From: vagans@enki.eanna.net   
      
   Matt Harmon  wrote:   
   > Sourcerer wrote:   
   >> The idea that sf is predictive, or that it ought to be judged by it, was   
   >> a gambit in the quest for mainstream acceptance. I don't know why WG   
   >> would refer to it, though, as if it were the purpose of sf once upon a   
   >> time. It was of concern to some authors and editors and some fans, true,   
   >> but it is not descriptive of much more than a slice of the sf scene.   
   >> There is nothing that requires sf to be about "the future", predicted or   
   >> not. "The future" is one domain of sf, as is "planets in outer space".   
   >> In the late 1940s and early 1950s much sf (the sf read by some future cp   
   >> writers) stories were set in a near future and were understood to be   
   >> critiques of the present, often intentionally farcical for good reasons.   
   >   
   > The irony of course is that what was intended as farce has, in some   
   > cases, become reality. Phillip K. Dick's work and his recurrent theme of   
   > what is the nature of identity and reality comes to mind, particularly   
   > when we look at news networks - though I don't know if people would   
   > consider him a cyberpunk.   
      
   I meant that the humorous quality was deliberate because otherwise a   
   work would likely not be published because of the political or social   
   critique at the core of the story. It was not an era, at least in the   
   US, when the 'transgressive' was a marketable commondity.   
      
   I call it 'proto-cyberpunk'. Good examples are the novels and stories   
   co-authored by Pohl and Kornbluth, The Syndic, Gladiator-at-law, The   
   Space Merchants, the stories collected in Search the Sky.   
      
   PKD's work was personal rather than critical. He could make a stone   
   heartbreakingly human.  Probably for reasons of fashion, Bladerunner got   
   PKD noticed in cp.  DADOES is an emotionally powerful novel. Bladerunner   
   is merely, trivially, dystopic. But it left a good-looking corpse.   
      
      
      
   > It's a good question, what do I mean when I say "post-ideological?" I   
   > suppose I mean that it would be a society in which one's ideological   
   > stance is irrelevant. Some sectors of the media are resisting it...I'm   
   > not sure how I feel about it...But I might say it's a side effect of the   
   > "emptiness of existence" that some sectors of society have complained about.   
      
   We may not mean the same thing by 'ideology'. Two people are disputing.   
   Each believes he is right and the other wrong. A third person joins in   
   and believes both are wrong (or both are right). The first two join   
   forces and together dispute with the third person. What the two are   
   doing is defending that there are two sides to every issue, of which one   
   is right and the other wrong, and there is no third. And that is what I   
   mean by ideology. Even though each believes the other wrong and   
   themselves right, they both share the same ideology. Neither is 'the   
   other'. The third person is.   
      
      
      
   >> posting. When they did post their complaints about the group, it wasn't   
   >> the FAQ they referred to, but the inanity of the posts they were seeing.   
   >> When they mentioned the posts they referred to, they were all   
   >> deliberately malicious xposts or trolls which during the peak of eternal   
   >> september amounted to nearly 75% of the posts here.   
   >   
   > I don't contest your point regarding trolls. It was a lousy time for   
   > that. I do think that the following para in the FAQ might have made some   
   > people think twice:   
   >   
   >>>> In the end, anybody insisting they are a cyberpunk will probably get   
   >>>> flamed in alt.cyberpunk. Think of it as a trial by ordeal. John   
   >>>> Shirley (noted cyberpunk author) didn't make it through the entrance   
   >>>> exam. Chairman Bruce might just hack it, but AFAIK he's never come   
   >>>> visiting.   
      
   Apparently it rankled John as he posted to a web forum about it in this   
   century.  What he (and the FAQ) left out was he came into the group   
   displaying a crude sexist attitude. He got himself ambushed by some of   
   the very bright women who were regulars here. They teased him severely.   
   Male ego deflated, he left. No balls for it, I guess. No manners,   
   either.   
      
      
      
   >> There was no "clique" on alt.cp -- unless you want to call those posting   
   >> to the group who were actually interested in cyberpunk a clique -- .  I   
   >> don't even know how that could occur. The closest thing to coordinated   
   >> action on altcp were some of the group-busting trollers. Over the years   
   >> some of the regulars got to know each other outside the group. Still do.   
   >   
   > Well, the idea that people who come to discuss big ideas won't get   
   > responses because they're only interested in big ideas and not community   
   > seems sort of cliquish to me. Past a certain point, you look at a group   
   > like that - even off of the network - and you wonder if you'll fit in,   
   > without the right references and all of that. There's a little bell   
   > going off in my mind here that suggests that it's unfair to make this   
   > critique from a post that's 15 years old and that things are probably   
   > not the same now as they were then. And I'll concede that. Again, I   
   > reiterate, all of this is only my opinion.   
      
   One of the impacts of eternal september, during the time it washed   
   through usenet in the 1990s, was erratic internet connectivity. Neither   
   usenet nor internet were prepared to handle the volume, including   
   storage space. Articles were not propagated, or if they were, might   
   arrive expired and be /dev/null'd. Deja News helped some.   
      
   So, there were breaks in continuity. There was also incomprehension   
   among the newcomers. In the text era, to not know how to format,   
   properly attribute, and arrange articles meant risking misunderstanding.   
   Add into the mix WebTV interface and whatever peculiar proprietary news   
   sw AOL, Prodigy, Microsoft etc were kludging up, contributed to the   
   confusion. Most couldn't thread properly, afaict. Few would display full   
   headers and so on. You recall the era, I'm sure.   
      
   This led to confusion, and that is what you are reflecting in your   
   comments.   
      
   I don't know what "big ideas" weren't discussed.  There seem to be a   
   fair number of them in the archive (I suggest mine, not Google's which   
   sucks for that era)   
      
   Besides the malicious trollers, were those who might as well be, because   
   their approach to altcp was identical. The basic troll of altcp was the   
   blessed definition of cyberpunk.  Back then what you call "big ideas"   
   was usually called "new ideas". They were not hesitant to join the   
   "community" out of concern they wouldn't measure up. They came to define   
   cp for us, which unsurprisingly was identical to the things they liked   
   (and what they didn't like was, obviously, not cyberpunk).  Their   
   greeting was always an attack on the "clique".  There didn't have to be   
   one to attack it. It was just a formality, really. What they wanted was,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)