I've delayed writing this review because I feel really guilty writing it. I guess it's time to rip off the Band-aid. Douglas E. Richards is a talented author. His first two popular books, "Wired" and "Amped" were truly excellent, and remain among the best books he has written. Therein, however, hangs a tail. Many of his subsequent books were also great reads. However, more recently, I've found them just not up to the level of his promising early works. I'll be quite clear here—I intend to continue reading books by Douglas E. Richards because the talent he first hooked me with is, I am sure, still there. Hidden, perhaps, under the pressure of success, deadlines, etc.
"Unidentified," like all of Richards' works, draws on recent or interesting scientific developments and speculation along with topically relevant circumstances. They tend to be timely and engaging. He is fussy about the science, and devotes a great deal of time and effort to getting it right, and keeping the speculative elements within a reasonable frame of possibility. While he is often raising ethical issues raised by newer technology, he always works to present a balanced perspective. It's not the technology per se that is evil, but how it can be used by unscrupulous people. "Unidentified" carries on in this vein, in every respect.
Where "Unidentified" falls short for me is in several key areas. The first is an area that I have mentioned in a number of my reviews of some of his earlier books. He has a propensity to fill his books with "infodumps." Paragraph upon paragraph with little to no action, and serving only to advance the plot through explanations of circumstances, technologies. It's not a failing unique to Mr. Richards, and remains far to common in all but the very best science fiction and speculative fiction. The issue with "Unidentified" is that it has "jumped the shark" in percentage of the book that amounts to "infodump." It's almost a vast majority. It's like one long "infodump" with a little bit of action in-between to break up the monotony.
The second shortcoming is related to the overall perspective of the book. While Mr. Richards is a very talented author, he is not yet worthy of being hailed among the giants of the genre—Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Dick, Herbert, LeGuin, Bradbury, Pohl, Niven, Bear, Butler, Gibson, and so many more. He's good, but he's not quite up there with the newer generation of giants like Martine, Weir, Jemison, Liu, Leckie, et al. Then again, that's not his target market, the literary SciFi world. All this is meant to say that it is a bit presumptuous of Richards to go meta and be self-referential, even indirectly (or purposefully just different enough,) to his own self, writing, and works. I found this very off-putting, and it feels like he worked a bit too hard at getting it in, yet believing is was subtle enough to pass.
The third shortcoming is one that has been causing a bit of a slow burn in me as I have read through his catalogue since I first discovered him (around the time he published "Wired.") It's the constant reliance on individual (or two-character) resilience and winning against all odds. Also, in almost every case, there is a male-female relationship amongst the primary antagonists that is just plain similar to Heinlein-juvenile-style misogyny. Yes, his female characters do have a little more agency, but it still feels really dated given the 21st-century realities we live in. In some ways, the entire book of "Unidentified" may exist to serve as justification for having characters that are simply too successful to be believable by laying the source in the hand of alien species. The whitewash just doesn't work for me. It's time for some truly "woke" characters, and not "woke" in some sort of stereotypical, overblown caricature of what that really means. I can just hear Richards saying now "but that's just exactly what I did in this book and others." If he really believes that is true, then I'm worried that his worldview is a bit tainted.
There are a few other nitpicky items that bothered me, in particular a Star Trek reference to an alien species as a comparison to circumstances in the book that is so far off the mark of what that species truly is like, that I wonder why it's even there, and makes it feel even more gratuitous because it's so, well, just wrong.
As I always do, I read this book to the end. I didn't skip. I took my time reading it. I even went back and re-read some parts when I was unclear about something. I allowed myself time to savour it, to sit with it and reflect on it. After doing so, I have come to the conclusion that my general gut reaction while reading it were on the mark.
Douglas, I am sure you have many readers who will be quite happy with "Unidentified" so there's no reason to worry about the impact of my review. But it's an honest review, and, as I value your work as a writer, I hope you'll value, at least to some degree, the thoughtful comments I've written here. Still looking forward to your next book.