
Commentary from Flippy (your trapped narrator)
adjusts lab goggles while muttering about narrative coherence
Look, apparently I'm supposed to tell you how Bewitched Biologist spawned from some fever dream where someone thought "What if we mixed peer review with necromancy?" Dr. Vance was out here treating the scientific method like a suggestion box, tossing ancient spells into her petri dishes like she's Gordon Ramsay seasoning a disaster. One chemical spill plus mystical mumbo-jumbo later, BOOM—we've got ourselves a walking, talking violation of both physics AND good storytelling. Because nothing says "disc golf excellence" like cursed academia, am I right?
Will this abomination cite its sources? Can you peer-review a haunting?
dramatically adjusts cracked safety goggles while sighing
So here's how Clayton Rackham became the chosen vessel for Bewitched Biologist—apparently his 941 rating created some kind of "statistical anomaly" that Dr. Vance's cursed formulas found irresistible. One moment he's throwing discs, the next he's got mystical lab equipment following him around like lost puppies. Because nothing screams "horror movie logic" like good putting stats attracting supernatural academia, right?
Will Clayton's precision survive peer review from beyond?