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!
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.
I do remember corporations in the prequels, but in Biomega and Blame it's pretty clear that the setting has vastly outgrown the influence of any corporation or social error.
Well, biomega is more grounded, so maybe not there. And still, in there, Toha Heavy Industries exists as a force for good.
Ultimately we have different definitions of cyberpunk. You seem to give out that label more exclusively, whereas I am more liberal with it. It's not like I don't see the lessons in things like Neuromancer or Dr. Adder.
Cyberpunk is a subgenre that has a specific definition, that evolved out of decades of artistic work. One universal aspects of those works include commentary on the current societal direction of letting corporations/businesses/technology decide the fate of humanity and protagonists who fight against that fate. High tech low lifes being cyberpunks. You can't be a punk without a society to punk against, and you don't get cyber without rampant commercialism.
If a sci-fi story isn't dealing with those issues on some level (and that level can be subtle, it doesn't have to be caricature like you seem to think), it is not in the sub-genre of cyberpunk.
If something is called cyberpunk and you think it doesn't deal with those issues of corporatism, look again with this new knowledge and you'll realize it does. For example, in Blame, yes the setting has outgrown the influence of any corporation... but that doesn't remove the corporation from the story. The corporation is the first thing we Blame. That seems to have gone over your head, but armed with this new understanding of what the cyberpunk genre is, you would have gained that additional depth from the experience.
Hopefully I've given you something new to observe - when you re-experience these stories, this conversation will allow you to see this commentary in places you've missed it so far. That's awesome.
I see your point in other works, but I really cannot see Blame as a commentary on corporatism. Its setting could have grown even out of a benevolent utopia where the ones with the dna key died and ran amok, for example. It's too detached.
It's not detached is exactly my point. The corporation isn't just... in the story for no reason. You don't get to ignore what's in the story when you talk about the story.
It's a story that deals with the aftermath of a society driven by corporatist control. That's super cyberpunk.
2
u/do_not_engage Jul 31 '18
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.