Comments on: Kicking cyberpunk’s ass

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:52 +0000

I agree with Joni, that there wasn’t really a “fighting against the man” feel to the book which might be where the critic was coming from. But, there was enough moral ambiguity with no obvious right choices to satisfy the most hardened cyberpunk reader.

I find it interesting that the first point made by the critic is about the characterisation of the novels genre by someone else entirely…

Personally I enjoyed it, it might not be 80s style cyberpunk but, hey, we don’t live in the 80’s anymore.

By: Wired

Wired — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:42:19 +0000

Seems what most people still understand under the label “Cyberpunk” is basically the 1st edition “Shadowrun” RPG setting. It’s nice, but a literary genre isn’t exactly limited that closely.

By: Ehlonya

Ehlonya — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:32:18 +0000

Modern day cyberpunk movie w/out the punkasses, i have to say would be Michael Clayton.

By: me

me — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:49:54 +0000

as i look at it now from the perspective as a person who is only on page 128 of david’s book i can see that the cyber part is the government and the punk part is autumn rain.

that being said, i can also see that autumn rain is the terrorist group that threatens human life. i see autumn rain, at this time anyhow, as the punks. the ones that want to shut down the government. the protester of what they believe to be wrong. as a person who has been to a lot of protests (it’s hard not to join in sometimes in DC) i find myself to side with the punks. from my underground roots i am anti government and if i could download someone else’s brain into mine, that would be neat then i could be a cyber punk!

i think i need to read more of the book to really have a better understanding of the comment made by the critic and the rest of you.

but that’s my take so far.
i am reading this book from an undisclosed perception. oh i meant location

once i learn more about autumn rain, i might feel differently, that i might root for the good guys? i can’t be sure….i have to read more now. and enjoy more coffee!

happy saturday!

By: David Williams

David Williams — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:28:35 +0000

@ Joni: yeah, I hear ya, and your nuancing is well-taken. I think perhaps what I was reacting to was the implicit hierarchy that the reviewer is establishing–i.e., if it’s not “pure” cyberpunk with lots of good upstanding rebels with impeccable street credentials, then it’s somehow worse.

By: Joni

Joni — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:16:53 +0000

To me the book was (modern) cyberpunk. I don’t want to defend the critic here but I sort of understand where he’s coming from. The name of the genre comes from two parts cyber (as in cybernetic) and punk (as music and more like a movement). Yes, I guess you all already know this.

The cyber part is filled and nobody can deny that but what about the punk part? Protagonists were “working for the Man” instead of opposing him. That is probably why the critic didn’t label the book as being part of the cyberpunk genre.

Now, I am a long time Cyberpunk 2020 gamer and I think that in all our campaigns our characters have been more like cybernetic mercenaries rather than revolutionaries and that has defined my view of the genre more than anything else.

Anyway, old cyberpunk has evolved and transformed a long time ago so I would still call this book as cyberpunk.

By: Michael G. Munz

Michael G. Munz — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:21:59 +0000

Hear, hear! I’m right there with you on the check-boxing. Perhaps they’d prefer writers just stamp out the same product all the time rather than exploring and developing a genre so it doesn’t get stale. Critics and marketing folk (the latter especially, it seems) love to be able to fit things into a category, but if a writer does that, it’s limiting.

So SHAME on you for not looking at the genre in the exact same way everyone else does. Conform! Conform before it’s too late!