world of competition, but competition exists only in the context of society. Living my early life being either ignored or despised by the society that surrounded me thought me that I cannot thrive by comparing myself to others.

I have to do things for the sake of doing them.

Society would have never enabled me to do anything of what i wanted in life. If I had to listen to my school teachers. I would have never graduated in Physics; if I had followed my colleagues in thinking that Engineering is not worth as a science I would have never gotten a PhD in Bio-mechanics; if I had carried on blindly in thinking that science is confined within academia I would have never found a job offering so much flexibility and the time to write on the side.

Instead I ignored what society tried to tell me and just did what I thought was best for me. Writing is great for me, hence I do it. I don’t care what others think of it. Maybe I am a terrible writer, maybe I am brilliant at it. The point is that I write because I have something to say, and because I need to say it.

It helps me with my daily struggles, it allows me to escape everyday problems and it fuels my curiosity. Plus holding a piece of paper that contains only my thoughts is an extremely fulfilling experience, when a copy of my own book arrives, I feel as if I finally concretised my ideas into something immortal.

As for the being critical, I have always been, even before writing.

My mother is an extremely talented writer (though utterly unsuccessful) and an equally unforgiving reader. She thought me to always close a bad book and put it away, because you’ll never be able to unlearn its junk after reading it. One terrible book after another, you’ll end up normalising badness as the standard and forget what a good book actually feels like. She offended most of her friends who dared to gift her the latest super-trendy bestseller by reading a few words off it and proceed to throwing it into the bin.

These are reasons why I rather miss on a great book than read every bestselling novel out there. I can live with the ignorance, there is always going to be something great we have missed, but I cannot afford wasting hours of my life on something that will eventually turn me stupid. Instead, I spend most of my time reading non-fiction, scientific papers (which hardly require any literary criticism) and novels which I know they must be read. Unless it’s Terry Pratchett. I read anything by Terry Pratchett. No questions asked.

What is the most difficult aspect of writing and how do you overcome it?

Definitely the publishing part.

Writing is easy: just unleash your thoughts, find a narrative style that works and make sure you have something to say. At that point just plan a plot around it and say it. It’s your thoughts, they don’t need to be anything more than that. It doesn’t even need to be any good, if you want to get better at it just have it reviewed, listen to your readers and write some more.

Then repeat until perfect.

Do it for yourself and you’ll write entire anthologies. Do it for the success and you’ll write a book my mother would bin. Yes, on the flip side, you might get rich by writing for success… but only if you are either insanely lucky, or from a good family that has contacts in the publishing industry; likely a white individual, graduated from a good university and with the blessing of a well-connected Professor. In one word: privileged.

The same way every Tech Entrepreneur got rich too, if you were wondering.

Real publishing, from the perspective of someone who is not set for success, requires facing an insane amount of rejection from the industry, alternated by scammers that try to convince you to pay them to publish your book. In the end, if you are averagely lucky you’ll receive some requests to send extra chapters, only to conclude that the agent who is reading doesn’t believe you’re writing the next Harry Potter. Which makes you wonder how many agents thought Harry Potter wouldn’t be the first Harry Potter back in the days.

I think a lot of them.

At that point all that’s left for you to say is ‘fuck it!’ and self-publish: you pay editors for reviews, revise your manuscript until you hate it and hire more editors to make sure there are no mistakes. Let’s not forget about book covers and so on, which luckily are not an issue for me, since my wife is a very capable woman!

After spending way more money than you envisioned, in things that any publisher would have given you for free, you realise you have no patience or time to handle the marketing side of it. All that is left is the humiliation that comes from reducing hundred of thousands words of your own thoughts and turning them into a flashy slogan, so that some random person would click on the link from social media (costing you even more).

All of it for them to realise that even indie books cost money but they are too precious to spend on something that’s not even on Netflix. Believe it or not, all of that is not even the worst of it. The most dreadful part of it all is overcoming the self-conscience that prevents you from placing your book out there for everyone to read in the first place.

One of my colleagues has recently bought all my books to put in the company library. I was terrified of having my colleagues and friends reading what I had written. I know now that I’ll always be. It’s not that I don’t think I am a good enough writer. To be blunt, I could not care less for that, I am some random Engineer who hasn’t taken a single hour of creative writing class in his entire life.

Everyone thinks I am bad at writing? Well, congratulations Captain Obvious!

The real issue is that those stories are made of my thoughts. They are children of my ideas and vision of the world. When I read them, I can feel my essence in them, my personal struggles and the most vulnerable parts of me. It takes guts to let anyone with an Amazon account read that!

How do I overcome it?

Let me think…

I don’t. I just go for it.

After all, it would be insulting to my own thoughts to let them out this way only to never see the light of day. I do love my writing work, I am its biggest fan, I treasure those books in my mind and on my library. That’s enough reason to face all these struggles.

The concept of quasi-humans seems to be something that is common to each of your books. Can you talk about why you chose to explore this subject from a creative as well as moral, philosophical perspective?

Quasi-humans are real and only common element of all my books. It’s the fundamental particle that builds the universe of my stories. When I wrote Quasi-human, my first novel, I had no idea of how versatile the concept would be: I started from a very popular research, which showed a possible remedy for spinal cord injury by introducing a brain implant which sends signal from the brain to a different device beyond the cord’s lesion; I imagined that if something like this works, the natural step would be embedding a computer with an AI (i.e. your smartphone) within the brain to cure a whole spectrum of diseases.

I call these people quasi-human (and not post-human, trans-humans or anything that suggests better than human) because I want to highlight that these are characters who have to give up a portion of their human essence by introducing an AI into their consciousness, so that they won’t be monsters anymore.

In one novel it was a matter of physical prowess, by not being confined on a wheelchair any longer, in my second novel I also included an element of psychopathy and mental illnesses. Sci-fi always sees technology as a vanity tool, though most technology begins as something with a real humanitarian scope, which turns into a commodity only after it’s commercialised and mass produced. With this term I try to underline the sacrifice these characters are making: whilst you can always choose to switch off or ignore your phone, quasi-humans are forced to live their entire life not knowing when their consciousness stops and the AI begins.

This is what it means to be a quasi-human.

The loss of humanity given by technological advancement and struggle between what we have to do as humans to overcome our biological shortcomings is a topic that permeates everything I write. However, it is never discussed on the facade. What the stories tackle in a more explicit way are the human conditions of these characters, their experiences and impressions and the controversies of their lives. I introduce two characters which have features that emphasise their differences and develop the scenes so that such differences can be experienced from multiple perspectives.

The aim is debating problems which are currently affecting us, more than arguing on futuristic issues that are not related to our present. Yet, the future setup allows me more tools in the philosophical debate. For instance, in Quasi-human I debate on the ethical issues of academic, medical, military and industrial research. Showing how these four blocks interacts in our society and determine whether a technology will be accessible or not to everyone and which way it is going to be used.

It’s a criticism on the interaction between society and science and on how it is up to the greed of people to determine whether a medicine will be accessible or not, or if a new technology will become a toy for the masses. All these nuances of tech development have a drastic effect on how we individual experience new technologies: we know the AI that helped ALS-afflicted scientist Steven Hawkings communicate his ideas as a tool for faster texting which often causes hilarious (yet terrifying) texting mistakes; we also completely forgot how it is to live with Poliomyelitis because Jonas Salk decided to publish his research instead of patent it. If he had chosen a different course of action, we would probably be still researching treatments for Polio, instead.

Differently from my first novel, Empathy for the Devil uses the same tools to discuss on the idea that psychopathy is an essential tool in human survival, other than being the feature of every stereotypical dehumanised villain. I use this idea of embedding an AI into our consciousness simply to aid the discussion of complicated and multifaceted issues of the human condition. Which is why I am going to stick with it until I run out of topics to discuss.

Though I foresee it won’t happen anytime soon.

You stress that your books are a work of fiction but that some of the events are real, ergo some real world conclusions could be drawn from reading the book(s). Can you elaborate on this?

Facts, not necessarily events.

The way I lay out my plots is pretty straightforward. I start by collecting facts from the articles I read on a daily basis, either for work or pleasure. These are either scientific papers or some official reports, statistics… basically the kind of literature an average person would refuse to read, even under torture.

The facts I collect may be controversial or just rather counter-intuitive, but they define the topic of the novel. Everything from character design to plot layout is constructed around these facts I want to show or comment.

Bear in mind that when I use the word controversial, I mean a topic that is pictured in some way by pop-culture (which I just misspelled poop-culture, maybe my subconscious was trying to do its part there), although in reality they are completely different.

The stories I write are in fact a series of scientific debates, along with a commentary on the solutions that humanity is developing to face its challenges. The characters are the media I use to deliver these to my reader.

To give an example, in Empathy for the Devil I discuss the popular idea of psychopaths as the ultimate evil.

Often the word psychopath is just thrown there to dehumanise villains, without them actually being psychopaths. However, the real world is full of non-violent psychopathy, where a person expresses a psychopathic trait without being necessarily a murderous bastard.

This is extremely common in competitive environments, such as sport or business.

In fact, as it is often mentioned in this case, a surgeon that scores high on the psychopathic trait is probably going to be a better surgeon than his peers; similarly a Machiavellian negotiator would probably talk people out of suicide or murder more easily than an empathic one. Both traits are part of the so called Dark Triad (Narcissism is the one I have not mentioned, and it’s very useful in forgetting bad you were to your ex-girlfriend, just FYI) yet in mild forms they are essential to our survival.

After gathering all the point of discussion from real life, I lay out a series of scenes based on what the reader can experience out it. I make a scheme (mental or otherwise) and figure out what characters I need for the whole plot to work out.

The two main characters form at this stage, so does their evolution within the plot.

My characters and the whole world must transform from one problematic starting point to a final, often optimistic, version of themselves. I do this to emphasise how solutions to our struggles are often possible, realistic, and not utopic at all.

These stories are in fact a series of scientific debates along with the solutions that humanity is developing to face its challenges. The characters are the media I use to deliver these to my reader.

As a reader, you may believe in those points or disagree with them. It’s beyond the point. What’s important is that the setting for the conversation is there, which includes all the pain points and some promising solution.

The philosophical pillar here is that, while utopias are never real, solutions always are.

Solutions only depend on the willingness of the people to sacrifice for the greater good. Which is much less than what cinema would like you to believe.

So yes, I normally mention that my novels are actually non-fiction, the fictional part is only a narrative trick to describe real facts of life that people may have confused or overlooked.

I also think most classics in literature are like this: they are books about real problems, shown in the form of fictional stories.

At least those are the classics I like.

Where do you see the technology such as biotech, AI, machine learning and so on, that you explore in your work, evolving in the future?

I don’t have the arrogance to claim they will be evolving exactly as I write in my books. Which is good because in my novels I want to show the best and the worst outcomes of such technologies.

Still, the technologies present in my books are already a real deal. There is no reason to think they won’t be part of our society at some point in the near future.

I like to imagine cities filled with self-driven taxis rather than cars, because I believe the vanity behind owning a car is really destroying the environment, personally I don’t even care what solution humans like the most, as long as we move only with public transportation; I find brain implants a lot more dangerous, but I also understand browsing and texting on your mind is as strange to me as a phone with GPS would have been to my great-grandparents; augmented reality in video-gaming is somewhat the dream of every kid since the ‘80s, I imagined it when games where just a bunch of pixels on a black screen, yet I wonder what would happen when fictional reality will be more interesting than the real world… I guess there will be very little reasons to get out of the house.

There is a point that technology increases at a rate faster than how our brain can cope, so we end up not getting used to them before the next thing arrive.

Do you know how your flush in your bathroom works? Or why the sky is blue? Or what makes your hard drive 1 Tb now whilst it was around 500 Mb only 20 years ago?

Probably no.

We humans don’t learn fast enough to catch up with all the information that science is delivering, but we trust in the outcome enough to poop in our loos.

I think there will be some version of a quasi-human in the future, after all AI-human integration is already been implemented since the first iPhone was released. We use AI for most of our mundane tasks: finding a route home, doing arithmetic, picking up facts out of Wikipedia, even predicting which word we are going to type next. Only today the AI is in our palm, but the step on having it in our brain is not that much of a big step to be honest.

I also believe when these technologies will become part of our lives we won’t see them as special as we do nowadays. Smartphones are fairly trivial to us, though if you described twenty years ago what you could do with a thumb and a little tablet in the future, everyone would have probably laughed at you.

On the other hand, there are a lot of technologies we believe are fictional, but they are very much real today: machine learning is a good example of technology we use on a daily basis, which society deeply misunderstands.

An AI is not a human machine that speaks and has feelings, it never was.

It’s a way to automate the solution of straightforward problems.

How do I go from my location to the supermarket? Ask the AI. I need to reply ‘Thanks, that’s great’ to most of my work emails… use an AI. I need to check which photos show a hydrant to demonstrate I am a human? Of course the answer is AI! Do I need you to click on as many paid content as possible, even if it means validating the most fascist and absurdly wrong beliefs of yours? Sure, we have an AI for that.

Spoiler alert: all those AIs exist already and work pretty well.

You can argue that there are chat AI which can behave like humans, there are a few phone apps that are famously weird about it, replicating your personality, but those are not going to do much more than being a fun oddity.

The tech industry is full of failures, like those smart glasses that nobody wants apart from that dude that absolutely had to brag about having a pair of smart glasses.

The trick is understanding which technologies are going to stick and which aren’t…

As for me, I only hope that in the middle of all this advancements, humanity will remember that science does all this not because of status or money but to ease the struggle that is life on Earth; in some ways, science is just about us vs Death, just like in good old Frankenstein.

Tell us a little about your current / future writing projects?

I am currently revising my latest manuscript, which I call the Lives on Mchawi. It’s a story that revolves around the lives of two women, Jayde Ee and Eshe Nkurnga. These two women live in worlds that appear as far apart as they could be, with Jayde struggling to keep up with her career-driven Singaporean lifestyle due to insomnia and recurrent nightmares, whilst Eshe finds herself in the middle of a fight against armed forces in Congo in order to find her lost child that was kidnapped at birth.

Their paths converge in a quest that will change both their lives and the future of the DRC.

Without entering the details of the plot, which I would rather not spoil, the story aims to show the link between our western lifestyle and the atrocities that are happening every day in Kivu (DRC).

I came across this topic several time, and as a good average white European I underplayed its importance each and every time I happened to read about it.

However, in the middle of this novel I found putting my whole heart and soul in trying to communicate how tight our western habits depend on the corruption and exploitation of the natural resources in the DRC.

For over a year, I dived in an ocean of emotionally draining research on both scientific and humanitarian topics on this subject. In the end, the scope of the novel shifted from talking about technology to discussing how our entire lifestyle still depends on the slavery of African people, not much differently from how we were doing it a few centuries back.

Only now the plantations are mines and that happen to be conveniently located next to their homes.

This story doesn’t aim at being an accurate description of how it is to be a Congolese in Kivu, but at showing the facts we should be aware if we ever took an interest in learning what happens over there, with a focus in why it is happening and what would it takes to stop it. It’s about the evolution of two women which represent our world and their world, whose story is an allegory on how the lives in the first-world and those in the third-world are closer than we would like to admit.

Currently, this project is under the painful process of publication, in the hands of countless Agents that will ignore it. Yet sooner or later you’ll probably be able to find it on Amazon for as cheap as I am allowed to sell it.

Do you have some parting thoughts you would like to share with your readers?

My conscience is telling me it’s time for me to shut up and let your readers be.

Still, I would like to mention that in answering your questions I made a few links which I had never thought before, such as the way I find descriptions insufferable has affected my attitude towards practicing science journalism in favour of dedicating myself to fictional literature.

I think I should thank you for allowing to write a little bit about myself, every time I do I discover some new thing I didn’t know before.

As every average writing teacher would suggest: to grab the reader’s attention, one must show and not tell… and that’s also why I better shut up and wish you many good reads.

Further Reading:

Authoring a New Era With AI?

Interview with a Science Fiction Writer and ChatGPT

About the Author:

I am a Physics Major and Doctorate in Biomechanics, currently working as a design engineer.

Scientific communication has been a personal passion for me since the beginning of my studies in science. In the past I volunteered in writing short science and technology articles and physics lessons for social media.

The eagerness for writing stories has been transmitted to me by my mother since childhood. Initially, I started writing because I needed a hobby, a good distraction to keep the brain from falling into the gloom of boredom and monotony. Hence, between working and video-gaming, I was craving a new project to follow.

Quasi-human is my first real attempt as sci-fi novelist. It began with the sole purpose of proving myself that I could make it. I chose a subject that made me comfortable, developed characters and plots as they came. I soon realised that the story was going somewhere, and it communicated a view of science that was both reliable and interesting. At that point, I knew I would aspire not just to finish the book, but also to publish it.

I genuinely hope my work will invite people to appreciate real-world science and its implication in our daily life.

Would you like to write for us? We are currently accepting guest posts from authors, book editors and emerging writers who have the ability to craft engaging and informative articles relating to writing, getting published and everything in between. If that sounds like you; submit your guest post below.

Article: Writers Wanted! Get Interviewed and Boost Your Visibility