Been listening to a conversation on Cyberpunk and the roots, future, and the possibly continuing existence of the genre. I keep hearing that cyberpunk is dead. In truth people have been throwing dirt on the genre since the darn thing was invented. By all accounts dystopia and cyberpunk have a very close relationship and the emergence of Neal Stephenson started the post-cyberpunk movement.
I would argue that cyberpunk is not about the technology. It is not about the specific tech but about the idea of how the tech is used, how we react to technology, etc. Post-cyber focused on technologies that were still emerging as well as biotech and other possibilities such as nano. The issue we are dealing with in terms of naming is really about the tech and what sort of darkness was being suggested. Am I wrong in suggesting the darkness suggested by these novels and art et al is legitimately a part of our world though not to the extent suggested?
I still write cyberpunk. I still believe in its existence and power. It doesn’t have to be called cyberpunk, but lets not forget the message.