I found this website and this information today...


" Cyberpunk is a literary movement, born in the 1980's, that seeks to completely integrate the realms of high tech and of pop culture, both mainstream and underground, and break down the separation between the organic and the artificial.

Cyberpunk is a member of the genre of fiction known as Hard (or Hard Core) Science Fiction. It is called Hard Science Fiction because of its heavy reliance on technology or biology to tell a story. The works of cyberpunk science fiction writers are the birthplace of the concept of "cyberspace". This concept was first introduced to the world by writer William Gibson in his novel "Neuromancer", probably the most famous cyberpunk book ever.

"Cyberpunk literature, in general, deals with marginalized people in technologically-enhanced cultural 'systems'. In cyberpunk stories' settings, there is usually a 'system' which dominates the lives of most 'ordinary' people, be it an oppressive government, a group of large, paternalistic corporations, or a fundamentalist religion. These systems are enhanced by certain technologies (today advancing at a rate that is bewildering to most people), particularly 'information technology' (computers, the mass media), making the system better at keeping those within it inside it. Often this technological system extends into its human 'components' as well, via brain implants, prosthetic limbs, cloned or genetically engineered organs, etc. Humans themselves become part of 'the Machine'. This is the 'cyber' aspect of cyberpunk. However, in any cultural system, there are always those who live on its margins, on 'the Edge': criminals, outcasts, visionaries, or those who simply want freedom for its own sake. Cyberpunk literature focuses on these people, and often on how they turn the system's technological tools to their own ends. This is the 'punk' aspect of cyberpunk."

Taken from http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/scifi.html.

This video gives a good overview of cyberpunk literature. It also contains an interview with William Gibson that provides a good introduction to our first novel:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4017582981332675106

Cheryl,

I like the section of the website you found that talks about where the word cyberpunk came from and how it's a mesh of the two words "cyber" and "punk". It gave me a much clearer understanding of what it is that we are working with. I can very easily close my eyes and picture things that are very technological, and then I can also see what punks look like. The joining of both of them is pretty interesting to me so far. Punks in cyberspace...we'll have to see where this takes us.

BTW folks, you can also edit this page. You don't have to just comment.

When my husband and i were dating in college and first moved in together, our very different belongings merged and i was first introduced to the concept of cyberpunk. One of his prized pieces of decor was a huge Tank Girl poster that he prominently displayed on our living room wall. i can't read or hear the term cyberpunk without seeing the image or thinking about scenes from the film. And actually, the definition of cyberpunk Cheryl posted fits the image Tank Girl burned in my head perfectly.

"WG: My feelings about technology are totally ambivalent- which seems to me to be the only way to relate to what's happening today. When I write about technology, I write about how it has already affected our lives; I don't extrapolate in the way I was taught an SF writer should. You'll notice in Neuromancer that there's obviously been a war, but I don't explain what caused it or even who was fighting it. I've never had the patience or the desire to work out the details of who's doing what to whom, or exactly when something is taking place, or what's become of the United States. That kind of literalism has always seemed silly to me; it detracts from the reading pleasure I get from SF. My aim isn't to provide specific predictions or judgments so much as to find a suitable fictional context in which to examine the very mixed blessings of technology."

This is a quote from this interview http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/gibson_interview.html with Gibson. posted on the same site Cheryl referenced. It gave me deeper understanding of Gibson's intentions and a vagueness that is present in Neuromancer despite a lot of finite detail.

I thought that this was a pretty concise summary of cyberpunk basics:

Cyberpunk literature, in general, deals with marginalized people in technologically advanced hierarchical societies. In cyberpunk milieux, there are usually powerful elites, be they oppressive governments, paternalistic multinational corporations or fundamentalist religions, who dominate the lives of the mass population. These regimes are aided and distorted by artificial intelligence, electronic media and information technology, resulting in an unusually subdued and compliant citizenry. Often this technological reliance extends to the very bodies of citizens themselves, via brain implants, prosthetic limbs, cloned or genetically engineered organs, etc. In this way human beings literally become part of ‘The Machine’. This is the 'cyber' aspect of cyberpunk.

However, as in any society, there are those either unable or unwilling to conform to cultural norms. Living out on the edge at the margins of an alienating system, are the criminals, outcasts, visionaries, dissenters and misfits. Cyberpunk literature focuses on these people, and often on how they turn the system's technological tools to their own ends. This is the 'punk' aspect of cyberpunk.

from : http://18hz.deid.net/cyberpunk.htm

Rachel,

When I read your posting about the elitist aspect of cyberpunk I can only picture that movie V for Vendetta. It seems to fit perfectly with your description. There are the elitists, those that conform and those that refuse to conform. It's such a great movie.

Rachel,

When I read your posting about the elitist aspect of cyberpunk I can only picture that movie V for Vendetta. It seems to fit perfectly with your description. There are the elitists, those that conform and those that refuse to conform. It's such a great movie.

"Thus, "cyberpunk" - a label none of them {the writers of cyberpunk} chose. But the term now seems a fait accompli, and there is a certain justice in it. The term captures something crucial to the work of these writers, something crucial to the decade as a whole: a new kind of integration. The overlapping of words that were formerly separate: the realm of high tech, and the modern pop underground. (xi)

This "overlapping" of ideas is crucial to the success of cyberpunk, as it shows that science fiction needs not be unrelated to our daily existence. The term then defines the sub-genre, and it is the rebelliousness that it represents against traditional science fiction that attracts a whole new generation of readers and writers to its flag, "The point of the cyberpunk argument," argues one writer," is that this old technofuture is a flabby, outmoded idea, one that makes for boring science fiction because it's based on an old-fashioned dream of the future and therefore obscures our view of the burgeoning dystopia we're inhabiting right now". Cyberpunk can directly deal with our culture, and its immediate future. This subgenre is a bringing together of the cyber, referring to the technology used to artificially augment the human body and human abilities, with the popular culture and social ideas found in punk rock and roll music."

Taken from : http://www.ctraces.com/Circuit_Traces/CT2_5/cyberpunk.html


I found this essay while I was trying to search and find out what cyberpunk really means. I think that it helps to extend the homogenization of a variety of factors to create this genre. It relates that technology combined with realities that we face. Thinking of the underground, I think of the movie Demolition Man (1993) and how there was a whole city of misfits and non-conformists underground that were just trying to live as "normal" a life as possible (something the world "up there" was no longer affording them).

Hi everybody,

I feel lke I'm a little late to the party but I've been having some technical difficulties. I'm using dial-up for the first time in a number of years (I'm actually on a high speed computer at the library right now though) and I certainly feel like a "punk". I find the quote that Cheryl used to start this thread particularly indicative of my circustance right now: ""Cyberpunk literature, in general, deals with marginalized people in technologically-enhanced cultural 'systems." Ok, I'm a teacher and I'm pretty entrenched in the middle class, but as I spent an hour last night trying to get on to this site, being kicked off line every five minutes, and not being able to see any pictures, streaming media etc. I felt pretty margianlized--on the outside, frustrated by the fact that I could not easily participate in what all of you seemed to be doing with ease. Normally a patient, relaxed, go with the flow kind of guy, I was transformed into a raging rebel. I resented my circumstance; I was jealous of all those who had cable on their streets or who could afford satellite; I felt like dropping the class and taking another one, and also resented the fact that I couldn't as this is the last class I need to graduate, and I don't want to commute to class three times a week for obvious reasons. Well, I'm obviously venting right now, and I normally don't complain, but there is a point to all of this. If "cyberpunk" literatrue deals with people on the margins in technologically advanced cultural systems, then I'm really not margianalized at all. After all, I do have access to a high speed computer here at the Tomkins County Library.

(to be continued in the next comment because the computer just told me that 2000 words is the limit)

Consider all of those people around the world who don't even have a computer, let alone high speed internet. Last week I watched some of the Human 2.0 video about the future of the human race, interfacing with computers and putting their minds into machines. Sounds kind of like Star Trek, but I believe the age old human quest for immortality will ultimately result in something to this effect. But what about those who are left out? As we become more and more technologically advanced, it seems that the gap between the haves and the have nots will grow to absurd proportions. We'll almost have two species on our hands. The rich will be able to live forever, replacing body parts as needed, immortalizing themselves inside computers, while the poor are still struggling to find food, clean water, and safe shelter. This reality will create enormous tension between the classes, and not to sound too much like a Marxist, will result in war, revolution, and overall social strife. Is this then the "cyberpunk" paradigm? A society in which the cultural lag, in relation to the technology, is so great that it either threatens to destroy the human race, or create a world in which we've lost all of our humaniy? I've only read ten pages of Neuromancer, but so far, it's pretty bleak. I keep thinking of "Blade Runner". Everything's dark but all the blinking lights. Society has progressed enormously on a technological level but nobody's happy. We can plug ourselves into virtual worlds: we can have virtually anything we want but it still leaves us empty, wanting more. We're angry, resentful because we know it doesn't have to be this way, but there doesn't seem like there's anything we can do about it. So we complain. We give the biggest F*** you we can to the situation in the form of art, which if nothing else, is still pure--is still human.

Looking forward to meeting all of you in cyberspace! Glad to finally join the party.

Jonathan

I love Wikipedia, so here goes. In my exploration of a definition of cyberpunk, I found these characteristics, which I think are important. First, “Cyberpunk is a science fiction genre noted for its focus on ‘high tech and low life.’ It features advanced science, such as information technology and cybernetics, coupled with a degree of breakdown or radical change in the social order.” Further, “Classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society in generally dystopic futures where daily life was impacted by rapid technological change, an ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, and invasive modification of the human body.” All of these ideas relate to Neuromancer and they seem pretty accurate to me. There were other important ideas as well that I wanted to include, so I encourage everyone to check out the wiki site on cyberpunk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk.

Jonathan--that's a pretty interesting thought. My opinion is that the scenario you propose isn't completely unrealistic. There is already and very disproportionate distribution of wealth and resources, so the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is already pretty overwhelming. Health care is available to some. And, we are well on our way to expanding the human life span through the use of medical technologies. However, i'm not so sure that the issue of he practically two species would arise. If we continue to destroy the planet and deplete natural resources the way we are--in reality the 'have nots' would probably not survive. This is already happening on a smaller scale. It is a reality that lots of people on this planet starve to death, die from curable and preventable illness, die from drinking contaminated water, etc., It is also a reality that these numbers are about to increase as the cost of food and fuel is rising. So, say we developed the kind of technology you describe and the rich are replacing organs, modifying their bodies or gear to survive the effects of global warming and resource depletion, plugged in constantly...the reality, the 'have nots' probably won't be around anymore. And, all of this already happens--just not on such a wide, exxagerated or advanced scale. we already have wars over resources. we already have a lot of violence that stems from the tension between classes. If we didn't, there would be no such thing as activism. i think a lot of works of SF and cyberpunk deal with these issues, but in a futuristic world, and magnified to an obvious extreme.

Welcome Jonathan. Sorry for your troubles, but you raise an important point. Certainly part of what we can see in cyberpunk, and in the novels we will read, is the political material divide that you reference here. Clearly the digital divide remains significant, particularly on the global scale. One of William Gibson's more famous quotes is "the future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." Even right here in our class, we can see this between you struggling with dial-up and public access and me downloading at 20 mbps on fiber optic cable. And for us, it's probably not an economic issue. That is, my access isn't that expensive. It just hasn't reached your house yet. And that's an issue in the US. As are things like Net Neutrality.

Looking globally, we can see how in 15-20 years how we've gone from a world where 70% of the population had never made a phone call to a world with 3 billion mobile phone subscriptions. Projects like the one laptop per child project at MIT seek to address the digital divide, but obviously they are trying to do so in countries with far pressing problems with public health, war, famine, and so on. There is something probably to the argument that technological revolutions create greater disproportions in wealth. Look at the industrial barons of the late 19th century for example. We can see similar things today, but perhaps greater equity is out there.

In any case, cyberpunk is not a celebration of technology but rather a literary investigation of it. It is admittedly a little chilling that the engineers and hackers of the 80s read this novel and saw a cyberspace that they wanted to create. And yet they did, and here we are.

Isn't technology the new frontier of the classic Marxist struggle though? Isn't Cyberpunk literature itself a genre of the haves vs. the havenots? If I was a total technophobe, I wouldn't even be in this class, let alone posing this thought, but I think the genre itself is elitist. Only those of us who are immersed in the technology can read the genre with any hope of understanding it, right? If I didn't know that AI existed or knew what a matrix was, I would not have made it though the novel. Maybe that is why some consider SF or Cyberpunk Literature a non-literary genre because it can be very exclusive??

Jonathan's insight and Meg's about the have nots not surviving resonates with what Gibson says in his video that is posted on this site. I had actually commented on it before I read this page, so I find your thoughts to be very similar to what I had gotten out of one of Gibson's statements. I am not going to repeat everything I already said over there, but basically I pointed out that Gibson sees a technological evolution of man. Like Meg and Jonathan were alluding to: it is survival of the fittest which in this case would be survival of the most technologically equipped. I may be counter to popular opinion, but I think the MIT project of brining a laptop to every child is a total and complete waste of resources. I will admit though that I don't know all the details of it, so it can most definitely be more than what I am perceiving it to be. I just don't see how giving a child who has never held a book a laptop will solve any problems. You still have to be able to read to use a computer. You also have to be able to have access to the internet to reap the main benefits of the computer. So how a laptop in the hands of a child in a country in the midst of famine is going to solve anything... or even improve anything. I guess I am reacting to the fact that people try to throw technology at problems without any real concept of how to use the technology to improve it. I see this in schools all the time. Administration and school boards are willing to throw tons of money into technology without really thinking about the practical everyday use of it. Sorry for the vent. I think I had a point in there somewhere :-) oh yeah, technological evolution...

I also would add to the definition of Cyberpunk, but I don't want to repeat everything everyone else has said. Instead I would like to pose a question. Do you think the the movie Wall E could be loosely tied to Cyberpunk? Wall E is a bit of a rogue misfit robot who teams up with other misfit robots. The humans are all still human, but they don't function as humans. They all sit on hover chairs and communicate through screens that shine in front of them. How broad is the definition of Cyberpunk? Can Wall E be included in the genre?

It has been a while since I have had the opportunity to read something so interesting, entertaining, innovative, and required (through the course). I experienced my first glimpse of cyberpunk two semesters ago in Science Fiction Literature with a short story by Gibson titled "Burning Chrome." I was mildly excited and was informed by my professor that the author is considered the founder of a literary category: cyberpunk. All I could think of was some green-mohawked freak weilding the latest technologically advanced computer related lingo like a sword. I have to agree with Cheryl: those who would consider themselves of the cyberpunk population seem, at least to me, to be somewhat elitist. Even if one was to exclude the specific title of "cyberpunk," it seems that anyone immersed in the constantly evolving world of computers tends to look down on those who are not as cognizant of technology as they are. Nevertheless, I like this world of cyberpunk and am very excited about its enormous possibilities...

Cheryl. I wonder how you are defining elitist here. My impulse is to agree with you but take it farther. If cyberpunk is elitist, certainly everything you read in an English classroom is elitist. Do you really imagine that cyberpunk requires more specialized knowledge to read than Chaucer or Shakespeare or Milton? On the flipside, Neuromancer is a bestselling, mass-marketed novel. Set aside purchases for classes. Do you think there are more copies of Neuromancer or Canterbury Tales sold each year? Which one is elitist?

Ironically, the complaint typically made in English Studies is that sci fi is not elite enough! In my view, literary studies is all about elitism. It's about training students to adopt bourgeois literary tastes that reinforce the class interests of the ruling class. One could certainly argue that teaching literature is about the most counter-revolutionary practice in which one could engage as a teacher. I know plenty of Marxists who would (and have) made that kind of argument.

There are millions of Americans who don't like to read and would never take any literature course, much like a technophobe might not take this one. Does that make every literature class elitist? Approx 30% of Americans have four-year degrees. Less than 10% have graduate degrees. What does that say about the elitism of the educational process in which we are now engaged?

Of course elitism is such a negative term. Perhaps there are positive things here as well. Just b/c not everyone goes to college or becomes adept at reading literature or using a computer, does that mean that it is bad that some of us do? Is it elitist that there are people who are doctors and people who are not? Or do we benefit socially from this kind of stratification? What other form of workable social order would you create? We want to be careful not to conflate specialization with elitism.

Let me elaborate on the one laptop per child thing. I am also ambivalent about it. I admire the intention and the effort. The intention is to give students around the world an opportunity for a better education. Maybe this isn't the way. Maybe it is. And what am I going to do today to solve the global challenges of education? It's also a good point about the issue of priorities. If I think about it, I'd say climate change and renewable energy are the primary challenges we face. But these problems can't be tackled without addressing globalization, consumerism, population growth, etc. And addressing these problems will require education, including educating a new generation of adults who will see the world differently. It's this kind of global complexity that cyberpunk seeks to investigate.

I don't know enough about the MIT laptop program to feel strongly either way, and i completely see Rebecca's point about a wasted effort in the midst of famine. Laptops would certainly not make it to the top of my hierarchy for social change/reform and aid for 3rd world countries--however, as i was reading Rebecca's post--you are right--they don't have books, need to know how to read. i agree and i don't consider myself either a technophobe nor a junkie. i think i have a healthy respect/fear of technology. But, perhaps this is a wonderful solution to all of the problems you noted--i mean, the laptop eliminates the need for all of the materials--paper, books, writing utensils, etc., that these kids probably don't have access to. Computers can teach people to read--i play alphabet/oppisites/rhyming/phonics game with my son on the computer. Also, if internet could be made available, think of the possibilites. Kids who don't know the world outside a number of miles, could understand what happens across oceans and in space. And, we could know them. It would give almost invisible people a chance to speak up. people in developed countires who think nothing of talking on the phone in an airconditioned vehicle while simultaneously going through a McDonald's drive through--might actually understand the importance of fair trade, make connections between our choices, consumerism, politics and the effects on real people.

i believe that technology can be a wonderful tool. (anyone who knows me IRL would be shocked) My guess is that MIT sees it this way and that this is an effort to stop people from being copletely disconnected, forgotten and without opportunity, and i can see that--i can see how this could lead to a chance for education on a global scale (incuding developed countries). i believe that education is the root of change.

I have read up on the OLPC program, and I felt the same conflicting emotions as Meg and Rebecca discuss in their posts. However, I think I feel more strongly about it being a wasted effort, when there are far too many other things standing in the way of this program's success, like famine and war and infrastructure. I understand that it is a triumphant effort to bring technology to poor countries, yet why not spend the same amount of money and prioritize, and do something that will have long-lasting effects, resulting in widespread social change/improvement. I don't want to dimish the importance of an education, but at the same time, I don't equate technology with education. However, this program does raise the important issue of technology equality, and the digital divive which is rapidly increasing. Scary as it sounds, I feel like our world is becoming a nightmare-ish version of survival of the technologically fittest, which ironically, is definitely an issue raised in cyberpunk lit. Also ironic is the fact that those who are technologically advanced aren't always portrayed as the happiest, most competent, sane, etc.

I need to qualify my definition of elitism. Or maybe I don't. I do think that all literature study is elitist. I don't think any of us ever pretended to think it was anything other than that? Right? I might have entered college as an undergrad (*GASP) 10 years ago believing I was going to change the world. I entered English because I loved to read and write and wanted my students to feel the same way. Isn't that elitist? Isn't it still elitist that I am entering my second masters degree? I mean, I totally agree with you Prof. Reid. This whole educational construct is a construct of the elite. That was were education began and that is where it continues. I think it would be a really interesting to discuss how SF and cyberpunk lit. fit into this elite category of education. This is a question I really don't know the answer to. Was SF created as a genre to invite more of the masses into literature? Is SF a genre that hopes to equalize the playing field? What was the original intent of SF writers? To educate? To invite? To frighted? To exclude?

I think that, as a whole, the Science Fiction Genre actually closes the gap between the "haves" and "haves-nots." Various types of technology such as today's computers, flat-screen T.V.s, and cell phones are only experienced by the "elite" members of society (Athough this is rapidly changing). On the contrary, those of all social classes and ages that are educated are invited to sit down and read a book. Our public education system offers books of all genres, including science fiction and cyperpunk literature, to youth. My guess is that as time passes, more and more students will be required to read material from such genres.

That is an awesome question, Lauren. I notice that even now, my students (and I'm not a huge sci-fi reader) read a lot more technological fiction than I used to. Even in our anthology, there are quite a few technological stories but those stories are not even new. Many of them were written quite a while ago. It's so interesting to me that a lot of what is totally normal to us today started as some thoughts by some authors years and years ago.

When Gibson mentioned the researcher who had his thumb on the fastforward button in the first quote in the movie above it made me think of the movie "Click" with Adam Sandler. The movie was about a man who fell asleep on a bed in a store and had this crazy dream that lasted the whole movie. He dreamed that he had a remote control and he could fast forward and pause his life when desired but there were huge consequences …he couldn’t go back. This reminded me of cyberpunk and Neuromancer in a way.