|
|
|
|
|
by the_af
1538 days ago
|
|
Well, like I answered in another comment, Blade Runner is not a good example because Neuromancer wasn't published by then, and also because it was a groundbreaking visual work of art, not a derivative one (yes, I'm aware of Metropolis. The point still stands.) > "[...] a determination to avoid what Gibson sees as right wing tendencies in Golden Age SF" That was no small feat. It seems pretty major to me. It took me some work to mature from my young SF fan self to notice the rightwing undertones in much of it. Call it naivete, if you want. What are modern cyberpunk derivatives fighting against? Cyberpunk today is codified as a consumer-friendly, eye-popping style, complete with a collection of tropes so ingrained fans will fight you to the death if you try to deviate so much as an inch from them. |
|
> What are modern cyberpunk derivatives fighting against? Cyberpunk today is codified as a consumer-friendly, eye-popping style, complete with a collection of tropes so ingrained fans will fight you to the death if you try to deviate so much as an inch from them.
But eye-popping style was all it ever was. Neuromancer didn't fight against John Campbell's opinions on slavery, or capitalism, or Cold War politics, it just wrote about punks and hacking in a neo-noir dystopia because Gibson thought that was a much less boring setting for a story than conservative utopias.