THE PROBLEM OF "CYBERPUNK"

  I write this to clear up any confusion regarding a rather vague term that has been bandied about called "cyberpunk." The history of the use of this word is rather sketchy and unclear as to what the hell it really refers to. Sure there are people who like the word a lot and like to use it to refer to a whole bunch of things, the problem isn't its 'mis-use' but rather its use. Since its use presumes one knows what the hell it means and what it refers to without knowing the history of the word, it has been used stupidly to refer to what people believe is a 'genre' but really isn't at all.

      The word itself would suggest "cyber" (having something to do with computers or the internet, cybernetics or possibly even cyborgs), + "punk" which may refer to a label which was applied to late 1970s 'miscreants' and 'counter culture' groups...

      Its usage origins actually comes from transhumanists who actually wanted it to refer to them, and many people applied it to the works of William Gibson since his novels contained stories about people with cybernetic implants and 'enhancements.' The term is confusing because many people seem to believe it refers to any kind of 'futuristic story' which may involve computers or hackers, or any 'dystopia' or book or film concerned with bleak futures, etc. This simply isn't the case. Many people wanted this term to be of some significance, and many people did use it to refer to everything from Robocop to Akira, but unfortunately its use implies all sort of things about some of the books and films it is used to relate to.

      Some would like it to refer to 'hackers,' or believe that it does, and others to 'cybernetic punks,' either meaning punks who are cyborgs, or punks who are rebelling against technology, in any case it is really unclear and there is no definitive authority, or source which can truthfully define what it is, simply because it has become many things in the last couple of decades.

Ultimately, the issue of 'cyberpunk' is more about the users of the term, they attempted to push certain books and movies into a particular non-existent "genre," (or one which may or may not have already been labelled something else) or to enforce or create or imagine a certain genre. However, by much of its use, and the explanation of its use by many critics, reviewers, writers, etc, it excludes a great many titles and even includes many which make no sense to include.

     There have been many articles and websites promoting the use of the word "cyberpunk" but I argue that it is pointless to have that debate any longer (which it continues to create) and offer a simple solution which broadens the arena of sci-fi sub-genres to distinguish them from horror, and fantasy and 'post-apocalyptic.' The term "CYBERTRONIC" in homage to "PSYCHOTRONIC" seems a better term to apply to science fiction which deals with technology we know of today as 'digital.' Computers, robots, androids, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, virtual reality, and of course, implantation of microchips, bionics, or rather, 'cybernetics.' (Which has its own unique debates over terminology.) However it does not distinguish anything beyond that, such as any particular political themes or pop-cultural views implied within the films. If its essentially about a robot, its cybertronic. If its about a computer which becomes self aware, its cybertronic. If its about hackers, its cybertronic, whether they are fighting the evil corporations, or in Scott Bakula's case, working for them in "NetForce." The use of 'cyberpunk' seems to enjoy the intention of excluding and if those people out there wish to continue to narrow their imagined genre, so be it. In a broader sense, if you are studying the whole range of human expression in film regarding technology, 'cyberpunk' is definitely not a term that is quite useful. "Science Fiction" is ultimately the mother term, which involves so much beyond the above qualifications, such as 'time travel' and while 'Cybertronic' may exclude time travel, in such case, "THE TIME MACHINE" as it is merely a 'vehicle' for a plot, and not necessarily any kind of commentary on the technology, whether it be slim or not. (Such as the case with Silent Running, which contains robot 'drones' but does not dwell on them for long, AND is a 'people in space-ships' film, it certainly isn't 'cyberpunk' but may well fit, loosely as it may be, into the 'Cybertronic' category as it not focused on aliens or space fantasy, and is a commentary on humanity and technology, which is ultimately digital in origin.)

    So I present to you a term which would obviously INCLUDE the imagined 'cyberpunk' genre, but offer a wider range of description. Now I realize of course this is all hyperbolic nerd shit, and obsessive about details, but, "cyberpunk" really doesn't refer to anything, except perhaps "anything you want it to" since this is exactly what has happened in the last two decades. I also realize that "cybertronic" is even more ridiculous than "cyberpunk" but I think that some sort of newer word should or could be used to better distinguish the past notion vs. modern notions. 

      One might readily argue the use of 'classics' in the title of this site, as virtually every movie I can find about these various subjects are certainly not 'classics' (Cyberotica for example...) and they aren't, its a humorous use of the word 'classic' I admit, but the intention is to simply offer a specific set of data restrictions, and open a world of possibilities to those searching for science fiction and do not want to be hindered by the practically snobbish 'cyberpunk' pigeon-hole terminology. Sometime people just want to watch a shitty B-movie about robots smashing shit...