ACM takes on Cyberpunk
Thomas Maddox
Here's a good one, folks, straight to you from
_Communications of the ACM_, Vol. 32, No. 6, June, 1989
Where they apparently have neither editors nor copy editors. I have pointed
out some of the article's more egregious errors but make no claim to have
caught all of them. Take your anti-nausea tablets and read on. My comments,
which concern both substance and style, are in square brackets.
Consensual Realities in Cyberspace
by Paul Saffo
More often than we realize, reality conspires to imitate art. In the
case of the computer virus reality, the art is "cyberpunk," a strangely
compelling genre of science fiction that has gained a cult following among
hackers operating on both sides of the law. Books with titles like _True
Names_, _Shockwave Rider_, _Neuromancer_, _Hard-wired_, _Wetware_, and _Mona
Lisa Overdrive_ are shaping the realities of many would-be viral adepts.
[No literary waffling here about genre definition and proper inclusion or
exclusion of works--Saffo has the confidence of the naive. He has an
equally naive notion of how "realities" are shaped.]
Anyone trying to make sense of the social culture surrounding viruses should
add the books to their reading list as well.
Cyberpunk got its name only a few years ago, but the genre can be
traced back to publication of John Brunner's _Shockwave Rider_ in 1975.
[There you go, folks: all arguments about the inception of cyberpunk have
just been solved.]
Inspired by Alvin Toffler's 1970 best-seller _Future Shock_, Brunner paints a
distopian [sic] world of the early 21st Century in which Toffler's most
pessimistic visions have come to pass. Crime, pollution and poverty are
rampant in overpopulated urban arcologies. An inconclusive nuclear exchange
at the turn of the century has turned the arms race into a brain race. The
novel's hero, Nickie Haflinger, is rescued from a poor and parentless child-
hood and enrolled in a top secret government think tank charged with training
geniuses to work for a military-industrial Big Brother locked in a struggle
for global political dominance.
It is also a world certain to fulfill the wildest fantasies of a 1970s
phone "phreak." A massive computerized data-net blankets North America, an
electronic super highway leading to every computer and every last bit of data
on every citizen and corporation in the country. Privacy is a thing of the
past, and one's power and status is determined by his or her level of identity
code. Haflinger turns out to be the ultimate phone phreak: he discovers the
immorality of his governmental employers and escapes into society, relying on
virtuoso computer skills (and a stolen transcendental access code) to rewrite
his identity at will. After six years on the run and on the verge of a
nervous breakdown from input overload, he discovers a lost band of academic
techno-libertarians who shelter him in their ecologically sound California
commune and . . . well, you can guess the rest.
Brunner's book became a best-seller and remains in print.
[Brunner might well be surprised to hear of this best-sellerdom. I don't
recall any of his novels having that kind of success. A _New York Times_
Best Seller, for instance? I don't think so. Anyone got evidence one way
or another?]
It inspired a whole generation of hackers including, apparently, Robert
Morris, Jr. of Cornell virus fame. The _Los Angeles Times_ reported that
Morris' mother identified _Shockwave Rider_ as "her teen-age son's primer
on computer viruses and one of the most tattered books in young Morris'
room." Though _Shockwave Rider_ does not use the term "virus," Haflinger's
key skill was the ability to write "tapeworms"--autonomous programs capable
of infiltrating systems and surviving eradication attempts by reassembling
themselves from viral bits of code hidden about in larger programs.
Parallels between Morris' reality and Brunner's art is [sic] not lost on
fans of cyberpunk: one junior high student I spoke with has both a dog-eared
copy of the book, and a picture of Morris taped next to his computer. For
him, Morris is at once something of a folk hero and a role model.
[There's a twisted pseudo-logic at work in Saffo's entire analysis that I
find unsettling. "Cyberpunk" becomes defined as "science fiction that
is written about hackers or is liked by hackers" (see below on this term)
hence his acceptance of _Shockwave Rider_ as founding document and then,
most alarmingly, comes his conflation of "hacker" and "cyberpunk."]
In _Shockwave Rider_, computer/human interactions occurred much as
they do today; one logged in and relied on some combination of keyboard
and screen to interact with the machines. In contrast, second generation
cyberpunk
[now we have a True Generational History of Cyberpunk, presented
with the same glib confidence that characterizes all Saffo's excursions
into literary analysis]
offers more exotic and direct forms of interaction. Vernor Vinge's _True
Names_ was the first novel to hint at something deeper.
[Ahh, perhaps Saffo was tutored by Peter da Silva. That would explain a lot.]
In his story, a small band of hackers manage to transcend
the limitations of keyboard and screen, and actually meet as presences in
the network system. Vinge's work found an enthusiastic audience (including
Marvin Minsky who wrote the afterword), but never achieved the sort of
circulation enjoyed by Brunner. It would be another author, a virtual
computer illiterate, who would put cyberpunk on the map.
[If Saffo and all the others who think that cyberpunk necessarily
connects to the real world of the illicit hacker would consider this point
carefully, they might rethink their position. Gibson neither knew nor
knows about viruses, etc., except in a vague way. His primary concern is
always with the entire social and semiotic universe--and, of course, with
certain outlaw attitudes and styles loosely affiliated with "punk"--more
drugs & rock and roll than computer hacking.]
The author was William Gibson, who wrote _Neuromancer_ in 1984 on a
1937 Hermes portable typewriter. [I wonder when people will stop dragging out
that poor old Hermes; I also wonder what their continued fascination is with
it; ah well . . .] Gone are keyboards; Gibson's characters jack directly
into Cyberspace, "a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions
of legitimate operators . . . a graphic representation of data abstracted
from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity.
Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations
of data . . ."
Just as Brunner offered us a future of the 1970s run riot, Gibson's
_Neuromancer_ serves up the 1980s taken to their cultural and technological
extreme. [Bingo! So forget the dumb-assed equivalence of cyberpunk/hacker-
cracker.] World power is in the hands of multinational _zaibatsu_, battling
for power much as mafia and yakuza gangs struggle for turf today. It is a
world of organ transplants, biological computers and artificial intelligences.
Like Brunner [sic], it is a distopian [sic] vision of the future,
[why or how _Neuromancer_ is dystopian has always been a mystery to me (and
to Gibson), but here comes the mindless description yet another time; in reply,
let me give Bill's response, which is that the world of _Neuromancer_ is about
the *best* he thinks we can hope for--in short, if _Neuromancer_ is dystopian,
it is so without the author's intent, which is rather odd, to say the least.]
but while Brunner evoked the hardness of technology, Gibson calls up the gritty
decadence evoked in the movie _Bladerunner_, or of the William Burroughs
novel, _Naked Lunch_ (alleged similarities between that novel and
_Neuromancer_ have triggered rumors that Gibson plagiarized Burroughs).
[I'm staggered; I admit it. Saffo floats one of the most preposterous
rumors I can imagine and doesn't bother to offer even meager
substantiation. Of course there isn't any. Where Saffo heard the rumor I
can't imagine, probably down at the water cooler, but I've got to tell you,
folks, it's a dumb one. *Influence*, yes--i.e., Burroughs certainly influenced
Gibson, and Gibson has always acknowledged that fact. However, Burroughs loves
Gibson's work--in an article in _Esquire_, he picked _Neuromancer_ as his
favorite book of that year.]
Gibson's hero, Case, is a "deck cowboy," a freelance corporate
thief-for-hire who projects his disembodied consciousness into the cyberspace
matrix, penetrating corporate systems to steal data for his employers. It
is a world that Ivan Boesky would understand: corporate espionage and
double-dealing has [sic] become so much the norm that Cases's [sic] acts
seem less illegal than profoundly ambiguous.
This ambiguity offers an interesting counterpoint to current events.
Much of the controversy swirls around the legal and ethical ambiguity of
Morris' act. For every computer professional calling for Morris' head,
another can be found praising him. [!!!Is this true? Certainly not on the
net, unless I've just missed out on a lot.] It is an ambiguity that makes
the very meaning of the word "hacker" a subject of frequent debate.
[As I understand it, the use of the term "hacker" to mean "someone who
attacks others' computer systems" is a journalistic misappropriation of a
perfectly useful term meaning something like "an expert and obsessive
programmer." In short, the term has been inflicted on an innocent public
by an ignorant press, just like "cyberpunk." "Debate" seems a particularly
inappropriate term.]
Morris' apparently innocent error in no way matches the actions of
Gibson's characters, but a whole new generation of aspiring hackers may be
learning their code of ethics from Gibson's novels. [If "hacker" means
illegal attacker by definition, then why or how would one learn a
"code of ethics"? More to the point, what kind of fucking idiot would learn
his or her code of ethics from the characters in Gibson's fiction?]
_Neuromancer_ won three [actually, at least four] of science fiction's most
prestigious awards--the Hugo, the Nebula and the Philip K. Dick Memorial
Award--and continues to be a best-seller today.
[This man really does have a low threshold for best-sellerdom. _Neuromancer_
has *never* been that big a seller. But get ready, here comes one of the most
shameless and stupid non sequiturs I've seen in some time:]
Unambiguously illegal and harmful acts of computer piracy such as those alleged
against David Mitnick (arrested after a long and aggressive penetration of DEC's
computers) would fit right into the _Neuromancer_ story line.
_Neuromancer_ is the first book in a trilogy. In the second volume,
_Count Zero_--so-called after the code name of a character [no, it's more
like his handle, but there you go]--the cyberspace matrix becomes sentient.
Typical of Gibson's literary elegance, this becomes apparent through an
artist's version of the Turing test. [A startlingly bad sentence, ending
with a cute but unproductive analogy.] Instead of holding an intelligent
conversation with a human, a node of the matrix on an abandoned orbital
factory begins making achingly beautiful and mysterious boxes--a 21st
Century version of the work of the late artist, Joseph Cornell. These
works of art begin appearing in the terrestrial marketplace, and a young
woman art dealer is hired by an unknown patron to track down the source.
Her search intertwines with the fates of other characters, building to a
conclusion equal to the vividness and suspense of _Neuromancer_. [Stop him,
quick; he thinks he's a book reviewer, and all the evidence is he would be
a *really* bad one.] The third book, _Mona Lisa Overdrive_ answers many of
the questions left hanging in the first book and further completes the
details of the world created by Gibson including an adoption by the network
of the personae of the pantheon of voodoo gods and goddesses, worshipped by
21st Century Rastafarian hackers.
Hard core science fiction fans are notorious for identifying with
the world portrayed in their favorite books. Visit any science fiction
convention and you can encounter amidst the majority of quite normal
participants [not at any con I've been to], small minority of individuals
who seem just a bit, well, strange. The stereotypes of individuals living
out science fiction fantasies in introverted solitude has more than a slight
basis in fact. Close Dr. Whos or Warrior Monks from _Star Wars_ are not
uncommon in Silicon Valley; I was once startled to discover over lunch that
a programmer holding a significant position in a prominent company considered
herself to be a Wizardress in the literal sense of the term.
[I hope she hears about this and turns Saffo into a large yellow slug. So
the problem is the denizens of Silicon Valley--that figures. It explains a
lot about the industry.]
Identification with cyberpunk at this sort of level [oh you master of
prose style] seems to be becoming more and more common. Warrior Monks may
have trouble conjuring up Imperial Stormtroopers to do battle with, but
aspiring deck jockeys [eh?] can log into a variety of computer systems as
invited or (if they are good enough) uninvited guests. [Invited guest on a
computer system: that's certainly *my* cyberpunk goal.] One individual I
spoke with explained that viruses held a special appeal to him because it
[sic] offered a means of "leaving an active alter ego presence on the
system even when I wasn't logged in." In short, it was the first step
toward experiencing cyberspace.
[I experience cyberspace by programming my VCR to tape Rev. Gene Scott reruns
in the middle of the night. Works just as well.]
Gibson apparently is leaving cyberpunk behind,
[my favorite half-truth, in that it entirely ignores the work he's doing
in film and presumes to judge what he will do in fiction]
but the number of books in the genre continues to grow.
[unlike most genres, which shrink yearly]
Not mentioned here are a number of other authors such as Rudy Rucker
[this is something like "This Page Intentionally Left Blank"]
(considered by many to be the father of cyberpunk)
[yeah, probably by the same guy who told Saffo about how Gibson
plagiarized Burroughs]
and Walter Jon Williams who offer similar visions of a future networked
world inhabited by human/computer symbionts. In addition, at least one
magazine, _Reality Hackers_ (formerly _High Frontiers Magazine_ of drug
fame) is exploring the same general territory with a Chinese menu offering
of tongue-in-cheek paranoia, ambient music reviews, cyberdelia (contributor
Timothy Leary's term) and new age philosophy.
[Very little of which has fuck-all to do with cyberpunk howsoever defined.]
The growing body of material is by no means inspiration for every
aspiring digital alchemist. I am particularly struck by the "generation
gap" in the computer community when it comes to _Neuromancer_:
virtually every teenage hacker I spoke with has the book, but almost none
of my friends over 30 have picked it up.
[Though of course his friends all read Burroughs and listen to Lou Reed and
Laurie Anderson and . . .]
Similarly, not every cyberpunk fan is a potential network criminal
[now there's a handsome admission; and not every writer for _Communications
for the ACM_ is a clueless, drooling geek]
plenty of people read detective thrillers without indulging in the desire to
rob banks. But there is little doubt that a small minority of computer
artists are finding cyberpunk an important inspiration in their efforts to
create an exceedingly strange computer reality.
[No shit: if that's true, I wonder why he didn't talk about some of *that*.]
Anyone seeking to understand how that reality is likely to come to pass would
do well to pick up a cyberpunk novel or two.
[I don't know; he seems to have picked up a couple, and it hasn't done him
a damned bit of good.]
(Paul Saffo is a research fellow at Institute for the Future in Menlo Park,
California, and a columnist for _Personal Computing_ magazine.)
[I'd be interested in seeing the quality of work coming out of the old
Institute, wouldn't you? I mean, this guy is flat *wired* into what's
happening. Very fucking hep indeed. Can't the ACM do better than this?]
Tom Maddox
UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt
Brian M Dennis
deep or profound, but your post matches its shallowness. The article
was intended as a gentle prod to all the crusty types in the ACM to read
what the kids read so you can understand why they do what they do. I don't
think it claimed to be a serious review of 'cyberpunk'. I think Saffo
was trying to cover as much ground as possible and thus proceeds to supply
stock commentary widely available and indeed probably suitable for a generally
non-cyberpunk audience. The more serious problem with the article is that
it's liable to start guilt by association in some reasonably high places.
"What? Hackers (negative connotation) read cyberpunk? It must be banned!!!"
This is much more compelling than the fact that a few of (okay all of) Saffo's
analogies fell flat. More substance less style please.
Run. | Whuddup man? | The Origninal Briguy
Fast. | Stop frontin'. | aka BMD, BFD, BeeMD
How fast? | What is, is. What ain't, ain't nothin'.| b...@athena.mit.edu
Fast as hell! | -- Schooly D. | b...@vx.lcs.mit.edu
Peter da Silva
[CACM]
> Where they apparently have neither editors nor copy editors. I have pointed
> out some of the article's more egregious errors but make no claim to have
> caught all of them. Take your anti-nausea tablets and read on. My comments,
> which concern both substance and style, are in square brackets.
Substance and style. Well, you're an expert on the style of the future. The
writers in the CACM are experts on the substance.
> [Brunner might well be surprised to hear of this best-sellerdom. I don't
> recall any of his novels having that kind of success.
Cult classics look a lot like best sellers after a decade or so.
And here's the line I've been waiting for:
> [Ahh, perhaps Saffo was tutored by Peter da Silva. That would explain a lot.
More likely people who actually have some idea what's really going on in
the world you and your cronies so blithely write about have similar opinions.
Does that tell you something about the value of these opinions? There's a
whole lot more to the world than producing the right mood in one's writing.
> [why or how _Neuromancer_ is dystopian has always been a mystery to me (and
> to Gibson),
I'll help you out on this one... I don't think it's dystopian either. But...
> but here comes the mindless description yet another time;
Anyone who happens to disagree with you is mindless, eh?
> in reply,
> the *best* he thinks we can hope for--in short, if _Neuromancer_ is dystopian,
> it is so without the author's intent, which is rather odd, to say the least.]
In short a utopia authored by a pessimist looks dystopian to an optimist.
Personally, I don't believe that we'll ever have the open space industry
in Gibson's world. If anything, it's optimistic. What it isn't is escapist.
A lot of people have read nothing but escapist literature, and reality looks
a lot like dystopia to them. [obligatory flame about etymology of utopia
omitted]
> [As I understand it, the use of the term "hacker" to mean "someone who
> attacks others' computer systems" is a journalistic misappropriation of a
> perfectly useful term meaning something like "an expert and obsessive
> programmer." In short, the term has been inflicted on an innocent public
> by an ignorant press, just like "cyberpunk." "Debate" seems a particularly
> inappropriate term.]
You're an optimist here, too. The old guard has just about given up defending
the term.
> [I'd be interested in seeing the quality of work coming out of the old
> Institute, wouldn't you? I mean, this guy is flat *wired* into what's
> happening. Very fucking hep indeed. Can't the ACM do better than this?]
ACM is *not* hip. You should be honored that they paid as much attention to
Cyberpunk as the latest ray-tracing technique.
I don't recall them publishing any articles on the New Wave.
If you don't like the article, why don't *you* write one and submit it. Or at
least send a letter to the editor. It'd be a hell of a lot more useful than
preaching to the choir.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-'
...texbell!sugar!peter, or pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
Thomas Maddox
directed at an MIT technogeek. Hit n if you're offended by such matter.]
In article <12...@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> b...@athena.mit.edu writes:
>What's the point of your diatribe? Not that I feel Saffo's article was
>deep or profound, but your post matches its shallowness.
I posted the entire article and made clear my objections to
it. You respond to nothing in particular while accusing me of
shallowness. Cute. Also stupid and indefensible. What is your
motivation, you disingenuous cretin?
>The article
>was intended as a gentle prod to all the crusty types in the ACM to read
>what the kids read so you can understand why they do what they do.
How do you know the article's intention? Divine revelation?
"What the kids read"? Do you really think Gibson's work is fodder for
adolescents, as Saffo apparently does? Are you another pathetic hepnerd
blundering around in matters beyond your understanding? If so, you're as
clueless as Saffo, which I guess explains why you're defending him.
>I don't
>think it claimed to be a serious review of 'cyberpunk'. I think Saffo
>was trying to cover as much ground as possible and thus proceeds to supply
>stock commentary widely available and indeed probably suitable for a generally
>non-cyberpunk audience.
The article made assertions about cyberpunk in general and specific
writers in particular, all presented with apparent seriousness. I
saw no disclaimer; in fact, the general tone of the article was one of
calm authority, as if Saffo were giving a knowledgeable reading of
cyberpunk for his less literary colleagues. The only flaw in all this
is that Saffo is, as I pointed out, full of shit.
As are you. Saffo covers very little ground (one book by Brunner and
Gibson's Sprawl trilogy, with a brief and misleading reference to Rudy Rucker),
and he covers it all badly. "Stock commentary," my ass. *Whose*? What he
says varies from trivial to wrong and includes a particularly
mean-spirited and indefensible claim regarding Gibson.
>The more serious problem with the article is that
>it's liable to start guilt by association in some reasonably high places.
>"What? Hackers (negative connotation) read cyberpunk? It must be banned!!!"
That's right, oh pointy-headed one. Not only does he get
everything literary wrong, he also asserts the blithe equivalence
criminal hacker/cyberpunk, an equation that can only cause mischief,
as even you can see.
>This is much more compelling than the fact that a few of (okay all of) Saffo's
>analogies fell flat. More substance less style please.
*Analogies*? I read declarative sentences purporting to describe a
sub-genre and its practitioners. Yet you defend this blunderer and attack me
(without quoting a single word I've written or meeting a single one of my
charges against Saffo).
Then you take me to task for lack of substance. Reply to the words I
wrote if you have something to say. Better yet, explain why you admit
the truth of what I say, yet defend someone who puts forth giddy
oversimplifications and lies.
Better yet, get a brain or a clue.
Mark Zenier
> attacks others' computer systems" is a journalistic misappropriation of a
> perfectly useful term meaning something like "an expert and obsessive
The slang around here is someone who is expert is a wizard, and hacker
is a derogatory term for someone with more enthusiasm (and ego) than skill.
> ...In addition, at least one
> magazine, _Reality Hackers_ (formerly _High Frontiers Magazine_ of drug
> fame) is exploring the same general territory with a Chinese menu offering
> of tongue-in-cheek paranoia, ambient music reviews, cyberdelia (contributor
> Timothy Leary's term) and new age philosophy.
>
> [Very little of which has fuck-all to do with cyberpunk howsoever defined.]
> ...
> (Paul Saffo is a research fellow at Institute for the Future in Menlo Park,
> California, and a columnist for _Personal Computing_ magazine.)
Hmmmm. Looks like Saffo is taking the "Reality Hackers" definition
of Cyberpunk, instead of a literary definition. What he portrays is
the "Hey, lets write some virus programs, and hijack the microwave
uplink to the TV transmitter, aren't we Baaaaaaad" subculture some
of those folks get off on.
Computers as Drugs, Feh.
Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz ma...@ssc.uucp
uunet!amc!
Brian M Dennis
his critique of "Consensual Realities in Cyberspace," an article appearing
in the _Viewpoint_ column of Communications of the ACM, v32, n6.]
! I posted the entire article and made clear my objections to
!it. You respond to nothing in particular while accusing me of
!shallowness. Cute. Also stupid and indefensible. What is your
!motivation, you disingenuous cretin?
A valid question. Simply put this forum seems to be overrun recently with
vindictive and pointless posts. Yours in particular was typical of the
self-inflated importance of this forum's self-appointed experts. I of
course always have the option to kill your articles but that in no way
abrogrates my right to criticize you. Indeed you did post the whole article
and your comments were clearly marked, but pofuse verbiage does not imply
substance.
!!The article
!!was intended as a gentle prod to all the crusty types in the ACM to read
!!what the kids read so you can understand why they do what they do.
!
! How do you know the article's intention? Divine revelation?
!"What the kids read"? Do you really think Gibson's work is fodder for
!adolescents, as Saffo apparently does? Are you another pathetic hepnerd
!blundering around in matters beyond your understanding? If so, you're as
!clueless as Saffo, which I guess explains why you're defending him.
Commentary worthy of your ability. I will assume that you would be happier
with a bit of rephrasing. How about "I read the article as a gentle
prod...". No I don't think Gibsons's work is fodder for adolescents and I
at no point saw Saffo as condemning it as such. I find a contradiction on
the one hand between your criticism of his overflowing praise of the books
and your assertation that he considers it "fodder".
!!I don't
!!think it claimed to be a serious review of 'cyberpunk'. I think Saffo
!!was trying to cover as much ground as possible and thus proceeds to supply
!!stock commentary widely available and indeed probably suitable for a generally
!!non-cyberpunk audience.
!
! The article made assertions about cyberpunk in general and specific
!writers in particular, all presented with apparent seriousness. I
!saw no disclaimer; in fact, the general tone of the article was one of
!calm authority, as if Saffo were giving a knowledgeable reading of
!cyberpunk for his less literary colleagues. The only flaw in all this
!is that Saffo is, as I pointed out, full of shit.
!
! As are you. Saffo covers very little ground (one book by Brunner and
!Gibson's Sprawl trilogy, with a brief and misleading reference to Rudy Rucker),
!and he covers it all badly. "Stock commentary," my ass. *Whose*? What he
!says varies from trivial to wrong and includes a particularly
!mean-spirited and indefensible claim regarding Gibson.
! That's right, oh pointy-headed one. Not only does he get
!everything literary wrong, he also asserts the blithe equivalence
!criminal hacker/cyberpunk, an equation that can only cause mischief,
!as even you can see.
So you couldn't infer from the title of the journal and the column that
this article couldn't be taken as serious literary criticism? I could have
understood your polemic if this article had appeared in a serious literary
journal since many of the problems you address are of importance only in
that circle. But arguing whether or not _Neuromancer_ is a "bestseller"
seems to me ill spent energy. Unfortunately, your critique seems filled
with these petty corrections which cloud the substantive issue.
!!The more serious problem with the article is that
!!it's liable to start guilt by association in some reasonably high places.
!!"What? Hackers (negative connotation) read cyberpunk? It must be banned!!!"
!
!!This is much more compelling than the fact that a few of (okay all of) Saffo's
!!analogies fell flat. More substance less style please.
!
! *Analogies*? I read declarative sentences purporting to describe a
!sub-genre and its practitioners. Yet you defend this blunderer and attack me
!(without quoting a single word I've written or meeting a single one of my
!charges against Saffo).
!
! Then you take me to task for lack of substance. Reply to the words I
!wrote if you have something to say. Better yet, explain why you admit
!the truth of what I say, yet defend someone who puts forth giddy
!oversimplifications and lies.
My defense of Saffo is only a convenient vehicle to argue against your
brand of discussion. I admit the truth of what you say, but I also admit
that in the context that the article appeared what you say, is misdirected,
small-minded, and ultimately lacking in any meaningful discourse. Hell, are
you even going to write a letter to the editors, or do you just
purposelessly flame?
! Tom Maddox
! UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt
Peter da Silva
down and takes every sentence in my article and writes "no" after it.
Look the article up yourself if you really care.
Anyway, no explanation is given for why or how he disagrees.
He seems to think he's saying something.
I guess it's supposed to be artistic, witty, and biting.
Actually, it's the essence of cyberpunk. All style, no substance.
[note that this article is already broken up into individual sentences]
[I wouldn't want Thomas to strain himself]
Peter da Silva
> In your case, pofuse verbiage seems to "imply" more pofuse
> verbiage. If you wanted to refute what I said, why didn't you do so?
> If you wanted to take issue with particullar comments--either their
> substance or style--why didn't you do so? Instead you waged your war
> on vindictive and pointless posts by committing one. Seems a bit like
> fucking for chastity to me.
Actually, it sounds like some of your messages.
Most recently <13...@novavax.UUCP>.
Eric Hughes
> But arguing whether or not _Neuromancer_ is a "bestseller"
>seems to me ill spent energy. Unfortunately, your critique seems filled
>with these petty corrections which cloud the substantive issue.
Oh! gladsome day! A substantive issue! Pray tell, what exactly *is*
this substantive issue? I am but a poor and lowly peon who cannot
follow your words, for your arguments are so subtle that I lose them
in a sea of innuendo and implication.
>My defense of Saffo is only a convenient vehicle to argue against your
>brand of discussion. I admit the truth of what you say, but I also admit
>that in the context that the article appeared what you say, is misdirected,
>small-minded, and ultimately lacking in any meaningful discourse.
Dante reserved the sixth ring of Hell for the speakers of such statements.
Eric Hughes
hug...@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!hughes
Eric Hughes
>Actually, it's the essence of cyberpunk. All style, no substance.
The burden of proof is on you, Peter Da Silva, to demonstrate this
assertion. Please post a list the names of all the "cyberpunk" works
you have read and together with each work, your reasons why that work
is "all style, no substance."
In particular, I'd like to know why _Neuromancer_ is "all style, no
substance."
If you wish to be a critic, whether pro or con, you need to be
familiar with the corpus in question, or else your "criticism" will be
like the actions of an unpracticed mime--awkward, graceless, and
saying absolutely nothing. And very, very annoying.
Eric Hughes
hug...@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!hughes
Thomas Maddox
>In article <13...@novavax.UUCP>, mad...@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) sits
>down and takes every sentence in my article and writes "no" after it.
No.
>Actually, it's the essence of cyberpunk. All style, no substance.
No.
"Just say no to Peterwithaspearthroughhishead da Silva"
Eric Hughes
>seems to me ill spent energy. Unfortunately, your critique seems filled
>with these petty corrections which cloud the substantive issue.
Oh! gladsome day! A substantive issue! Pray tell, what exactly *is*
this substantive issue? I am but a poor and lowly peon who cannot
follow your words, for your arguments are so subtle that I lose them
in a sea of innuendo and implication.
>My defense of Saffo is only a convenient vehicle to argue against your
>brand of discussion. I admit the truth of what you say, but I also admit
>that in the context that the article appeared what you say, is misdirected,
>small-minded, and ultimately lacking in any meaningful discourse.
This is hypocrisy.
Eric Hughes
hug...@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!hughes
[ P.S. In a previous message, <26...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, which I have
cancelled, I claimed that the hypocrites dwelt in the sixth ring of
Dante's hell. In fact, after checking at the library, the hypocrites
are in the eighth ring. Oops.]
Peter da Silva
> In article <39...@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Actually, it's the essence of cyberpunk. All style, no substance.
> In particular, I'd like to know why _Neuromancer_ is "all style, no
> substance."
Gibson is *proud* of the fact that he doesn't know anything about the substance
of high technology. His concentration is on the style of tech. The feel.
The technosheen.
In an interview he marvelled at the "victorian technology" in disk drives.
It had never occurred to him that personal computers would make a noise.
How is such a person to imbue his works with substance?
> If you wish to be a critic, whether pro or con, you need to be
> familiar with the corpus in question, or else your "criticism" will be
> like the actions of an unpracticed mime--awkward, graceless, and
> saying absolutely nothing. And very, very annoying.
A wonderful, and wonderfully inappropriate, metaphor. I believe I have read
the majority of Gibson's work, along with Bruce Sterling, Walter John Williams,
and about every other c-word author I've been able to get my hands on.
Including a few the locals refuse to accept in the c-word canon, because of
their excess of substance and shortage of style.
Mutant for Hire
>Gibson is *proud* of the fact that he doesn't know anything about the
>substance of high technology. His concentration is on the style of tech. The
>feel. The technosheen.
>
>In an interview he marvelled at the "victorian technology" in disk drives.
>It had never occurred to him that personal computers would make a noise.
>
>How is such a person to imbue his works with substance?
What are you refering to when you talk about substance? You seem to be
implying technical details which permeats a lot of SF. Where scientists go
into long scientific lectures about various stuff in their book. Gene
Roddenberry said it best: you don't see people in the 20th century go around
explaining how cars work. You see people writing about cars, their feel and
style, without knowing a single thing about them. Does this automatically
condemn them to style without substance?
Gibson is less concerned with the cause than the effect. He treats the
technology in that society as it is in this society: its there, you don't
have to understand why it works, just what it does.
As for the `victorian technology' comment, he was refering to the interesting
juxtaposition of mechanical machines linked to modern electronics. Most people
don't really think of how strange that is. He's just taking a new look at
things that most people take for granted. I hear in a future book he's going
to push mechanical technology to the limit.
Now, a disclaimer. I do not believe that there is a `cyberpunk' definition.
I don't classify books like that. I'm just arguing that there is more
substance, i.e. steady plot, good characterization, interesting ideas used,
than you seem to think. From the way you sound, James P Hogan's old books
have more substance than any other books in existance due to the level of
detail his science goes into.
--
Martin Terman |Space is warped.|e-mail to: ter...@portia.stanford.edu
Mutant for Hire |Space bends all |"I've always found that people use
Physicist from Hell |matter -> matter| witty remarks when they have nothing
net.mutant |is also warped. | meaningful to say."- M.F. Terman
Eliot Handelman
-In article <12...@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, bmd@athena (Brian M Dennis) writes:
-> But arguing whether or not _Neuromancer_ is a "bestseller"
->seems to me ill spent energy. Unfortunately, your critique seems filled
->with these petty corrections which cloud the substantive issue.
-Oh! gladsome day! A substantive issue! Pray tell, what exactly *is*
-this substantive issue?
Did either of you know that William Gibson is actually chairman of the
NAACP?
Tom [Chris] Murphy
>
>As for the `victorian technology' comment, he was refering to the interesting
>juxtaposition of mechanical machines linked to modern electronics. Most people
>don't really think of how strange that is. He's just taking a new look at
>
Strange in what way? As an electrical engineer, I often have to interface
electrical and mechanical components. Neither I nor anyone I work with
find this unusual, quite the opposite. We live in a mechanical world, so
this type of system is natural.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Internet: tmu...@wpi.wpi.edu tmu...@zaphod.wpi.edu
BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI BIX: tmurphy
CompuServe: 73766,130
Eric Hughes
>Did either of you know that William Gibson is actually chairman of the
>NAACP?
The National Association for the Advancement of Cyber Punk, I presume.
I thought for sure someone in this newsgroup must be chairman. :-)
Any takers?
Eric Hughes
hug...@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!hughes
Karl Lehenbauer
> ...Gene
> Roddenberry said it best: you don't see people in the 20th century go around
> explaining how cars work. You see people writing about cars, their feel and
> style, without knowing a single thing about them.
Agreed, pretty much. Actually, while one may not know much about *how
they work*, one would have to know several things about them to convincingly
use them into a story. As it is, cars are so common to our experience that
one would not need to spend much time explaining them.
Still, many would not accept "I told the cab's whirring PBX modem to get us to
the airport, pronto."
--
-- uunet!sugar!karl "Memories of you remind me of you."
-- free Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
Peter da Silva
> >Gibson is *proud* of the fact that he doesn't know anything about the
> >substance of high technology. His concentration is on the style of tech. The
> >feel. The technosheen.
> >In an interview he marvelled at the "victorian technology" in disk drives.
> >It had never occurred to him that personal computers would make a noise.
> >How is such a person to imbue his works with substance?
> What are you refering to when you talk about substance? You seem to be
> implying technical details which permeats a lot of SF.
Yeh, that's what Tom Maddox et al immediately assumed too. No, not at all.
It's not the technical details, per se, but the technical consistancy of the
work. Gibson is by no means *bad* at that as SF writers go, faint praise
though that may be.
> Gibson is less concerned with the cause than the effect. He treats the
> technology in that society as it is in this society: its there, you don't
> have to understand why it works, just what it does.
The problem is that Gibson's stuff doesn't stand up well to close inspection.
Some of the areas that he misses are caught by other cyberpunk authors, such
as Walter John Williams, so it's not just my imagination.
Ther's nothing wrong with concentrating on the style, but you have to avoid
confusing it with real life. Some of the other posters here seem to be
expecting to plug cyberspace decks into their heads before the turn of the
century.
> As for the `victorian technology' comment, he was refering to the interesting
> juxtaposition of mechanical machines linked to modern electronics. Most people
> don't really think of how strange that is.
Yes, but the context of the comment was how genuinely surprised he was to
discover it. As in, he hadn't seen a personal computer until *after* he wrote
Neuromancer. And it shows... the synergy showing up between programs in today's
primitive PCs is far greater than the components of Gibson's technology.
> He's just taking a new look at
> things that most people take for granted. I hear in a future book he's going
> to push mechanical technology to the limit.
Harry Harrison's _A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!_ is another good reference
to the sorts of things you can do with Victorian technology in SF.
> From the way you sound, James P Hogan's old books
> have more substance than any other books in existance due to the level of
> detail his science goes into.
Not from the way I sound... from the way you read what I write. Hogan's got
a big failure-of-the-imagination problem too. Try John Varley or Vernor Vinge.
Eric Hughes
>Gibson is *proud* of the fact that he doesn't know anything about the
>substance of high technology. His concentration is on the style of tech. The
>feel. The technosheen.
>
>In an interview he marvelled at the "victorian technology" in disk drives.
>It had never occurred to him that personal computers would make a noise.
>
>How is such a person to imbue his works with substance?
In article <34...@portia.Stanford.EDU>, ter...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>What are you refering to when you talk about substance? You seem to be
>implying technical details which permeats a lot of SF.
In article <40...@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Yeh, that's what Tom Maddox et al immediately assumed too. No, not at all.
>It's not the technical details, per se, but the technical consistancy of the
>work. Gibson is by no means *bad* at that as SF writers go, faint praise
>though that may be.
Peter, you should really read _Moby Dick_, by Herman Melville. As far
as technical details go, it has been said that _Moby Dick_ is the best
book on whaling ever written. Not only are the details graphic and
effective, but they are also consistent and realistic, since they were
based on the practices of the time. The technology is sufficiently
remote that it might as well be science fiction (apart from the minor
quibble that the events took place in the past). There are plenty of
good descriptions of how the harpoons work and of the properties of
whale flesh and of how to melt blubber. It's all very consistent.
Oh, and just ignore all the allegory. It seems you're not reading
for that anyway.
ter...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>From the way you sound, James P Hogan's old books
>have more substance than any other books in existance due to the level of
>detail his science goes into.
peter@sugar (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Not from the way I sound... from the way you read what I write. Hogan's got
>a big failure-of-the-imagination problem too.
Oh darn. Melville didn't imagine any of the whaling stuff. I guess
that rules him out. Maybe you'd better not read _Moby Dick_.
Eric Hughes
hug...@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!hughes
John Iodice
Peter da Silva said:
>> >Actually, it's the essence of cyberpunk. All style, no substance.
Then, Eric Hughes said:
>> In particular, I'd like to know why _Neuromancer_ is "all style, no
>> substance."
So, Peter said:
>Gibson is *proud* of the fact that he doesn't know anything about the substance
>of high technology. His concentration is on the style of tech. The feel.
>The technosheen.
>
But Gibson doesn't write about the machines, he writes about machine-using
culture and the machine users it comprises. He may be ignorant about disk
drives, but since that's not his subject matter, its irrelevant (but a great
anecdote). Tell us a story about Gibson showing great ignorance about _people_
(e.g. "Really? People fall for obvious flattery? Jeez!").
Our Father, Who art in Heaven. . . | | | ______
Who am I talking to? | | |
-- Ruin, "By the Bye" | | | ------
. . . . . . . . . . . ______ | | |
John Iodice | | |
iod...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu ------ | | |
Alex Kazim
>
>Still, many would not accept "I told the cab's whirring PBX modem to get us to
>the airport, pronto."
>--
Yeah, but they would if you showed them the difference from our culture.
Maybe:
"I got into the cab. Brand spanking new, smelly vinyl, stay-clean door
handles, and driverless -- just a cheap five cent speaker and a tv lens
that fed my picture back to the dispatcher so if I trashed it they'd have
a record to bust me. Airport, I said. Pronto. The speaker crackled
something like 'Would you like cheese on your quarterpounder'. Don't
make 'em like they used to."
Actually, while we're on sentences, the opening lines to _Neuromancer_
were great. Excuse my paraphrasing, but: "The sky was a television grey"
Reminded me of what Jim Gunn called the best typical SF opening line
taken from a Heinlein story: "The door dilated open" or something to
that effect.
==================================================================
Alex Kazim, Apple Computer
Mine opinions. Mine onions, too
==================================================================
Eric Hughes
>Actually, while we're on sentences, the opening lines to _Neuromancer_
>were great. Excuse my paraphrasing, but: "The sky was a television grey"
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead
channel."
Interesting the ambiguity between the sky being tuned to a dead channel
and the television being so tuned.
Eric Hughes
hug...@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!hughes
Karl Lehenbauer
read.
--
-- uunet!sugar!karl "Ooh, I'm having an in-body experience!"
Peter da Silva
> for that anyway.
And another net.reader misses the whole point, again.
Did I ever say Gibson should be concentrating on the substance of high tech
rather than the style? No, I didn't. I'm not making a judgement for or against
Gibson or cyberpunk, here. I'm just making an observation.
One of my favorite writers is R. A. Lafferty. If you can find a single realistic
chapter in a Lafferty story you're doing better than I.
The essence of Cyberpunk is style.
This is neither good nor bad. It just is. Gibson's said as much in interviews.
He understands the style of high-tech as well as anyone. So that's what he
(and his clones) concentrates on.
Math Student from Hell
>channel."
>
I've always loved this line; Gibson is the only writer I know
who's noticed that the sky over a big city really is this color. I
also like the line because it assumes you'll know what a television
looks like, but you may not know what a sky looks like. I guess that
depends on where you grew up...
This summer the New York sky has been a sort of pale
off-pumpkin color a lot, although it varies. It's always 'off',
though. Never 'white' or 'grey' or 'pink' or 'black', although
frequently 'off-white' or 'off-grey' or 'off-pink' or 'off-black'. Our
standard color words are entirely inadequate for describing the New
York night sky ("Off-black? How can you have 'off-black'?") , and I
was shocked to see Gibson successfully color it.
What a wonderful thing is the human brain; how I wish I possessed one.
Mark-Jason Dominus ent...@pawl.rpi.EDU entropy@rpitsmts (BITnet)