I'm dreadfully afraid this may start off one of those spates of E-mail.
However . . . the best definition I have seen I got over E-mail,
appropriately enough, from another SF fan, who also gave me a great reading
list (long since lost in the La Brea Tar Pit of my non-filing non-system).
He said that Cyberpunk is writing in which technology is real, dangerous
and dirty. I haven't seen an academic definition to beat it. I do think
Phil Dick is sometimes proto-cyberpunk, especially D.A.D.E.S?, and IMHO the
essentialy question of D.A.D.E.S?, which is what makes us human and whether
a machine could be, is well-handled in Blade Runner, although differently
handled. D.A.D.E.S? could not be adapted for film without major departures
because it is so internal to the character's consciousness, except maybe in
the form of a cartoon??? Certainly Scott & Co. made it a romance, while Dick
is a satire, but otherwise I think it's amazingly faithful under the skin
(as it were . . .)I love Gibson's Sprawl novels, and am working through
The Difference Engine along with two or three other books.
Judith Kerman at Saginaw Valley State University
[log in to unmask]
"This is the city. Los Angeles, California." -- Dragnet