The aesthetics of cyberpunk., Is it really just 80's future shock? Options

[emo samurai]

I think Gibson as a whole is about more than just "ZOMG JAPANESE BUSINESS RUSH KEKEKEKEKEKE!!!" For me, that was merely superficial. And I doubt it's simply about getting rich, too. In Count Zero, the woman tracking the boxes says that when you're poor, you get crappy-looking but soft towels while when you're rich, you get fluffy but abrasive ones. And all the instances of wealth involve incredible amounts of artificiality; Kumiko's father regularly converses with ROM constructs of his elders, and Tessier-Ashpool is clocked by two AI's whether they're in cryogenic freezing or out.

I think cyberpunk is about nothing being real, or worthwhile. The "ruined city" on Villa Straylight is an expensive playground for rich children. The woman with whom Turner has a back-to-the-land romance that makes him realize the hollowness of the company prostitutes at the beginning of Count Zero turns out to be a field psychologist on retainer from Hosaka. Anything that appears real to any human sensory faculty is supposed to look that way, forced into shape through sheer human will. All things are for the sake of a sense of monolithic surivalism, the "hive," to borrow Gibson's metaphor, and all the girls, the simsense, and the drugs are just meant to keep you from realizing this.

I think 3Jane's essay from Neuromancer sums this up best.

[mfb]

cyberpunk as a whole is certainly more than just 80s futurekitsch, though because those were its roots, most cyberpunk at least references it. it's an important part of SR cyberpunk, at least, because SR cyberpunk started as a lot of 80s future kitsch and a little bit of real cyberpunk--no fault of the authors, really; in the translation from genre to game, you lose a lot. witness D&D in relation to Tolkein.

good cyberpunk is about the loss of something integral to the self, in exchange for ephermeral gains. the paradox is that the thing which is lost is difficult to name, while the ephemeral gains are concrete and recognizable.

[emo samurai]

My thoughts exactly.

Maybe it's the fact that when you gain more control over your world, it stops simply existing and becomes something small and manipulable that still has total control over you. It's not just mystique; it's a sense of significance and reality that is the basis of passion, desire, and love. It goes away when you not only slay the dragon but also forget about it even as its legacy weighs down on you. In order to achieve what it wants, the flesh turns to chrome, but as it turns to chrome, it loses its ability to want.

[James McMurray]

[mfb]

it's still quite important. witness Essence. other themes are starting to show, yeah, but the Gibson theme is still very much there.

[James McMurray]

Ah, yet again your indiscriminate use of vague pronouns has tripped me up. I thought that "it" referred to the 80s future.

[mfb]

oops. that was the "it" that i was referring to in the quoted post. meh, it's almost 4am.

80s futurekitsch... well, the Japanacorps still run the economic world, to a large degree. their grip has beein loosened, but they're still the ones doing the gripping. corps are still the main power. you've still got street samurai. so, same deal--other futurekitsches are starting to pop up, but 80s futurekitsch is still a large part of it.

[SL James]

[emo samurai]

I remember that one, but the only thing that was covered was why Shadowrun didn't look like the 80's anymore, not what the essence of cyberpunk was.