New, from Disney, Cyberpunks on Ice!
Jack Bell
* * * New, from Disney, Cyberpunks on Ice! * * *
On alt.cyberpunk you often see some variation of the "Is Cyberpunk Dead?"
post. For an on-topic post I would say it is second in popularity only to
the perennial "What Is Cyberpunk?" I find it interesting, and
instructive, that these two subjects come back so often. It has to mean
something when people keep trying to either define a movement or question
its continued existence…
Now, those of you who have been following the alt.cyberpunk hierarchy for
a long time know that I usually confine my personal posts to smart-ass
responses and occasional rants. That I almost never start a thread, and
that I never take myself too seriously. This is because, although I have
more technical and literary qualifications than most of the pholk here, I
make no claim to actually being a cyberpunk. I guess I don't think of
myself that way. And I am not interested in defending such a claim,
unless you are willing to accept a definition of cyberpunk as more of an
attitude than a fashion statement. It also helps if you don't take age
into consideration (I am definitely at the far end of the scale of
alt.cyberpunk readers as to number of years spent on the planet).
But lately I have been thinking a lot about what it all means, and I have
decided to step out of my usual role on alt.cyberpunk and actually
contribute something, even if it is a rehash of a hoary old argument. You
see, I love Cyberpunk as a literary genre although that genre seems to
have been abandoned by even its earliest practitioners. I am highly
interested in what some call the 'Cyberpunk Movement', but to be honest I
don't see much life in that corpse either. The movement isn't moving if
you know what I mean. There is plenty of life in the 'Geek' thing, and I
am an active part of that, but not all pholk identifying themselves
cyberpunks also think of themselves as geeks and many do not have the
programming chops anyway.
So, is the 'Cyberpunk Movement' dead? Was it ever alive to begin with? I
decided I really wanted to know, and that lead me to do research. Not
into cyberpunk, I know more than most about that already, but into
movements as sociological phenomenons. Reading a few books does not make
one an expert, I know, but I have come to some conclusions. The first
conclusion was a definition of a movement as "A collection of memes with
a specific lifecycle." Something that actually changes over time instead
of simply appearing whole and then going away when it is done. Here I am
talking about every kind of movement there is, whether it be political,
artistic, moral, religious or fashion. But what is this life cycle?
If you were to graph it out, the life cycle of most movements would
resemble the traditional bell curve. Not as graphed by the number of
people subscribing to the movement, but by the impact the movement is
having on society as a whole -- how many memes move into general
circulation. The biggest difference between most movements would be the
time gap between the two lowest points and in the effect height of the
peak. Some, quite simply, last longer than others and/or have a greater
impact.
Movements nearly always start small, among a tiny group who are willing
to be different mostly because they don't have a choice; they are
different, too different to have any hope of truly fitting in. They are
losers, but glorious losers, because, instead of hiding their difference
in pretend conformance they decide to celebrate it. To wave it in the
face of the mundane crowd. At this stage the movement isn't even
recognized as such by the participants. But it begins to slowly grow as
new people, also losers experiencing difficulty pretending to be
'normal', join what they see as something they can belong to for the
first time in their lonely lives.
Then something happens. A breakout occurs. Suddenly the movement is on
the radar screens. It might be as in your face as a riot or a terrorist
action. It might be as simple as a movie star wearing a t-shirt with a
movement slogan on the Tonight Show. It might be as complicated as a
carefully choreographed media blitz ('The Beatles Are Coming!'). But
suddenly the movement is visible outside the small group of actual
practitioners. This little fact changes everything and causes the curve
to suddenly rush up towards the top of the bell.
At this point a feedback loop occurs. The media attention causes the
members of the movement to suddenly take themselves more seriously. Most
were serious to begin with mind you, but this is a different kind of
earnest examination of their motivations. If they are one kind of person
they revel in it and do whatever they can to act even more the way they
are portrayed, thus feeding energy back into the loop. If they are
another kind of person they act as a resistor; draining energy from the
loop until the movement growth curve reaches an early peak and starts
down the other side. Sometimes there is a little bump in the curve here
if the movement acquires a charismatic leader from inside, or even
outside, its ranks who can feed energy back into the loop. Many movements
see a change of leadership at this point.
Either way the feedback loop itself begins to warp the message. Those on
the inside often feel betrayed when they do their level best to explain
themselves only to find that the media is a filter that distorts what
they see as important truths. But they are powerless to control the loop
if it has gained enough energy, so each time the message passes through
it changes that much more. They can only ride the curve or get off
entirely. At this point the movement may see a period of hypergrowth in
its ranks -- often while losing many of the original members. In many
cases the movement also sees a change of focus.
As the movement's growth curve begins to flatten a commercialization of
the message occurs, usually created by outsiders. This will run past the
peak of the curve and as far onto the downward slide as they can continue
to make money. Sometimes this will also feed energy back into the loop
and prolong the rise of the curve.
But, no matter what, the curve does eventually peak and start down.
Remember that we are graphing the impact on society here; the people who
have joined the movement may continue their involvement throughout their
lives and more members may join. But the effect of the movement upon the
mass consciousness is nearing its end. Whatever changes it has wrought
upon society are already there. The impact itself may be a permanent
thing, but little more change is forthcoming. This is the point at which
you are mostly likely to see the message of the movement merged into the
popular culture, usually in a very shallow manner. This is price of
success, and the proof, that eventually even the most violent of
movements end up as children's entertainment. Thus the title of this
piece.
Remember though, I said that *most* movements follow this classic bell
curve arrangement. I did not say that all movements graph out the same
way. For example some movements peak again and again every generation or
two. Some zigzag up and down every few years. Some reach a kind of steady
state plateau and drop off much more slowly than they rose. Sometimes two
similar movements get confused for a single one in the mass
consciousness, with a resulting distortion in the curve.
And a few have a very unusual graph -- one that never reaches great
heights, but continues for a long, long time. These are usually movements
populated by true outsiders; by outlaws. They are so far outside the norm
that no matter how much energy pumps through the feedback loop they can
have only a limited effect on society as whole, although the energy does
serve to continue the movement for longer than it might otherwise last. A
good example of this is the Biker Gang phenomenon. In "Hell's Angels"
Hunter Thompson (copyright 1967, Hunter S. Thompson) describes the Biker
Gang movement:
"I realized that the roots of this act were not in any time-honored
American myth but right beneath my feet in a new kind of society that is
only beginning to take shape. To see the Hell's Angels as caretakers of
the old 'individualist' tradition 'that made this country great' is only
a painless way to get around seeing them for what they really are -- not
some romantic leftover, but the first wave of a future that nothing in
our history has prepared us to cope with. The Angels are prototypes.
Their lack of education has not only rendered them completely useless in
a highly technical economy, but it has also given them the leisure to
cultivate a powerful resentment … and to translate it into a destructive
cult which the mass media insists on portraying as a sort of isolated
oddity, a temporary phenomenon that will shortly become extinct..."
Basically Thompson was describing one side of a dark coin created by the
impact of technology. Years before Toffler published 'Future Shock'
Thompson considered that technological change could itself create an
underworld of sex and drugs and fear and violence. But I think there is
another side to this coin. One seen, and fictionalized, by William Gibson
in the "Neuromancer" cycle. One where the participants choose to embrace
a technology more complex than a 74 inch Harley Panhead. Where education
is not lacking, at least in the technical sense. In this respect Thompson
later muses:
"In the terms of our Great Society the Hell's Angels and their ilk are
losers -- dropouts, failures and malcontents. They are rejects looking
for a way to get even with a world in which they are only a problem. The
Hell's Angels are not visionaries, but diehards, and if they are the
forerunners or the vanguard of anything it is not the 'moral revolution'
in vogue on college campuses, but a fast growing legion of young
unemployables whose untapped energy will inevitably find the same kind of
destructive outlet that 'outlaws' like the Hell's Angels have been
finding for years. The difference between the student radicals and the
Hell's Angels is that the students are rebelling against the past, while
the Angels are fighting the future. Their only common ground is their
disdain for the present, or the status quo."
We all know that Biker Gangs continue to exist. They originated in the
late 1940's and are still with us, slightly modified, fifty years later.
They have become part of the public consciousness, even though, as
Thompson suggested, everyone kind of hoped they would just go away. They
have even spawned other movements that exist as pallid reflections of
themselves (Christian Bikers, Yuppie Bikers, etc.).
It seems apparent that the 'Cyberpunk Movement' has many parallels to the
Biker Gangs of the 1960's, to the 'Punks' of the 1970's (who also
continue a kind of half-life existence) and to the inner-city 'Gangsta's
of the 1980's. The similarities can be found in the 'Outlaw' image all
have inherited from the mythical gunfighters of the American 'old west'.
At least as portrayed by Hollywood…
But there are two major differences between Cyberpunks and the rest. I
would say these are:
(1) An affinity for technology (fighting the past, not the future).
(2) A tendency to operate as individuals instead of as groups (Asocial as
opposed to simply Antisocial).
So, after all this effort, I am still left with the question: Is
Cyberpunk dead? It seems likely that, at the very least, the Cyberpunk
Movement may be following the usual paths of an outlaw movement. Meaning
that it will continue to exist on a low level for years to come with its
memes occasionally surfacing in popular culture.
Or…
It may be that the energy has exhausted itself and we are just old ladies
nattering over the corpse.
Or…
It could be that we have mistaken the Cyberpunk Literature movement for
the real thing and that we are at the embryonic stage of something
separate, new and huge. Something that may need a new name as well. The
only thing certain here is that the energy will never develop so long as
we remain isolated units without clear goals. But it can still happen.
Or…
Perhaps all of the above. In any case I have learned one thing from the
exercise: I have probably earned the right to call myself a cyberpunk as
much as the next guy. Maybe I work as steady job. Maybe I am a parent
(and old enough to be your parent). But if you want attitude I got
plenty. And besides, no one has answered the "What Is Cyberpunk?"
question either -- so I can define Cyberpunk to suit myself!
Jack William Bell -- 12/8/1998
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Copyright 1998, Jack William Bell
Home Page -- http://www.sff.net/people/jackb/
Look Ma! I'm an illegal munitions exporter now!
http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/
http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/known-traffickers
<Begin RSA Encryption Algolrithm>
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
<End RSA Encryption Algolrithm>
Sourcerer
> * * * New, from Disney, Cyberpunks on Ice! * * *
<rm>
Just a note to say that after the holidays, I'll reply
to some a the v. interesting things you brought up. I'll
probably repost it for those who don't maintain their own
newspool, as well.
Regards,
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O
\../ |OO|||O|||O|| Cyberpunk's not dead. It's just not
|| OO|||OO||O||O fiction anymore...
Jack Bell
dje...@marduk.babel.net says...
>
> Just a note to say that after the holidays, I'll reply
> to some a the v. interesting things you brought up. I'll
> probably repost it for those who don't maintain their own
> newspool, as well.
OK. Have a good XMas...
Jack
Sourcerer
In article <MPG.10d7dc424...@news.ricochet.net>,
Jack Bell <jack...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>* * * New, from Disney, Cyberpunks on Ice! * * *
>
>On alt.cyberpunk you often see some variation of the "Is Cyberpunk Dead?"
>post. For an on-topic post I would say it is second in popularity only to
>the perennial "What Is Cyberpunk?" I find it interesting, and
>instructive, that these two subjects come back so often. It has to mean
>something when people keep trying to either define a movement or question
>its continued existence.
Historical rather than sociological: there's the
Cyberpunk Movement proper, which is the musings of the Cheap Truth
gang, i.e., writers of the original cyberpunk sf. And there's the
Future Culture gang, so long gone from alt.cp that hardly anyone is
aware of the association anymore.
Those are the only cyberpunk movements I've ever seen evidence of.
Every other movement is 3 social incompetents with a wardialler, or
some dormie-shared, and elf-warlord inspired, delusion.
<rm>
>unless you are willing to accept a definition of cyberpunk as more of an
>attitude than a fashion statement. It also helps if you don't take age
>into consideration (I am definitely at the far end of the scale of
>alt.cyberpunk readers as to number of years spent on the planet).
Neuromancer was published 15 years ago. The last time the youth-card
was played here was by the Zippies. Pretty damn silly to base a pov
on something so...fleeting. By the time you get good at being a
youth, you're old.
<rm>
>I am highly
>interested in what some call the 'Cyberpunk Movement', but to be honest I
>don't see much life in that corpse either. The movement isn't moving if
>you know what I mean. There is plenty of life in the 'Geek' thing, and I
>am an active part of that, but not all pholk identifying themselves
>cyberpunks also think of themselves as geeks and many do not have the
>programming chops anyway.
In Raymond's Jargon File, cyberpunks are hacker groupies plus a few
hacker-wannabes. There's some truth to that. Just read the Lifestyle
And Fashion Section of alt.cp -- pure jf regurgitations. But the
core ideas of cyberpunk are not pointopoint with the core ideas of
hacking, including, if not especially, Raymond's "true hacker" idea
of hacking.
<rm soc>
The only cyberpunk movement discernable is cyberpunks' desire for
a movement, which is a odd desire for lone-wolf, samurai, mercenary
lovin' individualists to have. Someone, awhile back, offered the
bizarre reason that cyberpunks should stick together for survival
(dormie-shared-delusion apocalyptic jitters) in the Dark Age
approaching.
Iow, nobody has offered a manifesto for a cyberpunk movement that
wasn't either a troll or unlaid virgin teenboy hallucinations.
Way way back we had christian cyberpunks here. Oh, and christian
hackers, too...happy hackers. I don't know.
What can you say about a movement, built around a shared intuition
as to the look 'n feel of the future, which, so far, is best
realized -- effected -- in games and comic books?
So, everyone disclaims being a cyberpunk because to claim to
be one just means you read too many comic books. There's no
cyberpunk to be -- not even an elite cracker on the FBI's
10 most wanted can be a cyberpunk. Why? Because the
things that interest all us non-cyberpunks do not exist.
Did not, I should say. Times are changing. The post-y2k
society is appearing to take the shape of the cyberpunk
vision of the future, as is the corporate world that will
result from the MS antitrust trial and the mergers being
effected presently (esp the telecoms). The technological
foundation for jacking, simstim, etc may not reach the
shrink-wrap stage for a few decades (but that's right
on schedule for the cyberpunk vision), but it is
being worked on diligently in corporate and academic
research.
One reason why cyberpunk writers (well, Gibson) can't
write effective cyberpunk fiction anymore is that they
would have to take into account their own impact on the
shape of the "future". No realistic hard sf set in
the immediate future can ignore that it is a future
shaped by the ideas and styles of Neuromancer and
Snow Crash.
It's a cyberpunk sort of world, and I expect there
will be a lot of cyberpunks populating it -- the
opposite of Goth, which works so hard to preserve
a fading 19th century Victorian past, Cyberpunk
is actively grasping for a just-barely-in-reach-
future-about-to-be-present.
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O The world hadn't ever had so many
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O moving parts or so few labels.
|| OO|||OO||O||O -- mlo
marcus
For me, "Cyberpunk" combines two essential points:
a) technology
b) anarchy
But let me explain. Every one in the Cyberpunk movement (if it can be
called that yet) is at least fascinated by technology, its various uses,
and its impact on society. But technology is used in an anarchical way,
independent from what the user`s manual says. It is used in ways
unintended and unexpected by the manufacturer. It becomes a mean to
achieve an end, it becomes "street technology" used by autonomous
individuals for their goals.
So musicians drawing new sounds from new or old instruments, fashion
designers experimenting with new fabrics, writers exploring the
future... they all become part of the cyberpunk "movement"
emperor