The title of this Newark Book Festival talk – ‘Deadly Secrets and Dystopian Fears’ – could hardly have been more apt. In the intimate surrounds of the town’s National Civil War Centre, speculative thriller author Eve Smith took centre stage, joining crime writer Eva Björg Ægisdóttir for a compelling discussion hosted by Dr Tim Rideout.
But from my perspective it was Smith’s chilling new novel The Cure that dominated the hour, offering a potent blend of science, ethics and imagined futures that now feel all too plausible.
As a writer immersed in my own climate-themed speculative fiction, I found Smith’s candour and insight both reassuring and unsettling. Here was someone working at the very edge of what fiction can do – holding up a mirror to the world as it is now, while asking what it might look like just one bad decision (or breakthrough) down the road.
The Cure: worse than the disease?
Smith’s latest novel (published this spring by Orenda Books) pivots on a discovery no less extraordinary than the mythical fountain of youth. Her protagonist, Ruth, stumbles upon a cure for ageing while researching a disease that killed her daughter. It’s an accidental find, science as a side effect, but one that is quickly hijacked by corporate ambition. The resulting gene therapy promises eternal youth but at catastrophic cost. A future where humanity can no longer die naturally demands grim sacrifices to keep the system functioning.
It’s this kind of premise, eerily speculative but firmly rooted in real-world science, that defines Smith’s work. Her books, from The Waiting Rooms to One and now The Cure, begin with a simple, terrifying ‘what if?’ In this case: what if the cure for ageing arrived before we were ready to manage it?
Listening to Smith unpack the real-world science was a revelation. She spoke of biotech companies already offering unregulated gene therapies, of a Silicon Valley outfit called Ambrosia that sold young people’s plasma to ageing elites – what she chillingly dubbed “modern-day vampire science”. And yes, it actually happened. The longevity industry is no longer niche futurism, it’s a multi-billion-dollar beast and her observations mirrored my own on a visit to Milan in 2024 and recorded in ‘A writer’s imaginative eye‘.
For writers like me, who dwell in the speculative margins of science, this is fertile territory. But it’s also fraught with moral complexity.
Smith’s approach stands out because she doesn’t just pose ethical dilemmas, she drills deep into their human consequences. Her dystopias aren’t all towering glass and techno-doom, they’re rooted in the mess and pain of family, grief, ambition and love.
Fiction as thought experiment
As Smith told the audience, writing is her form of therapy. She researches obsessively, not just to arm herself with facts but to interrogate their implications. “If only,” she noted, “our political systems could keep pace with our science.” It’s a familiar refrain for any of us exploring the gap between innovation and governance, particularly in a time when climate change, AI and bioengineering are all surging ahead with few brakes in sight.
One of the most powerful ideas from The Cure is the notion of transcendence, a euphemism for euthanasia at the age of 120, required to prevent societal collapse under the weight of the undying. It’s an Orwellian twist on assisted dying, laced with dark satire. Smith described the “transcendence ceremony” as akin to a wedding with speeches, closure and celebration before the final curtain. It’s dystopian, yes, but presented with a sardonic grin that lands it with an emotional punch. This blend of science and social commentary felt strikingly familiar as I thought about my own forthcoming novel Flood Waters Down.
While Smith’s lens is biotechnology, mine is climate collapse, but we’re walking similar paths: fictionalising truths we’re already too close to. The dystopia doesn’t feel like a warning so much as a reflection of what’s already beginning to manifest.
Building a believable tomorrow
What sets Smith apart is her approach to worldbuilding. She maps out the political, environmental and social landscape of her imagined futures in early detail before shaping the story itself. It’s a technique I’ve increasingly adopted in my own work of fiction which I like to call a “history of the future”. Worldbuilding isn’t just about dressing the set, it’s about structuring the story’s moral and logistical scaffolding.
In The Cure, this manifests in a bifurcated future. One legal, state-controlled rejuvenation programme, the other an elite, unregulated underground version for the wealthy and powerful. The inequities are stark. Living space is scarce. Green spaces have all but vanished. Young people face mounting costs and diminished opportunity, unless they sign up to the government’s strict longevity contract. It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. We’re already watching intergenerational tensions play out, already dealing with housing crises and resource limits. What Smith has done is project them forward.
There’s also a recurring motif in her books of mother-daughter dynamics – a personal anchor in the swirl of global-scale issues. “I always come back to family,” she said. “That’s where you feel the impact of everything.”
In The Cure, Ruth’s grief and guilt are the emotional linchpins of the plot. For Smith, and I suspect for many of us writing in the speculative fiction space, the personal and political are almost indivisible.
Genre-bending for real impact
Smith comfortably straddles speculative fiction and thriller territory, a tricky balance that requires both pace and philosophical depth. Her plots move fast but not at the expense of nuance. She cited The Handmaid’s Tale – still painfully relevant decades after publication – as a personal touchstone. That resonance is what she’s aiming for and arguably achieving. As an audience member noted, her books seem destined to be re-read in years to come with a dawning sense of “Oh, that’s now.”
What I appreciated most from the session was Smith’s humility about her own genre. Speculative fiction is often viewed as second-tier literature – too bleak, too geeky, too niche. But as both she and Dr Rideout pointed out, the genre’s roots go deep: HG Wells, George Orwell, Margaret Atwood – and I would add JG Ballard. These writers didn’t just predict the future, they shaped how we think about the present. That’s the tradition writers like Smith are stepping into.
The Cure for complacency
Towards the end of the talk, Smith revealed she’s not quite done with genetics. Her next novel will explore the idea of parents engineered from scratch – designer biology meets parental trauma.
She laughed, noting she just can’t seem to escape DNA. But perhaps that’s the point. We’re already entering a world where our biology, once fixed, is becoming malleable. The big question, however, isn’t just what’s possible. It’s who controls it and at what cost?
As someone preparing to release a speculative novel of my own, I left the session not just inspired but sharpened. Smith reminded me that dystopia isn’t all about doom. It’s about consequence. It’s about asking the hardest questions in a format people will engage with.
And maybe, just maybe, it’s about getting readers to imagine something better by first showing them what might go wrong.
