5/5 for acting.
2.5/5 for story, rounded down because 3 felt too kind.
An interesting story, and well acted. However not without issues. It feels like this could have been expanded upon to develop the characters and the plot threads more. But it is also quite preachy and patronising with the space it does have, and it lacks focus. The political stances that the characters, and by extension the novel and thereby the author seem to advocate are at points very contemporary and ill-suited to characters from 40 years in the future (before being uploaded) and at other points very problematic and authoritarian, though maybe unintentionally so.
Preachy unnecessary exposition and lack of world building
The reader is treated to some sociology 101, references to history and movie from the 20th century, science fiction and physics. The problem is that:
1. This is overkill, unnecessary to the plot and patronising (there is a character who constantly quotes old movies, which by the last quarter becomes distinctly annoying).
2. The references reach a point where they seem they are far more for the characters (author) to demonstrate how smart he is, rather than to serve any purpose in the story, e.g. a plot point or for character development.
3. Many of the things quoted are clearly incorrect or contradict the logic of the world the author is developing. It talks about fate and physics like certainties but quotes Clarkes' law (any suffiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic multiple times). Surely that would indicate that understanding of science, especially physics is incomplete? It's not like scientists ha ever held onto false beliefs about the nature of the universe...
It also makes sweeping and dismissive claims that nobody gives a damn about the past based "nobody watches silent movies". Right, so study of history isn't a thing? Nobody likes historical fiction? Nobody goes to museums? Does the author know the difference between film studies and history? It seems his mouthpiece character doesn't.
Then there's the sociology, this is incredibly shallow, doesn't account for many, many factors, from economics to the nature of hierarchies, a character who apparently studied the subject enough in prison to make him a professor in terms of knowledge preaches about it - but doesn't move on from maybe a first sociology lesson at uni... attended by someone with a hangover... who stayed up all the night before drinking, smoking weed and watching Casablanca... and missed the first half of the lecture.
Yes, yes. OK, some of the shallowness of the topics touched on really annoyed me. Without spoilers, there is also references to Isaac Asimov, which demonstrate that the author may have skimmed through Asimov's Wikipedia page at most, as he clearly didn't understand Asimov's Robot series, or Asimov's own views on robotics. This plot point also comes a bit out of left field (in that it's obvious by guessing and minimal deduction, but it's really not developed enough and not foreshadowed). The comparison of Asimov to a slave owner is actually downright offensive.
This is also matched with very little worldbuilding for whatever period passed between 2023 and the start date of 2059. It basically guarantees that this novel will age like week-old milk.
This made worse by the very present political issues that the author puts at the forefront, and the political issues that are not. There is a pre-transition trans character here, but the issue is treated very much like the world is socially identical to the present.
She does not reveal to anyone until about halfway through that she identifies as a woman, a decision that is alluded to having been made definitively when she was uploaded in VR. We are treated to her inwardly groaning to being "deadnamed" by robots and people who meet her in her male body, when they have no reason to know that she is trans, as she clearly presented as male previously. We are also treated to characters overcompesating to not offend her or trans people, when again, the people are from 2059, so I'd hope that society would have reached a more comfortable level of acceptance by then, rather than the very 2020s version we get.
On the other end, we do not get any exploration of the ethics of prisons or the treatment of convicts or ex-convicts, or of collective punishment. But we get a shallow hot take on robot rights, and a lazy "humans are a******s take on sociology.
The implications and extent of the VR, uploading and downloading technology is also really under explored, and therefore the implications of this on society, and the characters and their pre-apocalypric setting is underdeveloped.
Characters, perspectives and mouthpieces
The characters are more or less individually deep and interesting enough. And also well-acted, Brendon Fraser's Roscoe is the clear standout. However they don't come together for the whole narrative in a way that really meets the supposed aim of the novel, which is presumably to tell the story of the group of astronauts and ex-cons together.
The most obvious failing here is that while there are two main astronaut perspectives, and at least three minor ones; there is only ever one ex-con perspective of events. There are maybe only four ex-con characters who are named in the whole story, whereas the 3x-cons outnumber the astronauts. This gives a very slanted view of the story.
The next point is that the characters are not called out on their bull***t in most cases. This means that there are no repercussions for some pretty bad behavior, and carrying this to its natural conclusion seems to suggest that the author isn't just presenting themes and leaving the reader/listener questions to answer for themselves, but is actively in favor or sees nothing wrong with this.
The most obvious example of this is the selfish response of most of the astronauts to being downloaded into the real world. Most of them seem to want to go live in luxury in their own private heaven (with zero interaction with another sapient being) instead of actually doing anything to help anyone but themselves.
This even taints the story of the trans character, as this VR heaven where she can be biologically female takes priority over any contribution she could possibly make in the real world for the sake of anyone else. How about that as a way to undermine support for trans rights?
We also have no explanation of how most of the characters actually spend their time once downloaded. They seem to just eat and complain, the ex-cons brawl - that is all the charactisation of many of them. Many opportunities to show points of tension or conflict are skipped entirely.
Some of the things that characters aren't called out on are even more problematic, and the reader may infer that the author might agree with these views. As I don't know the author, and I don't want to assume the worst, I'll just put this down to clumsy writing or bad research. Whether it is intentional or not though this counts as a negative against the novel in terms of story and real world research which is frequently cited. These include:
- The idea that ex-cons should not have full rights (a protagonist even advocates at one point that prisoners' votes should have less weight in a part that seemed eerily close to the US Constitution's infamous "three fifths a man" over its treatment of black people).
- The book comes down strongly in favor of a surveillance state with zero privacy, and with very little to support it in the story, though the idea of a surveillance state should be repulsive enough to anyone.
- Two people are allowed to make a monumental decision on behalf of their entire community, not even representatives, just the two people the protagonist chose to talk to. These two people happily make a life or death decision for everyone, and nobody questions the protagonist or the two members of the community for this.
- Or most atrocious of all, collective punishment is applied to a whole species (which is a war crime when applied to a group in real life, and has been for at least a century, but apparently the author thinks collective punishment is acceptable...). It's tedious enough and clichéd to see all of humanity condemned for the actions of a few in fiction, but in this novel, the specific circumstance goes beyond this, and it's not called out at all.
See spoilers comments for more specifics. **
Overall this was an interesting idea for a story, but not well executed, lacking in focus, not enough world building, too many references and not enough exploration of the ethics or moral dillema. It comes across as too contemporary to have any staying power, and not focused enough to really say anything.
The politics is too contemporary and in-your-face at points, and subtly authoritarian at others (whether intentional or not). Despite the surface detail, this is not a "bleeding heart" novel, its ideas of privacy and human rights are callous by relatively limited standards set by international law. As this novel seems to put so much overt focus on these issues, it's only appropriate that it be judged on how it explores issues. It may just be that the author failed to really question or challenge the concepts and ideas he presents but either way I find The Downloaded seriously flawed here.
Lastly the ending stinks too much of a deus ex machina to me, and while some of it is set up beforehand, the main conflicts are not concluded in any satisfying way. In the context of the supposed issues raised, it feels decidedly unearned.
**** SPOILERS ****
*To give a brief overview, Asimov was critical of the concept of robots spontaneously developing consciousness. Anyone with any common sense or knowledge of artificial intelligence today would know that AIs are code, just instructions, so just like your toaster or oven, there is no chance of them spontaneously developing consciousness or free will. A robot or an AI is just a tool - a more sophisticated tool - but still just a tool. Should your toaster or roomba have equal rights? Of course not! Should a synthetic being being with a consciousness be considered a person with rights as such? Yes. But humanity is still very far away from creating a general AI (an AI that is able emulate intelligence in more than just specific tasks like your toaster or ChatGBT), let alone a synthetic intelligence with consciousness. The author's failure to distinguish this in The Downloaded shows a fundamental failure of research and complete misunderstanding of Asimov, which is all the more obvious and offensive for name-dropping Asimov.
There is no foreshadowing of the robots possessing consciousness, no reason why the people who built the robots would need or want sapient robots, The comparison to robot to trans people is problematic to say the least. I'm not sure who should be more offended: trans people for being compared to the half-baked depiction of robots suddenly having consciousness, or comparison of living beings being treated as property to sex and gender identity. Either way it's a very clumsy comparison.
When a robot character is revealed to have murdered an astronaut's body for the sake of robot rights, this comes across as just stupid in the context above. The fact that the characters just laugh it off and accept the robot saying, "I spent longer alone than any of the ex-cons so shouldn't be punished" undermines any points the author may have been trying to make about sociology.
**
The characters' behavior is not called out or questioned.
1. Captain Garvey demands that she be recognised as leader of all the humans in the community of astronauts and ex-cons because she was chosen as the leader of the expedition. She then has a tantrum when she is not chosen as as the mayor in a vote and refuses to share the news about the planet-destroying meteor that she called the meeting to tell them about in the first place. This is never addressed. She was also fully prepared to abandon Earth and most of the people to carry out her expedition to Alpha Centauri, even 500 years later with an apocalyptic event wiping out Earth. Not heroic at all, not criticised by other characters, and not explored.
2. The doctor argues after said vote doesn't get the captain elected that the astronauts' votes should count for more, purely because there are less of them. He's told to shut up but that's all, he's still overtime presented as the most sympathetic character. He also decided to only tell two of the Menonites about the meteorite, Brimstone. They seem to make the decision for their entire community to stay on Earth and die.
3. The Martians (humans who colonised Mars before the apocalypse and have since bioengineered themselves to the the environment) condemn all of humanity in the 21st century based on the apocalyptic event. They then decide to leave all the people in the community of ex-cons and astronauts to die based on the actions of a few. They are never called out on morality or the legimacy of them making such a decision of collective punishment, even if they change their mind.
4. The Martians, in a throwaway line, justify that privacy has to be extinct in an advanced society for security from suitcase nukes. This is justified in the story with the example of the apocalyptic war on Earth, and just accepted. Why might "extremists" exist? Why might an individual or a small group resort to such extreme measures? Are we meant to assume that humans are just suicidally violent and there's no context? A strange assumption after supposedly focusing on sociology and the nature of society.
5. Roscoe calls for direct democracy, but it's outright rejected with a simple "f*** that", and a dismissive, you be mayor of us. Of about fifty people, who apparently just sit around and eat, and complain and fight. The whole thing is justified with "people like hierarchy". That's an exceptionally lazy assumption, especially for a novel that is supposedly interested in sociology. There are plenty of societies, political groups, movements and sub-cultures that demonstrate that is not true.
6. The Martians call the meteor that will wipe out Earth, Matricide. That comes across as a very hypocritical name for the Martians to use considering how indifferent they are to their "siblings", the humans on Earth.
Never mind the plot hole where the Martians have never bothered to return to Earth in 500 years, and they bioengineered themselves for Mars, but apparently can't for Earth...
This review was longer than I wanted, but it felt necessary. Unlike The Downloaded by Robert J Sawyer, which was too short, but still wasted some of that word count. A shorter or longer version would have probably both been better.