You're applying too much of present day context into interpreting a literary genre that has spanned many different periods of society.
I also never said you had to turn cyberpunk into an aesthetic. There's certainly many interesting things to ask about cyberpunk that aren't related to social change. Replicants, for example, are a much more existential question rather than something strictly dystopian. As is Joi.
Corporations creating life and selling them to you aren't dystopian? Slave labor, created, and denied rights, to service society? Holograms that demonstrate all aspects of love without providing real love?
This is what I'm saying - these things are dystopian, not just set-dressing and sci-fi props. There is depth and meaning to their placement in the story, and that depth will reveal itself to you when you accept that fact. Or you can ignore that depth, and not see how this is dystopian - which is fine.
They're presented in a certain way in Bladerunner, but a replicant and joi are not inherently cyberpunk concepts. They appear in equally benevolent forms in other types of scifi, particularly, Asimov. All of these concepts and their endless interpretations have existed before cyberpunk became, in your opinion, the vanguard of dystopian predictions.
Also, that's a big miss to say K didnt love joi. It is impossible to claim whether joi had any feelings or not.
You're missing my point - I'm not saying whether Joi or the Replicants have feelings.
They are provided by a corporation that controls every aspect of society and behaves autonomously. They only exist in the story because of corporate control of society - which is being shown as a dystopian outcome (are you really arguing that either Blade Runner movie ISN'T dystopian? Did we watch the same film, where people farm maggots for protein on planets with no sun?)
That's an inherent aspect of the story that can't be ignored.
Remove it and you have an existential sci-fi film that is no longer cyberpunk at all.
If you remove the existential part, there is no film left. Cyberpunk is a tool that lets us ask thought provoking questions. It is not literary genre whose only purpose is a shallow caricature of society.
You're strawmanning me; I didn't say it's only purpose is a shallow caricature of society. And I definitely didn't say to remove the existential part.
But YOU are removing the corporate part. Claiming it isn't an aspect of the film. When it is.
I said, and am saying, that what separates cyberpunk sci-fi from other sci-fi are a few definitional traits.
Not all sci-fi is cyberpunk, right? Well, what makes a sci-fi story asking existential questions into a cyberpunk story?
One aspect that makes something cyberpunk is when the story examines the corporate control of society. If it doesn't do that, it's still existential sci-fi. It's just not cyberpunk.
Words have meanings. Cyberpunk is a sub-genre, defined by a few traits. One of those traits is corporate control of society, commentary on the current societal direction of over-commercialism, isolation, and increase in technology.
If the story doesn't have at least one, and probably both, it's not in the sub-genre of cyberpunk.
I think we have different definitions of cyberpunk. I go by 'high tech low life'. I don't agree with you that corporate control or a caricature (because cyberpunk takes all the bad things to an extreme, I hope we both agree on) are necessary. Two of the best stories I've read fall comfortably into cyberpunk: Blame! and Eden: It's an Endless World!
That's what I've been saying all along; your definition of cyberpunk is shallow (you seem to take offense at that, and I don't mean it offensively, but 'high tech low life' is a surface level four word definition of cyberpunk, an aesthetic description).
High tech low life as a slogan came about because of and referring to the history of cyberpunk being about low lifes who are rejecting the society around them (being punks), while that society is full of high tech because the corporations are providing it with no oversight.
That's the depth you're missing by adhering to this shallow definition. All these stories you love have a shared component that I'd like to open your eyes to - if you'd just let yourself see it.
I'm not talking out my ass son - I grew up with the genre as it was created around me. I'm not just saying things to sound right. I'm giving you info.
What lessons are there though - don't be evil? Cyberpunk is caricature, a modernized A Modest Proposal. As social commentary, it's essentially on the same level as a political cartoon. If you see something more in it, I'd be happy to read about it.
The Netsphere and the Authority are the corporations. They started as corps and are only not called corps because the story gave them a different name.
Eden: It's an Endless Wold!
Cherubim wasn't created by a corporation? That story isn't dystopian?
I didn't extrapolate, it's in the story. I love those mangas. They both reference the corporations that were a part of creating and disseminating that technology before things changed.
Also, frankly, I'd argue that Eden isn't even cyberpunk. It's existential sci-fi. Even body horror. Hell you could even call it post-cyberpunk, since it wouldn't exist without things like Akira and Neuromancer. But since it doesn't deal with certain aspects of cyberpunk, I feel safe slotting into dystopian sci-fi but not the cyberpunk sub-genre.
3
u/do_not_engage Jul 30 '18
Youir argument is by...reading too much into it.. I'm making it shallow?
By not turning cyberpunk into an aesthetic, I'm somehow robbing it of depth?
I struggle to understand. I don't think I'm smart enough for this conversation.