/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2869047]

After a thread on /tv/ digressed into a discussion about Neruomancer, I wanted to find about more cyberpunk authors and series, as well as create a cyberpunk essentials list.
Basically, I have only three authors:
>William Gibson
>Neal Stephenson
>Richard K. Morgan
As well as:
>Deus Ex
>Ghost in the Shell
Is cyberpunk this sparse and barren, or is it my knowledge that's lacking? Are there any other good cyberpunk authors, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.2869059]

There are other cyberpunk authors, but it's also basically true that there's not that much cyberpunk.

I would recommend checking out Bruce Sterling (especially Islands In The Net) and Pat Cadigan (especially Tea In An Empty Cup), as well as the classic short story anthology Mirrorshades, and George Alec Effingers' When Gravity Fails, which does an Arabic take on cyberpunk. A few other things you might be interested in - John Shirley's "City Come A Walkin" is frequently considered proto-cyberpunk, and a lot of Ian McDonald's fiction is pretty in-line with cyberpunk, although I would have qualms about actually calling it that.

You should also watch Blade Runner. Like, immediately.

[Anonymous No.2869060]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyberpunk_works#Print_media

[Anonymous No.2869082]

if you like lesbians, check out Melissa Scott

[Anonymous No.2869140]

>>2869059
>Blade Runner
Fantastic movie, though I feel bad for just having watching it in June.
And, should Philip K. Dick be considered, like, "proto-cyberpunk"?

[Anonymous No.2869148]

>>2869140
Perhaps, but then you would also need to talk about, like, John Brunner as well. John Shirley is a very immediate predecessor.

[Anonymous No.2869177]

>>2869140
Yeah, at best, I'd call him proto-CP. He certainly mixed counterculture and speculative fiction in a way that would end up becoming a signature of the CP movement, but I don't think he was ever quite all the way there. I don't think he was ever interested enough in the extrapolated future potential of the then extant technological advancements of the era in which he wrote, which was something that CP did have. It may or may not have been a result of the level of socially important technology of the day; Dick's counterculture still seemed to be, to some extent, more fleshy, more human, than that of the early CP writers.

I think he was just a bit too early to realize fully the massive social impact of The Computer. I don't think Dick could have ever looked at a computer in his day and imagined Case the way that Gibson was able to. For most of Dick's life, the powerful computers, the influential ones, were controlled by the elite; Dick's counterculture were people who would probably have fought against them, rather than fight using them. There was still too much distrust of technology; the mind control satellite, the memory eraser, the indistinguishable android, etc...

Or at least, that's my take on it.

[Anonymous No.2869228]

cyberpunk is an all-encompassing bullshit term used to describe "gibson and his cronies". It tries to rope in half a dozen different well-known sci fi greats and fails miserably

Just watch blade runner man. It never gets better

[Anonymous No.2869232]

Ballard should be mentioned as a predecessor ahead of PKD, imo.

[Anonymous No.2869873]

Eclipse Phase is an RPG rule book, but I'm enjoying readint it so much because it feels like reading a traveling book or almanac of all the most recent transhumanist post-cyberpunk stuff of the last 20 years, also, the short fiction it has it top notch, also the art.

It's released under that Creative Communistwhatever license, so you can download a copy for free and legal.

[Anonymous No.2869884]

>>2869228
It's an important term because it's a movement that people recognized while it was happening and that the people involved themselves recognized. Cyberpunk is pretty much an organic term, it's not something that was invented after the fact. So your criticism is kind of strange.

>>2869232
Yeah probably but there's a billion predecessors probably.

>>2869873
No. That's some bullshit. That's 'cyberpunk' after it got turned into nothing more than Nerd Costume Fantasia Playground #83, just another setting for nerdwank. It's what cyberpunk got turned into after it got formalized and smoothed over and turned into a formulaic setting for generic nerd adventures.

[Anonymous No.2869889]

>>2869884
Sure, let's burn some "nerdy" books then, or... what would big brother stalin would do? 451 seems like a good temperature to do it isnt'?

[Anonymous No.2869892]

Better idea, let's read this.
/sarcasm

[Anonymous No.2869891]

>>2869889
what a good point, anon

disliking a book and thinking it's bad is EXACTLY the same as thinking that it should be burned

how insightful you are

[Anonymous No.2869899]

>>2869891
Yes, but your initial point was better.

Telling what other people should like, deciding for them what their opinion must be and what they should like, using an impositive condescending tone like "No, That's some bullshit", and a lot of ad-homine, and not even read the aforementioned book, just wow...

In such cases, saying it's your personal opinion, not an absolute objective precept, seems like a price your ego cannot pay.

[Anonymous No.2869904]

>>2869884
>It's what cyberpunk got turned into after it got formalized and smoothed over and turned into a formulaic setting for generic nerd adventures.
Like what, everything after neuromancer and snow crash? HAHA, man, I'm laughing so hard right now, and it's successors are such a waste of time too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives
Cyber punk wasn't that good, and it's even dying by now...

[Anonymous No.2869907]

>>2869899
>Telling what other people should like, deciding for them what their opinion must be and what they should like, using an impositive condescending tone like "No, That's some bullshit", and a lot of ad-homine, and not even read the aforementioned book, just wow...

Nope. I think it's bad and I don't think people should like it. Obviously, in some sense, those are just my beliefs. But I think they are correct beliefs, and I maintain them, and I won't apologize for thinking them, and I think you're wrong if you don't agree. If that's "deciding for them what their opinion must be and what they should like", then so be it.

>In such cases, saying it's your personal opinion, not an absolute objective precept, seems like a price your ego cannot pay.

Obviously it's my opinion. Obviously it's not an objective fact. I still think I'm right, though. You're free to disagree. You're pretty much always free to disagree - but you'll be wrong. At least, I think so.

There's no crime in thinking something is bad. I think what I think and that's, you know, life. If you want to present a reason that I'm wrong, feel free to do so, and I'll think about your point and, hey, who knows, maybe I'll change my mind. But if your only response is an attempt to shame me for DARING to have an opinion and think something and say, that, you know, I think a thing is bad, then, you know, fuck you. People are allowed to dislike things and I don't, in fact, have to respect everyone else's tastes.

[Anonymous No.2869909]

>>2869904
Most things that are called "cyberpunk" that came out after 1992 are junk. So yes. IMO.

[Anonymous No.2869911]

>>2869907
Now, see? you are just mad, and behaving pretty much 4chanish, I don't see any problem at all.

But you know what?, all that you have wrote is just bullshit man, so I couldn't care less, so have a good day...

[Anonymous No.2869912]

>>2869911
Cool. You too. No hard feelings.

[OP No.2870309]

>>2869909
Diamond Age (which I just started) is pretty good and it came out after Snow Crash.
Also, everything by Richard K. Morgan that doesn't include his fantasy book (Altered Carbon, Market Forces, Thirteen/Black Man) is really good cyberpunk (though it's most notable in Altered Carbon).

[Anonymous No.2870342]

>>2869904
>Cyber punk wasn't that good, and it's even dying by now...

The aesthetic is here to stay though.

[Anonymous No.2870343]

>>2869907
"But I think they are correct beliefs"

Best paradoxon ever. Beliefs can by definition never be true or false.
But thinking that your beliefs have more weight than the beliefs of others makes you an condescending asshole - at least thats what I believe.

[Anonymous No.2870362]

>Beliefs can by definition never be true or false
what?
I believe that 2+2=4.
Where is your god now?

[Anonymous No.2870367]

>>2870362
what are axioms?

[Anonymous No.2870373]

>>2870367
the things that make that belief true.

[Anonymous No.2870378]

>>2870362

"I believe that 2+2=4"

Totally different field. Your beliefing or not has absolute no consequence to the validity of the mathamatical equation 2+2 equals 4. In a mathematical context (ie closed, defined system) the equation is always true. In a philisophical context this softens, as you can argue there are no two things (which is proven since the invention of electron microscopes) that are 100% the same.
Nor has your belief in gravity any consequences on what will happen when you step out a 20th floor window - thats why its called a fact, NOT belief.

"Where is your god now?"

You're barking up the wrong tree - 100% atheist here.

[Anonymous No.2870382]

>>2870362
>Where is your god now?
I'd rather know where you think Godel is now

[Anonymous No.2870380]

>>2870378
that it is a fact is what makes my belief true.

[Anonymous No.2870384]

>>2870382
>>2870382
I believe he's right here

[Anonymous No.2870386]

>>2870384
Oh, also, is it just me or are those really shitty Umlauts?

[Anonymous No.2870393]

>>2870384
Can you prove it?

[Anonymous No.2870394]

>>2870380

OMG...

First of all:

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/fact

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/believe

Second, semantic quarreling won't win your argument. And don't start that epistomologistic bullshit "We can't really know anything".
If you BELIEVE that try exiting a car going 100mph and hope that your BELIEVE in not geting hurt holds up.

As Nietschze put it: "Believing means not knowing."

[Anonymous No.2870395]

>>2870386
I don't know about shitty, but I'd certainly call them incomplete.

[Anonymous No.2870396]

>>2870394
>don't start this stuff that proves me wrong.
>here's something irrelevant

[Anonymous No.2870397]

>>2870394
I strongly doubt Nietzsche said that. He tended to speak in German.

[Anonymous No.2870400]

>>2870378
>You're barking up the wrong tree - 100% atheist here.

>Kid atheist taking a simple joke saying seriously.

I bet you get mad when people say "bless you" when you sneeze.

[Anonymous No.2870402]

>>2870394
Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts “true” and “false” are forced to change places: whatever is most damaging to life is there called “true,” and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called “false.”... When theologians, working through the “consciences” of princes (or of peoples—), stretch out their hands for power, there is never any doubt as to the fundamental issue: the will to make an end, the nihilistic will exerts that power....

[Anonymous No.2870405]

>>2870396

"don't start this stuff that proves me wrong"

As I demonstrated in the sentence following, it doesn't prove me wrong. The claim that you can't know anything is bullshit. It's philosophical circlejerk with no base in reality entirely. And btw a very frowned upon concept by most contemporary philosophers - ie the ones who don't live in Fantasyland.

"irrelevant" how?

>>2870397

Ok here you are: "Glauben heisst nicht wissen wollen"
Excuse me for assuming that most ppl in here don't speak german.

>>2870400

No I don't. I just call Bullshit when I see it.

[Anonymous No.2870413]

>>2870405
You've missed the was ist wahr at the end, and you've somehow misunderstood to mean the opposite of what it means.

[Anonymous No.2870416]

>>2870413

Can you pls rephrase that, I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.2870419]

>>2870416

Nevermind, got it. It would help if you use quotes"" when quoting.
And yeah, you're right.

[Anonymous No.2870423]

>>2870413

Oh, and its "[...] was wahr ist." not "was ist wahr".

"Believing means not wanting to know what is true"

[Anonymous No.2870427]

>>2870416
The quote, in English, is "Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true". He's arguing that often there is no proper reasoning behind what we believe to be true, but a Will to Power or a Will to Pleasure. This is what has been done with the 2+2=4 crap, the guy who posted it has no reason to KNOW 2+2=4, but simply believes it because it makes them feel comfortable, or something like that, and then even professes it to be the Truth.

[Anonymous No.2870431]

>>2870427
Nope, 2+2=4 is a priori true.

[Anonymous No.2870432]

>>2870423
It's only was wahr ist because it's written as a dependent clause there, was ist wahr is a simple sentence on its own.

[Anonymous No.2870436]

>>2870431
It isn't, see the comments about Godel above. It's dependent on context.

[Anonymous No.2870439]

>>2870432
Well, "was ist wahr" may be propper grammar in english, but not in german.

[Anonymous No.2870441]

>>2870436
Nope. True. A priori.
To change it so it weren't true would require a redefinition, but such a standard could render anything false, and thus is meaningless. If 2 is 2 and 4 is 4 and + is + then 2+2=4.

[Anonymous No.2870447]

>>2870441
Not in every finite set.

[Anonymous No.2870453]

>>2870427

"Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true"

This translation totally screws up the meaning.
The first word is "Glauben" which describes the general act of believing in whatsoever, not necesseraly religous believe.

"will to avoid" is also not a good choice cause it implies a conscious decision to go out of your way to know what is true - while "nicht wissen wollen" says simply "not caring what is true" (word by word translation= not wanting to know what is true).

[Anonymous No.2870467]

>>2870453
>The first word is "Glauben" which describes the general act of believing in whatsoever, not necesseraly religous believe.
Just like faith...
>"will to avoid" is also not a good choice cause it implies a conscious decision to go out of your way to know what is true - while "nicht wissen wollen" says simply "not caring what is true" (word by word translation= not wanting to know what is true).
If you had read Nietzsche, or even had a cursory understanding of his philosophy, you would understand why it is better to translate "wollen" as "will". If you'd read or were familiar with Der Antichrist, you'd also have a better idea of why faith is a better choice, due to how "Glaube" is used throughout.

[Anonymous No.2870470]

>>2870441

>>2870436 has a point here, it's only true in the context of conventional mathematics. That does not mean that mathematic truth is rendered false, it's always true in this context. But in the context of
"I have two apples and add two more, so I have four apples."
It doesn't hold up, cause I could have one fruit and three ipods or three fruits and a Macpro etc.

[Anonymous No.2870477]

>>2870431
Ummm, what about the ring Z_3 where 2+2=1 ?

I'm guessing you've never studied mathematics seriously....

[Anonymous No.2870495]

>>2870467

The word "Faith" has a very religous conotation as you can see in every dictionary entry discussing it. Nobody says "I have faith in that my car is parked down the street." Also you didn't touch on the difference between "will"=conscious decision vs. "nicht wollen"=not caring.
And if you think "Der Antichrist" is about religion you are obviously the one who should read it again - in contrast to his other works and without taking into account what other ppl wrote about it.
BTW - Accusing ppl that they "didnt read" or "dont understand" something because they have a differing opinion from yours is not only bad sportmanship but it shows your inability to form an opinion of your own.

[Anonymous No.2870505]

>>2870495
>And if you think "Der Antichrist" is about religion you are obviously the one who should read it again
This is priceless, 10/10 I'm laughing. Whole post cracks me up.

[Anonymous No.2870519]

>>2870505

Glad I brightned your day sir :D

[Anonymous No.2870550]

>>2870431
So, this is bullshit.

You should read Godel Escher Bach if you want to understand why.

[Anonymous No.2870559]

>>2870505

You know. a person who is able to think for himself would have asked "Why do you think that?"
Instead of making a childish remark based on the BELIEVE that what 50year old interpretation aids or your Proffesors tell you about Nietzsche is the ultimate truth.

[Anonymous No.2870562]

>>2870559
You know, a person who is familiar with the work would say "You haven't read it".
Instead of making a childish remark in the hope of hiding behind what they believe to be subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.2870588]

>>2870562

So you're obviously not interested in forming an opinion for yourself that can be properly underlined by the work itself, but insist on letting others do your thinking for you, not caring if their arguments are valid or not. Parroting I call that. And instead of bringing an argument to the discussion you fall back to the same adhominem that failed you 5 post before...very sheepish.
And btw. contemporary academia is on my side in this argument - no matter what your 50 year old Nietzsche Interpretation aid says.

[Anonymous No.2870592]

is bill murray a meme or something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKB0d-U05Xo

[Anonymous No.2870600]

>>2870588
I don't think I've given any view on the work itself, outside of how one should translate/understand in English Wollen or Glaube. But hey, if it makes you feel better to imagine yourself as the forward thinking maverick against some kind of half-century old establishment thing, then you go do that. However, /lit/ is not a vehicle for such fantasies. If you want discussion, go read the work, and try not to completely misunderstand it.

[Anonymous No.2870617]

>>2870600

Again with the adhominem and strawmen, don't you ever get tired of that?
I sincerely hope for you that you will be able to jump your shadow someday and brush off that condescending attitude - It won't bring you anywhere in life.

[Anonymous No.2870624]

>>2870617
Ad hominem and strawman are terms used in a formal debate. This is nothing of the sort, again you seem to be confusing reality and fantasy.

[Anonymous No.2870629]

>>2870624

And again you're wrong:

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/ad+hominem

[Anonymous No.2870630]

>>2870624
a debate is a debate, formal or not, and logic failures still apply even outside a formal setting.

Did your mother drop you on the head when you were little?

[Anonymous No.2870632]

>>2870630
>he thinks this is a debate

[Anonymous No.2870634]

fallacies are just arbitrary boundaries to reason. it should be fair game.

[Anonymous No.2870639]

>>2870632
>he thinks it isn't
this is why you're autistic, not recognizing social cues like this

[Anonymous No.2870645]

>>2870634
>any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound

you should never have left the arbitrary boundary of your mother

[Anonymous No.2870647]

>>2870645
you're a dick. ergo, I win.

[Anonymous No.2870648]

>>2870645
Logic is arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.2870654]

>>2870632

You're right, for a debate is:

"A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal"

instead of repeating "You didn't read it".
Never once he bothered to ask me what my differing opinion is, instead accusing me of 'not having read/understood" it cause I don't share his opinion.

[Anonymous No.2870652]

>>2870639
>implying giving uninformed opinions and then being told to go learn about what you're talking about is a debate
Everything you do must seem like perpetual mass debation.

[Anonymous No.2870658]

>>2870648
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.2870662]

>>2870652
It takes two to tango, my debating enemy.

[Anonymous No.2870663]

>>2870654
You put forward the opinion that "Der Antichrist" has nothing to do with religion, while also crying about how faith has more of a religious connotation than belief. The first part is patently false in front of the source text, the second is patently false if you understand English.

[Anonymous No.2870665]

>>2870662
Imagining being given a reach around is not the same as actually being given a reach around.

[Anonymous No.2870669]

>>2870665
with enough imagination, it's functionally the same

when you're eating an orange, you're not really eating an orange. A bunch of regularized subatomic particle fields are interacting with a bunch of other regularized subatomic particle fields.

There is no such thing as a reach-around, just as there's no such thing as an orange.

"All is vanity" as they say. You don't exist.

[Anonymous No.2870672]

>>2870669
Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts “true” and “false” are forced to change places: whatever is most damaging to life is there called “true,” and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called “false.”... When theologians, working through the “consciences” of princes (or of peoples—), stretch out their hands for power, there is never any doubt as to the fundamental issue: the will to make an end, the nihilistic will exerts that power....

[Anonymous No.2870682]

>>2870663

Nope. I said:

"if you think "Der Antichrist" is about religion"

The important word here "about". It plays a huge role in it, but it is not "about" religion.

" faith has more of a religious connotation than belief"

Because it is important to make the distinction between the critique of "religion" and the critique of "values".

"The first part is patently false in front of the source text"

It is not. I elaborate if you're truly interested.

" the second is patently false if you understand English"

srsly dude? you can't give a single answer without pulling the ad hominem shit?

[Anonymous No.2870688]

>>2870672
Quoting irrelevant others because your own mind is functionally bankrupt. Well done, we're all very impressed.

[Anonymous No.2870691]

>>2869047

Check out Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

[Anonymous No.2870710]

>>2870682
This whole thing is language games gone wrong, due to your rigid and narrow bloody mindedness. The one thing I will engage with:
>"if you think "Der Antichrist" is about religion"

>The important word here "about". It plays a huge role in it, but it is not "about" religion.
It's splitting hairs. I can only think you're holding onto a pre-Hume idea of what a religion is for a start, as well as somehow ignoring that the whole basis of the Antichrist is a criticism of Christianity, whether it is by culture, or values, or thoughts.

[Anonymous No.2870713]

>>2870688
>quoting Nietzsche in the Antichrist is irrelevant to someone talking about Nietzsche in the Antichrist

[Anonymous No.2870727]

>>2870713
How does the Hebrew Bible view homosexuality?

>Well I, personally, believe they should be stoned to death.

[Anonymous No.2870739]

>>2870727
Okay, this is actual ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.2870751]

>>2870710

"It's splitting hairs"
It is not. It is an important distinction. That's like saying you should translate "sein" in Heidegger always with "is" - good luck making sense of that translation. And what the hell has Hume (whos moral philsophical views are completly proven wrong not only by contemporary philosophy but also by science) to do with that?

"whole basis of the Antichrist is a criticism of Christianity"

Where do you get that idea from? Cause it is a subline on the book cover? You know that Nietzsche never wrote that, it was put there in later publications by an editor as you can see in this pic of the first edition:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Nietzsche_AC_EA_innen.jpg&filetimestamp=20080403
022033

"Der Antichrist" is a general criticism of the modern (that is late 19th century modern) state of mind, morality and values of the human species. Of course christianity plays a role in that, but saying it is a criticism of christanity and nothing else is plain ignorant. I mean just read the preface - It tells, in Nietzsches own words, what it is.

[Anonymous No.2870786]

>>2870751
>Where do you get that idea from? Cause it is a subline on the book cover? You know that Nietzsche never wrote that, it was put there in later publications by an editor as you can see in this pic of the first edition:
You're confused. Der Antichrist is divided into 4 Volumes, the first of which is called "Der Antichrist. Versuch einer Kritik des Christenthums", which is probably what you think is a "tagline". Unless you mean the subtitle "Umwerthung aller Werthe", which is there even in early drafts as the original title.

>"Der Antichrist" is a general criticism of the modern (that is late 19th century modern) state of mind, morality and values of the human species.
The Christian values, yes. The very title of the book has an intentional double meaning of Anti-Christian and Antichrist, and he only uses the first meaning within the book.

>And what the hell has Hume (whos moral philsophical views are completly proven wrong not only by contemporary philosophy but also by science) to do with that?
I find this amusing. I laugh at your idiocy, since to take it seriously ould only make me cry.

[Anonymous No.2870803]

>>2870786

"The Christian values"

Cause these just popped up one day without anything leading to it and no other concept of thought challenging it, right? And you call me "narrow minded"...

"I find this amusing. I laugh at your idiocy, since to take it seriously ould only make me cry."

Yeah, using every comfort science brings you but denying it's findings when they not suit your view of the world. fundamentalist much?

I give in - you won. Keep eating the bullshit they feed you in school, be happy with it. Nevermind what every expert on the subject has to say about it.

[Anonymous No.2870821]

lol @ this thread. /lit/ is great sometimes. the best board at having dumb off-topic arguments. this is really funny.

[Anonymous No.2870823]

>>2870803
For you, science has the same nihilistic values as Christianity. If that's what you want to devote yourself to:
>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.2870829]

>>2870823

>>18th century dude who shits in an outhouse makes claims about human nature
>>21th century science proves assumptions wrong

This is nihilistic how?

[Anonymous No.2870834]

>>2870829
>Science is right because it is science and the future
>the everything else is wrong because it's the past

[Anonymous No.2870852]

returning to the issue of cyberpunk ...
There is a fairly good example of it in a section of "Hyperion" (Brawne Lamia's section to be precise)
If you needed more reason to read this godly science fiction, here it is.

[Anonymous No.2870863]

>>2870834

>>4000BC ppl learn certain food is poisonous
>>Science has no problem with it because varifiable

>>ppl claim earth is flat
>>science says no, presents prove

see the difference?

[Anonymous No.2871813]

>>2870852
I concur with everything this gentleman has said.