EXCLUSIVE: When Power Hides in Data

The most unsettling dystopias are the ones that feel less like warnings and more like forecasts. Set just two decades in the future, Ashes of the Republic does not imagine some distant technological rupture. It takes systems that already exist (data collection, predictive monitoring, algorithmic governance) and asks what happens when the political restraints around them give way.

In this conversation with the Wyoming Star, James Chesterton explains why he placed the story so close to the present, how data can become a tool of social control, and why satire is essential when writing about authoritarianism. He also reflects on the responsibility of technologists, drawing on his own experience in industries that began with useful intentions but evolved into systems with far-reaching consequences.

At the core of the novel is a simple but unsettling premise: the machinery is already here. What remains uncertain is who gets to operate it.

Q: The novel draws heavily on systems that already exist today. At what point did the project shift from speculative fiction into something closer to extrapolation?

James Chesterston:

I intentionally set the novel only 20 years out because I wanted the reader not to see it as an impossible future, just an extension of their own. I have no doubt the inventions in the novel are on the drawing board for several companies out there, so I won’t be filing for any patents.

What I want people to realize is that the world in the novel is easily achievable when the wrong people are in control of those systems and willing to do whatever it takes to keep their wealth and power.

Q: You describe the world of the book as one where control is enabled through data rather than force. How does that change the nature of power compared to more traditional dystopias?

James Chesterston:

In older dystopias, power is often obvious: soldiers in the street, prisons, violence, fear. In Ashes of the Republic, the control is quieter. People are managed through the information they receive, the records kept about them, and the official version of reality they are expected to accept. That kind of power is especially dangerous because it can look legitimate.

A government does not always need to drag people away in public if it can use data to label them, isolate them, deny them opportunity, or convince everyone else that what is happening is justified. Data is supposed to reflect the truth, but in the wrong hands it can be used to manufacture truth.

So the real shift is that power becomes less visible. It does not always announce itself as oppression. It presents itself as order, safety, efficiency, or law. That makes it harder for ordinary people to recognize what is happening—and harder for them to come together before the damage is done.

Q: The regulation of women’s bodies through data is a central theme. What real-world developments most directly informed that aspect of the story?

James Chesterston:

In 2022 the Floria high School Athletic Association considered collecting data on girls’ menstrual cycles as part of sports eligibility data, which would have taken private data and put it in control of the government. To be clear, this was not implemented, but the fact it was even considered is an issue, and with the wrong people in power, that could have been implemented.

Once the data is in the control of the government, it could absolutely be used to support and number of efforts that involve women’s bodies, and if these laws are brought at the federal level, then the full weight of the government could be used to enforce them, including, as in the novel, pregnancy detection monitoring in all federal facilities, like airports.

Q: The tone is described as “controlled, unsentimental, and wickedly funny.” How does humor function in a narrative built around authoritarian systems?

James Chesterston:

The events occurring today are viewed in so many different ways depending on the context. The late night shows on a daily basis show the actions and statements of those in power as absurd, because they often are, but they are also at the same time very disturbing and a threat to our democracy.

I use satire to both entertain the reader and reveal the absurdities in the novel while at the same time showing them the darkness they can create and realistic threat they represent.

Q: Lily Osbourne helped build the system she later becomes subject to. What does that say about the role of technologists in shaping and potentially resisting systems of control?

James Chesterston:

I once worked for the company that made OxyContin, before the epidemic and before it became a billion-dollar drug. At the time, most of us believed it was helping people. It was designed, in part, so cancer patients in severe pain could sleep through the night without waking up every two hours to take another pill.

I think about that when I look at social media. If you read early interviews with the people who created Facebook or Twitter, many of them seemed to believe they were building something good, a kind of public square where people could connect, talk, and understand one another better. But both stories show how easily a good idea can be twisted once profit and power take over. A medicine meant to relieve suffering became part of an addiction crisis.

Platforms meant to connect people became engines of outrage, dependency, and control. And once those systems are built into everyday life, they are incredibly hard to undo. The rest of society is left to live with the consequences.

Q: You’ve said the mechanisms in the book already exist, waiting for institutional limits to fall away. What do you see as the most critical guardrails today?

James Chesterston:

The guardrails were designed to be the other two branches of government, but those have not functioned correctly. The Republican Congress has abdicated their responsibility and let him do whatever he pleases because he can threaten their ability to stay in power, and the right leaning Supreme Court has permitted the extreme expansion of the executive branch.

During the Biden years the left proposed to have Joe Biden add 3 judges to the Court to make it dem majority, and there is currently no law preventing that. Can you imagine what would happen if the Republicans did that today? Literally they could do just about whatever they wanted, since you can’t vote out the Justices.

To sum up:

Ashes of the Republic reads as a near-future thriller, but its underlying argument is more immediate. The tools are already here. The question is whether democratic institutions remain strong enough to prevent them from being turned into instruments of permanent surveillance and social control.