Is cyberpunk dead or being revived?


It was only recently that I read Neuromancer. In my defence, I’ve seen all the different cuts of Blade Runner, which has to count for something. Right?

Anyway, there was an interesting video essay from Just Write that I thought I’d share. It discusses the cyberpunk genre and how the aesthetic has lost its relevance.

I actually quite enjoyed the Netflix series Altered Carbon, based on Richard Morgan’s novel of the same name. There were some interesting comments about inequality and inherited wealth that is often overlooked in discussions about living longer. But I have to agree with the video’s comments about the cyberpunk aesthetic of the show being off.

Not that it didn’t fit, but that it didn’t feel that different from what we have now, as the video stated. How can we watch a troublesome/dystopian future that is essentially our now?  These aesthetic elements then undermine much of the narrative comment by reminding us that many of the plot points have already happened. It is a little bit hard to have a cautionary tale of where we are headed in the future when we have already arrived at that point (e.g. wealth isn’t made but instead it tends to be inherited unless there is some sort of inheritance tax in play or dissipation – 1, 2, 3).

So does that mean that Mr Robot and other contemporary cyberpunk stories are the way forward for the genre? Are there other ways to update the genre? Do we need another Blade Runner movie?

Some things to ponder.

Update: Future Tense/Slate published an article suggesting cyberpunk has cast a long shadow over science fiction. It alludes to some of the same points whilst trying to discuss reinvigorating sci-fi. I think the point it fails to make is that the prefix-punk genres were never going to have the same impact as cyberpunk because they were prefix genres following in the wake. If you want to reinvigorate sci-fi* you have to start with something different, not just another prefix.

Works Cited:

Lessons from the Screenplay. “Blade Runner — Constructing a Future Noir.”
Extra Credits. “The Witcher III: Wild Hunt – Best Detective Game Ever Made.” Taxi
Extra Credits. “William Gibson: The 80s Revolution.”
Abrams, Avi. Dark Roasted Blend. “Epic 1970s French Space Comic Art.”
Sterling, Bruce. “Mirrorshades: the cyberpunk anthology.” New York: Arbor House, 1986.
Walker-Emig, Paul. The Guardian. “Neon and corporate dystopias: why does cyberpunk refuse to move on?” October 16, 2018.
NAZARE, JOE. “MARLOWE IN MIRRORSHADES: THE CYBERPUNK (RE-) VISION OF CHANDLER.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 35, no. 3, 2003, pp. 383–404. JSTOR, JSTOR,
Karen Cadora. “Feminist Cyberpunk.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 22, no. 3, 1995, pp. 357–372. JSTOR
Sponsler, Claire. “Beyond the Ruins: The Geopolitics of Urban Decay and Cybernetic Play.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, 1993, pp. 251–265. JSTOR
Nixon, Nicola. “Cyberpunk: Preparing the Ground for Revolution or Keeping the Boys Satisfied?” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, 1992, pp. 219–235. JSTOR
Whalen, Terence. “The Future of a Commodity: Notes toward a Critique of Cyberpunk and the Information Age (L’Avenir D’une Marchandise: Notes Sur Cyberpunk Et L’Ere De L’Information).” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, 1992, pp. 75–88. JSTOR
Senior, W. A. “Blade Runner and Cyberpunk Visions of Humanity.” Film Criticism, vol. 21, no. 1, 1996, pp. 1–12. JSTOR
Usher, Tom. Vice. “How ‘Akira’ Has Influenced All Your Favourite TV, Film and Music.
Giles, Matthew. Vulture. “Taxi Driver, Girls, and 7 Other Big Influences on Mr. Robot.
The United Federation of Charles. “What is Cyberpunk?
The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich by Sam Pizzigati

*I’m not sure I accept the argument that sci-fi needs reinvigorating. Has some of it disappeared up its own butthole? Quite possibly. But that’s a whole argument and discussion on its own… Come to think of it, I’m betting there are endless articles on that topic somewhere.


Book vs Movie: Blade Runner – What’s the Difference?


Since Blade Runner 2049 is coming out soon, CineFix have dedicated this month’s What’s the Difference? to breaking down Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

I can’t remember the first time I watched Blade Runner. I do know that it sucked. So that early experience was of a version of the movie that was about shooting androids rather than about empathising with them. I later watched the director’s cut and the Ridley Scott preferred version and concluded that this was a classic movie. I know, how prescient of me.

The novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, was something I read a long time ago. I have a very poor recollections of it, in fact the only bit I can remember was the section where Deckard hooks himself up to the Voight-Kampff machine. The idea of humans not really being able to empathise with others, that we are just playing a meaningless game of life, whilst other beings would love to be human, is an interesting idea I should probably revisit. I’m sure I’ll get a chance before 2049.

I also read the sequel, Blade Runner: Edge of Human, which was more a sequel to the movie than the book. Again it has been a long time since I read this. I have more memories of borrowing this from the library than I do of reading it. This sequel was a gritty crime noir that was all about hunting down androids, double crosses, and absolutely nothing deep and meaningful.

Blade Runner is a good example of the “inspired by” version of movie adaptation. Very little of the book remains in the film and you could be forgiven for thinking they were unrelated. Yet neither the movie nor the book suffer as a result. Kinda like the Bourne films. And like Bourne, you honestly wonder why they bothered licensing the property when the screenwriters took so little material from the book.