 |
 |
Definition of CyberPunk |
 |
 Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:59 am |
 |
|
| Message |
|
|
|
I've been looking through a lot of the forum posts here and noticed that no matter the topic in the beggining the thread ends up a discussion on what CyberPunk really is.
So I thought that an actual topic on the definition of CP was in order.
I should chuck in my two credits before expecting others to, so here we go.
Let's start in the classical (fictional) dictionary form:
CyberPunk - Adjective - The fascination with the technology or society that is to come.
In essay form this translates to the interest not in the technology that we have today but in what will one day come. This means that we are never actually in a cyberpunk environment but instead watching just ahead of what we do have.
In the 80's when CP was the in its budding stages the future (CP society) was seen as almost an exact imprint of what we now live in; we have planes that take off like helocoptors, medical advances that 20 years ago they only dreamed of, and toasters with defrost settings.
Today we see CP as a future of cybernetic replacements and geneticly modified organisms and maybe even a long awaited cure for AIDs and cancer.
If the pattern continues as is in 20 years we will have a Ghost in the Shell style society, androids and sex-bots included, but then what will cyberpunk be to them?
_________________
When the computers take over the world I'll be the one holding the power cable.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:28 pm |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
Hi InnateMalk, welcome to Cyberpunk Review. 
And yeah, I absolutely agree. The set of questions that cyberpunk deals with is always near-future changes. This means that as we advance, the things discussed will change. Also, as society continues to evolve, such as the impact of the internet and wireless technology, our perception of a cyberpunked future evolves as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:38 pm |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
Welcome InnateMalk,
Cyberpunk is a fairly nebulous genre, there aren't hard and fast rules and I think we won't get a great idea of the term until we are no longer describing an ongoing phenomenon.
That being said, I think the simplest (and widest) definition of cyberpunk I've come up with is:
Cyberpunk is about expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination
I'd love to hear more of people's thoughts on this. I think we would do well to update and revise the outdated canon on the subject.
For example, have a read of some of these essays:
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/cyberpunk/student.html
Here's some choice stuff I dug up, mostly attempting to salvage a definition of cyberpunk that saves it from postcyberpunk madness.
http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/what-is-cyberpunk/
http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/cyberpunked-living/post-cyberpunk-why-not-cyberpunk-20/
http://illusivemind.blogspot.com/2006/03/post-cyberpunk.html
Cyberpunk Narrative
Definitions
Cyberpunk Revival
Non-fictional work on cyberpunk, cyber culture, and related
Where's that sticky?
From Here
| Quote: | I think a sticky with links to these articles would be a good idea, seeing as there is some choice reading out there.
Especially Daniel Silliman's article: Cyberpunk, Orwellian Fears, and the Faces of Tyranny - Changes in the Future, and What They Tell Us about What We Fear
Which iammany provides three posts above this one.
Here's an essay by author Chris Moriarty on the genre - Cyberpunk
He lists some surprising additions to the all too familiar 'canon' of Cyberpunk. Moriarty also echoes my own thoughts that the premature diagnosis of the 'death of cyberpunk' is due to the "tendency to view the genre as outdated if you only associate it with its most identifiable characteristics."
Moriarty writes:
| Quote: |
...it's helpful to go back to the distinction between the underlying structure of an SF story and its 'furniture.' For most SF readers -- and certainly for anyone whose main exposure to SF is through the movies -- furniture trumps category: "If a book has dragons in it, then it's fantasy ... If a book has flying cars and computers in it, then it's SF." To my mind, however, the real added value of cyberpunk is not in its easily recognizable furniture, but in its underlying ideas and attitudes. In particular two ideas that I think drive and define the best cyberpunk.
Bear in mind, however, that these two ideas aren't of the black-and-white Petersen's Guide to Birds variety. They're a feel, that's all. You might say a worldview. This worldview has nothing to do with wearing black leather and mirrorshades, or with writing SF about violent loners in a style derived from Raymond Chandler or Ernest Hemingway. Nor are self-identified cyberpunk writers by any means the only SF writers who have explored this worldview. In fact, I would argue that the real contribution of cyberpunk was to take a piece of the SFnal territory, so to speak -- one that had been sighted from orbit and visited by a few hardy explorers, but that still had at least its share of dragons and white beauties -- and make a systematic push to develop a writing style, a group of scientific and technological ideas, and a range of character types that would serve as good tools to explore this territory.
|
|
Post-Cyberpunk is 'superior successor' to Cyberpunk poll
| illusivemind wrote: | I've debated with SFAM about this idea. Not as to the validity of the term 'cyberpunk' which I agree is incoherent but as to the question of whether status quo enforcement is antithetical to cyberpunk.
I think the term 'post-cyberpunk' came about not merely as a branding ploy but because there is a genuine feeling amongst critics that this highly stylized genre died at the end of the 80's and yet strong elements remain requiring a new term to identify them.
Firstly, I think it is all too easy to suffer 'forest through the trees' syndrome where you are trying to make definitive genre analysis of contemporary ideas. Art movement labels are nearly always applied retrospectively and nearly always with fuzzy margins.
Secondly, I think there is a tendency to view the genre as outdated if you only associate it with its most identifiable characteristics. Any genre that depends on certain kinds of technology for its validity will have a shelf life of firmware upgrade in this day and age.
Thirdly, the term was likely misused by its proponents, with critics skeptical of its dubious role as a marketing device. When a term comes into use has very little to do with the breadth of work it describes. Post-humanity dates back at least as far as 1818 with the publication of Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’
Cyberpunk as a genre is comparable to Film Noir in that it is constituted by many element both visual and thematic. Can there be a solid line of demarcation between a story with cyberpunk elements and a cyberpunk story? Not really.
I would argue that its only essential element is the negative impact of technology on humanity. Humanity in this case can be taken to mean society or the human condition. Essential means, without which, it would not be. So this does not mean all anti-utopian SF is cyberpunk, there are a range of CP elements that will determine the extent of ‘cyberpunkness’ of a work of fiction. Just as there are elements that would constitute the ‘noirness’ of a film (or is that neo-noir? Sigh….)
Why Pearson’s term is so abhorrent is because it seems to describe a subversion of the essential element of cyberpunk. Whether or not it actually does this is up for debate as it is ambiguous. Most of his distinctions are matter of degrees and do not constitute ‘genre change’
(eg. Protect status quo is not the same as protect status quo from further decay. Feature characters who aim to better society is not the same as be unsympathetic to the alienated and the marginalized)
(Note: Stories can portray the negative impact of the/a technology on humanity and yet remain ambivalent toward it in general. This is because cyberpunk highlights the inhumanity of people (not technology which is neutral and can be used for beneficial means) through the provocative use of technology. EG. We can slay many people with a sword but invent a machine gun and find out how despicable people can be.) |
_________________
-Just a thought-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:48 pm |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
Hi Illusivemind, I really like the idea of a short statement of cyberpunk as opposed to a longer set of "features" which is what the Cyberpunk Review definition is. That said, I think there needs to be a "near-future" aspect to it as well. It seesm to me that it's not just "expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination;" it specifically is looking at potential near-future consequences, as opposed to current day issues or long distance futures.
And I'm guessing your use of the term "human nature" implies both the individual and the society as a whole. This would encompass both the man-machine interface issue as well as the corporate domination of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:40 pm |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
| sfam wrote: | | This would encompass both the man-machine interface issue as well as the corporate domination of society. |
Are you trying to reference to the second season of the Ghost in the Shell manga? or is that just a fluke?
I think that in only a few (not short) posts we have managed to discern the reality that is, or which will forever seem to be, CyberPunk.
illusivemind, you have brought more to this than you can imagine.
So can we all agree that the term "Post-CyberPunk" is nothing more than a phrase used to discredit those writing in the CP genre from a modern point of view?
_________________
When the computers take over the world I'll be the one holding the power cable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:22 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
Hmmm , Interesting discussion..
However , I think SFAM's post demonstrates (in part) my take on it all.
"Cyber-Punk" as with any definition related to something that is ultimately *subjective* will vary for each person's own view. (as we are describing not so much a definite fact but a perceived "reality" or "condition")
As we saw with SFAM's post , he wanted to include things that InnateMalk did NOT and doubted things that he DID include...
I'm sure everyone here at CPReview could add their own interpretation as well , and each one would be (subtly) different.
You might as well be asking to define what "beautiful" means - as that would garner just as many different responses.
Certainly , I'm sure there will be some "common ground" that *most* (but not all) people could agree on - but to expect "a definitive answer" is asking too much IMHO.
Besides , I wouldn't want to try and "pigeon hole" Cyberpunk as a set term anyways - as also mentioned before , as time goes by , new ideas will come along that will add to or redefine what we take the term to mean.
That's part of the wonder of the whole sphere of interest to me : It's fluid , open to new ideas and progressive - It looks forward and goes with it , instead of stagnating in some pre-defined shoebox.
Here's looking forward to the next "Blade Runner" - whatever it may be 
[MM]
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:00 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
| InnateMalk wrote: | | sfam wrote: | | This would encompass both the man-machine interface issue as well as the corporate domination of society. |
Are you trying to reference to the second season of the Ghost in the Shell manga? or is that just a fluke? |
In your terms, I suppose this would be a fluke. There are many films that touch on man-machine interface issues. I mention this in my "What is Cyberpunk" page, and have a category for movies that deal with this.
| InnateMalk wrote: | | So can we all agree that the term "Post-CyberPunk" is nothing more than a phrase used to discredit those writing in the CP genre from a modern point of view? |
If only post-cyberpunk were that clear. Unfortunately its anything but, and means completely different things to virtually everyone who uses (or disavows) the term. I describe this in the article IllusiveMind links to above, and on the discussion part of the Post-Cyberpunk Wikipedia page. Lawrence Person, the guy who (as best I can tell) came up with the term doesn't mean what you say above, but again, his distinction doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:42 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
| sfam wrote: | Hi Illusivemind, I really like the idea of a short statement of cyberpunk as opposed to a longer set of "features" which is what the Cyberpunk Review definition is. That said, I think there needs to be a "near-future" aspect to it as well. It seesm to me that it's not just "expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination;" it specifically is looking at potential near-future consequences, as opposed to current day issues or long distance futures.
And I'm guessing your use of the term "human nature" implies both the individual and the society as a whole. This would encompass both the man-machine interface issue as well as the corporate domination of society. |
Yes you're right, the near-future is important. That is the reason I don't find the argument for "steam-punk" particularly convincing. The near-future is of course a setting rather than an actual time.
Yes human nature should be considered as broadly as possible. This would encompass both the philosophical ramifications (of say being able to upload your mind to a computer) and the political ramifications (market forces that are crushing and oppressive).
So revised it would read:
Cyberpunk is about expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination in the near future.
_________________
-Just a thought-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:34 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
| illusivemind wrote: | So revised it would read:
Cyberpunk is about expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination in the near future. |
The What is Cyberpunk page has been updated accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:18 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
| sfam wrote: | | illusivemind wrote: | So revised it would read:
Cyberpunk is about expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination in the near future. |
The What is Cyberpunk page has been updated accordingly. |
Sweet. 
_________________
-Just a thought-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:46 pm |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
The "near-future" element is a thing worth considering - do you think that cyberpunk will always be "20 minutes ahead of now"? i.e. - we will never get to cyberpunk, we'll be simply following its cutting edge
_________________
"<Immortal_Peregrin> The first time I read Neuromancer was in a txt file."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:46 pm |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
We might get to cyberpunk, but cyberpunk won't get to us.
Even if we are living in 'Blade Runner' or 'Ghost in the Shell' cyberpunk will be about extrapolating from that point twenty minutes ahead.
Science Fiction that is about stuff that already exists isn’t science fiction anymore, the 'what if' is gone.
_________________
-Just a thought-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:15 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
Ynk reminded me of the all-important definintion of 'science fiction' proposed by Darko Suvin.
On What Is and Is Not an SF Narration; With a List of 101 Victorian Books That Should Be Excluded From SF Bibliographies
SF is distinguished by the narrative dominance of a fictional novelty (novum, innovation) validated both by being continuous with a body of already existing cognitions and by being a "mental experiment" based on cognitive logic.
I think Ynk is right to disqualify 'Pattern Recognition' from CP on this basis. And this further clarifies just what the 'near future' means in the definition:
Cyberpunk is about expressing (often dark) ideas about human nature, technology and their respective combination in the near future.
The near future means that there is at least one technology (the novum) focused on (narrative dominance) that is readily extrapolated (validated) by today's science (existing cognitions). This means things like space colonisation is out (as the focus of the story) and nanotech is in.
This is what I meant when I said the near future is a setting not a time. The story could actually take place on another planet 30,000 years into the future (the fact that Star Wars was "a long long time ago", does not make it historical fiction), but if the focus is on 5 minutes into the future technology(/ies) and their effect on humanity then it is Cyberpunk.
I think this is precisely where Great Sky River by Gregory Benford sits in the CP genre.
If anyone has read this please let me know of you agree or disagree.
| Quote: |
This is the third in Benford's "Galactic Center" series, and the first of the novels to actually merit the name. The other books are "In the Ocean of Night" (1977) and "Across the Sea of Suns" (1984), set in the near future not far from Earth, and "Tides of Light" (1989), "Furious Gulf" (1994), and "Sailing Bright Eternity" (1995) set, as is this one, about 30,000 years later.
This is a time when humans have settled the central regions of the galaxy and have entered a period of decline forced on them by mechanical intelligences, robots who long preceded them. The middle two novels tell the story from the point of view of the
man Killeen Bishop, starting on the planet "Snowglade" where humans (heavily genetically adapted and plugged in to electronic devices) live as scavengers among mechanical constructions, a world near the galactic black hole's accretion disk. Benford's treatment of the human augmentations as something they take for granted and use with considerable skill is an interesting adaptation of "cyberpunk" ideas, though he does expend many words in the novel discussing the technical details.
|
_________________
-Just a thought-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:50 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
| illusivemind wrote: | We might get to cyberpunk, but cyberpunk won't get to us.
Even if we are living in 'Blade Runner' or 'Ghost in the Shell' cyberpunk will be about extrapolating from that point twenty minutes ahead.
Science Fiction that is about stuff that already exists isn’t science fiction anymore, the 'what if' is gone. |
I agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:51 am |
|
|
| Message |
|
|
|
That's a really good way of putting it, so I'm not going to nerd rage about thread necromancy ;)
_________________
I hate it here.
[Low life, low tech]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
