Cyber-punk? What the…

From chick-lit to cyber-punk how do these people think up these genres? While reading through Gibson’s All Tomorrow’s Parties (ATP), I was trying to figure out what the term “cyber-punk” meant, without having to go on some weird sci-fi dude’s website. I really liked this book; it was a welcome change from Ethel Wilson’s Innocent Traveler, which still haunts my dreams night after night, you guys know what I’m talking about right? I thought the constant change from character to character was pretty cool, it made it so you just start to really get into one person’s story and then they cut you off until you read a few more chapters about other people and get back to them.

To the definition of cyber punk; the term cyber derives itself from cybernetics, which is the “study of human control functions and of mechanical and electronic systems designed to replace them”. The term punk just describes a hoodlum or rebellious young person. When combined the main concepts of these words form the ideas of mechanical (cyber) individualism/ anarchy (punk). The genre of cyber-punk places emphasis on the freedoms of the individuals in the story, combining “high tech with low life”. “Cyber-punk science fiction stories” a term coined by Gibson, are usually set in a combination between the low level side of technologically advanced societies and also taking place online in a cyber space blurring reality. The characters in these types of fictional stories are usually lone anti-heroes in which they are outcasts, criminals, and/or hackers, being manipulated to do the bidding of higher powers.

All Tomorrow's Parties: A Blog?

First off, I want so say that I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was such a relief to read something I could follow and understand without too much in depth analysis. I'm sure there is more to the story than what is on the surface, but the story itself was a definite page turner that kept me interested no matter who the story was focused on. I liked how Gibson left a lot of the book up for interpretation. The use of ambiguity is effective, but not overwhelming.

Okay so here's my case. Being that this course is titled "Fiction in the Blog Dimension", I have become suspicious about this book as a form of blog. First of all, there are a total of 73 chapters in this book. This is unheard of for a novel, at least in the novels that I've read. Some chapters aren't even a page long. Each deals with a specific incident for a specific character or group of characters. When I read chapter 42, entitled "Red Ghosts of European Time" for the second time after skimming through the book, I noticed that this chapter is relatively insignificant to the plot of the story. It almost seems like a reflection of the day's events and describing what Fontaine was doing before he went to bed, much like a diary. Most chapters have this sense when you read them. Then I thought, wait a minute, a blog is a form of a diary. So, couldn't this book be a form of a blog?

The more I think about it, the clearer it comes. This book is a collection of diaries of several characters, except they are not written in first person. They are all third person. The best analogy I can think of for something like this is a forum, which is a form of a blog in which several users interact from their own computers and with their own points of view. For the most part, they stay focused on one topic and one can follow each person’s interpretation relatively easily. This parallels Gibson’s book, where the “forum topic” is The Bridge, because everyone has an affiliation with it in some way.

So there you have it. I claim that William Gibson’s book is cleverly structured as a blog.

Similarities and Differences Between Blogs and Douglas Coupland’s Novel, “Hey Nostradamus !”

When I was reading “Hey Nostradamus!”, I had a feeling that although this is a published book, it has some features that are quiet similar to a blog. For example, this book is composed by four different people form four different points of view (just like four different writers can compose one blog). All of them present very personal feelings and internal perspectives. The language they use is relatively simple compared to other novels we read such as “Vancouver Short Stories” and “The Innocent Traveller”. In addition, although the four people (Cheryl, Jason, Heather, and Reg) do not directly communicate to each other, the way they speak their story (such as retelling the story and giving another explanation or expanding the story) does give them a chance to refer to other’s narratives viewpoint.

However, although there are many similarities, the book, “Hey Nostradamus!” is still a published book which, by definition, is very different form a simple blog (because people will rarely do revision when they are blogging). Therefore, what a book can present will be more significant than what a blog can present. For example, “Hey Nostradamus” deals with lots of elements such as love, relationships, religion and the massacre which includes deep and philosophical meaning that needs a lot of space to discuss. (This kind of ideas cannot easily be dealing with in one blog). The ideas and meaning tend to be more profound and last longer and are discussed by people over time. Besides, the time frame the author, Douglas Coupland, uses is not commonly used in blogs. For example, in Cheryl’s part, the author doesn’t focus on one fixed point (i.e. the present, when Cheryl faces the massacre) but jumps to the past and into the future in order to present Cheryl’s thinking. The author also makes some prediction in Cheryl’s part like Cheryl’s knows that her writing her on binder about “GOD IS NOWHERE” will be left behind and that people will wonder about it. These perspectives are very different from the perspectives in an ordinary blog because a blog is usually focused on the present (like a diary, and the computer system will record the date) and its topic is often referring to one thing.

As a result, although “Hey Nostradamus !” was presented in a very special format and it’s style reminds me of a blog (like Heather’s part which was presented in a diary format), it is still quite different from a blog.

Love vs. Religion

Love and religion often challenge each other in the novel, “ Hey Nostradamus!” by Douglas Coupland. Love consists of both lust and an individuals support and encouragement for another, and religion embraces our beliefs and how we react to our surroundings. These two situations can either bring people together and unite love and religion, or in some cases, tear people apart into isolation when the interests of love and religion conflict each other. There are several examples of this throughout the book. Reg certainly favors his religion over his son Jason. When his son longed for guidance and forgiveness for stealing the neighbor's raspberries, Reg turned his back on him and pretended as if he did not exist since the sin of theft was committed. He also accused Jason of murder when Jason had actually saved innocent people, claiming that Jason should have been killed instead of committing a sin himself, even if it saved his life. This demonstrates that Reg would rather have lost his young son's life rather than have him sin. Religion also created conflict between Jason, Cheryl and Youth Alive, leaving Youth Alive no choice but to accuse Jason and Cheryl of sinning when they were suspected of having premarital sex. Jason even took his fury out on Youth Alive! physically, by beating up Matt Gursky. Reg also ruined his relationship with Barb after stating that one of her twins had no soul since one of them was a clone of the other, due to his beliefs. These examples show how religion can create dispute and opposition in relationships when applied too strictly. On the other hand, Reg and Kent's relationships is a good example of how religion and can bring people in sync. Reg and Kent shared the same beliefs, so Reg respected him, even more so than his own wife, and was constantly defending him even in ridiculous situations, such as in sixth grade when Kent complained about Easter egg's indirectly hinting at lust. Also, Jason and Cheryl were united in marriage due to religion, and would have remained as one till death parted them apart.