Why I like cyberpunk

Alduin

So the place I live in - the Philippines - has this really cool aesthetic that you guys should see. There's TONS of urban decay everywhere. It's got high tech via importation, but there's absolutely no segregation between rich and poor areas. We're too underdeveloped and poor to afford to hide our poor, unlike Singapore or Hong Kong. To give you an example, internet cafes are not uncommon in the slums.

It's not uncommon to see cities like these in Asia. A lot of the failing infrastructure and urban decay in Southeast Asia was the result of the Asian financial crisis in the 90s. Japan got theirs, in contrast, by their bubble bursting a few years before that. 

But that's just the aesthetic, and the larger social problems are caused by things common to Asian cultures and even humanity in general. China has an even worse divide, with rickshaws and shanties next to the most advanced places in the world. 

All of these elements are super central to the cyberpunk genre. It's high tech and low life. People are exhausted and tired of life for various socioeconomic reasons. One scene in Cowboy Bebop - where Spike and Jet are buying 80s cassette players in Singapore - really struck me, because it looks like a more extreme version of where I live! That shit happens all the time where I am!

Look, the Philippines and Southeast Asia are super underrepresented in media. Cyberpunk anime is the closest I got to seeing my reality reflected on-screen for me as a kid. Maybe I'll fix that someday.

I fucking live in a cyberpunk dystopia, guys. And it's awesome.

I'm not a trenchcoat katana-wielding cyborg though

Alduin

I got into urban exploration when I was 14 and I haven't looked back since. It's striking how many places I've been to resemble places I've seen in shows like Ghost in the Shell.

Sredni Vashtar

This makes sense.

Weirdly, that's kind of where I'm going with one of the stories set in the same world as the thing I'm writing, but several decades on. But not so much in the conventional cyberpunk sense as the juxtaposition of advanced technologies and ancient, decaying landscapes in a more idiosyncratic sense.

Klinotaxis

was basically the idea in Neuromancer, as far as I remember. the US loses the cold war, in the same economic way as the USSR did irl, so there's still huge cities and shit from when the US was important but they're just rotting. plus they go to japan and stuff, i don't remember

Alduin

ANOTHER facet of cyberpunk is slow dissatisfaction with life, which is increasingly common here in the Philippines.

Salix Babylonika

I think that's pretty common everywhere by now.

Alduin

That's true, although the specifics of why are different.

MadassAlex

I think much of the developed and developing world could be considered to resemble cyberpunk fiction by now. Even for those places where the aesthetic doesn't exist, the essential substance is present; massive fiscal divides, mass surveillance, and -of course- the prevalence of corporate oligarchy setting political agendas.

Alduin

Those things also totally existed in the 80s: the essence of cyberpunk was that it took contemporary societal problems and showed how more advanced technology did not make them better, but worse. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what happened. 

MadassAlex

That's true. 

I think it's interesting how c.1990-2008 provided something of a second wind to (very) relative equality and employment accessibility, at least from my perspective as a citizen of a privileged Western nation. We can say that cyberpunk authors weren't exactly on the mark (albeit pretty damn close), on account of our current situation requiring a major global recession. Those matters are sometimes mentioned in passing in narrative fiction, but seldom discussed in depth.  

What I'm saying here is that narrative fiction often has issues discussing matters that aren't marked by pivotal moments, be that cyberpunk, fantasy, or otherwise. It's easy to make the rise of a demagogue or the outbreak of war exciting, less so the cumulative effect of poor fiscal policy. Which is a shame, given that ideals and understandings are usually formed in fiction before being refined in reality, so many good-natured people have a narrow frame of reference for the nuts and bolts of the likes of class conflict. 

Many voting populations, particularly those of powerful and wealthy Western democracies, engaged in habits that seemed domestically sensible throughout the comfortable 90s and early 2000s, but have often further impoverished nations outside the privilege bubble. Then that cycle bit back, so the 21st century has so far looked to be a blow-by-blow repeat of the 20th. I feel this is particularly relevant between you and I, because you're of the Philippines and I'm Australian -- and the Philippines most definitely fall within Australia's area of influence (among some other nations'), and therefore has almost certainly been impacted upon by inconsiderate Australian foreign policy (ask an Indonesian if you get the opportunity). 

P.S. I can help you with that katana-wielding stuff if you're willing to ditch the trenchcoat. Other sword options also apply. 

Alduin

Katanas are shitty swords that only exist because Japan had no access to good-quality steel.

Salix Babylonika

by that logic would you argue that any sword made before the invention of steel is shitty

Tatterhood

all sowrds are bad, just use your mind to kill people imo

Obā-san

bombs IMO, fertilizer is cheap and cyberpunk af

Klinotaxis

Jane said:

by that logic would you argue that any sword made before the invention of steel is shitty

i mean, i don't know much about swords in particular, but that seems plausible. steel's nice

Obā-san

@MadassAlex has anyone tried to make a teflon-coated sword

Salix Babylonika

has anyone tried to turn Ice Cube, the teflon don, into a sword

Tatterhood

has anyone tried to make a swords out of an ice cube

MadassAlex

Alduin said:

Katanas are shitty swords that only exist because Japan had no access to good-quality steel.

Katana are overrated swords that are still pretty good, but like any sword type, they make design compromises in order to achieve their aims. For instance, the steel of many katana is unusually hard, but that isn't necessarily an advantage. Harder steel is more brittle, so the resulting sword will break or deform under too much pressure rather than bend and return to its intended shape. On the other hand, the harder steel allows katana to hold sharper edges and the firmness allows for well-supported thrusts. The circular hand guard is a good option when one of the most predominant stances has the sword held extended in a central position.

So a typical katana wounds with remarkable effectiveness, but its durability shortcomings mean that it's often best to give way in a crossing of swords. Weight distribution of the steel also means that a katana's point of balance is often closer to the middle of the blade compared to other sword types, which on one hand helps with impact, but on the other makes cancelling or modifying one's own actions more difficult. To provide an idea of how that last point impacts upon handling, consider that an average rapier is substantially heavier than an average katana, but having the point of balance so close to the hilt renders it very nimble. The rapier's weight doesn't help with cutting effectiveness specifically because of this point of balance, though. 

tl;dr Katana are good swords if you are fighting in a way that takes advantage of their traits. If you are not, they'll definitely serve you terribly, but so will any other sword type. 

 

Today is Tomorrow said:

@MadassAlex has anyone tried to make a teflon-coated sword

No idea, but with a sword, you might not want to reduce friction. This is because swords were seldom the most effective killing weapons, but particularly upon the widespread use of steel, excellent tactical and semi-defensive weapons. A long blade can both intercept an opponent's attack and connect with them in one unit of time, so some schools of thought would prefer friction so there's more likely to be mutual blade grip in the crossing of swords.

Jane said:

by that logic would you argue that any sword made before the invention of steel is shitty

Iron swords are usually short, often by necessity, and rarely (if ever?) have hilts developed enough to provide substantial defense. Steel allows swords to be longer and more resilient, allowing them to be used as a single unit (rather than nearly necessitating a shield, as in the case of iron swords). Most iron swords are short enough that combatants are pretty much within grappling range and the arc of a cut doesn't provide substantial defensive cover, so the use of an iron sword without a shield is very close to the risk, chaos, and brutality of a knife fight. 

Obā-san

that makes sense

i was more curious because that seems like something someone would do out of like, weaponsmithing curiosity

LOAD Cherry

ITT: I learned more about swords than I have ever bothered to know before in my life.

Alduin said:

Katanas are shitty swords that only exist because Japan had no access to good-quality steel

And tomahawks are terrible weapons in comparison to a steel axe or a guan dao. (This comparison is less fair than usual because tomahawks, afaik are for throwing, not melee, but bear with me.)  Weapons are developed to take advantage of the most likely fighting style your most likely enemies use. Japan, being an island nation which for the majority of its history was at war with either A) itself or B) its immediate neighbors, there wasn't a need to develop weapons that were heavier or more resilient because it doesn't matter that your sword sucks when your most likely enemies' swords suck just as bad or probably worse.

Sredni Vashtar

Knightess Cerise said:

ITT: I learned more about swords than I have ever bothered to know before in my life.

Alex is the sword evangelist.

Alduin

At the time, Japan already had access to gunpowder. Most samurai epics, in real life, made use of guns - Nobunaga is even famous for revolutionizing the way gunpowder was used in Japanese warfare.

Sredni Vashtar

Yeah, but knives and swords were still more common in hand-to-hand combat, even in Europe. Shakespeare mentions "guns" in the modern sense, but that doesn't change the fact that people still hacked each other up or stabbed one another on the regular.

thenamelesssamurai

Sredni Vashtar said:

Yeah, but knives and swords were still more common in hand-to-hand combat, even in Europe. Shakespeare mentions "guns" in the modern sense, but that doesn't change the fact that people still hacked each other up or stabbed one another on the regular.

Quite true. When Japan invaded Korea, even with their early adaption of the arquebus, arquebus troops only accounted for about a 1/4 of their army, so it's not like swords became obsolete even with the introduction of early firearms.

Klinotaxis

gunpowder isn't really the important part of a gun. what you need is good machining, good enough to make rifled barrels, anything other than muzzle reloading, etc. that's why gunpowder was mostly used for bombs and fire arrows, and occasionally very scary things like hwachas that are still fundamentally worse than firearms, for like, a thousand years.

good thing japan bought and built enough rifles and gatling guns to kill people in the boshin war, eh

MadassAlex

Alduin said:

At the time, Japan already had access to gunpowder. Most samurai epics, in real life, made use of guns - Nobunaga is even famous for revolutionizing the way gunpowder was used in Japanese warfare.

It's also worth noting that Nobunaga also made much more extensive use of common ashigaru troops than any of his contemporaries, so he used equipment that would assist in matching the odds. Equipment like spears and early firearms have a particularly low skill floor for effective use, allowing Nobunaga to flesh out his ranks more efficiently than his competitors. This helps make up for the deficiencies of early firearms; Musashi's Book of Five Rings discusses firearms (very) briefly, claiming they have no equal in defensive position, but are useless when battle reaches close grips. A high number of firearm-equipped ashigaru allows firepower to continue pouring, compensating for the slow rate of fire and complex reloading process. 

The sword was relegated to a recreational tool the day common firearms became accurate and fast-firing enough to ensure that combat wouldn't regularly come to close enough quarters. To this day, a sword is probably still the best tool for close combat defense against other hand weapons, but that doesn't happen nearly often enough in modern warfare to justify the additional production and training costs that would accompany the use of swords. That's also another kilogram or so of equipment burden, the relative motion complexity of sheathing/unsheathing, and the commitment of at least one hand.  

So, basically, semi-automatics and upward. Which makes sense; the likes of bows and crossbows didn't displace swords, so why would slower blackpowder weapons or even early contained round weapons do so? The introduction of anti-armour firearms sometimes made swords more prominent, as field combatants wore lighter armour that was previously an excellent defense against most kinds of attacks a sword might make. But the whole comparison is pretty wonky, as firearms are long-range projectile weapons that use field positioning as their frame of reference for mobility, whereas swords are close range mixed offensive/defensive weapons that frame mobility in the subtleties of footwork. 

Basically, most modern ways of thinking about swords and their uses are pretty wrong because they fail to understand that the defensive properties of the weapon are just as important as the offensive properties. In today's world, swords aren't used because they don't have anything to intercept or deceive.

Salix Babylonika

Swords were also never widely used as an infantry weapon in most places*. They're just not very economical.

*Rome is the big exception off the top of my head.

MadassAlex

That is... partially true? Partially myth? It's a complex topic because fencing is so diverse and military organisation is so diverse and the relationship these things have to civilian life (and defense) are so diverse and and and

So let's get Eurocentric for a minute here so I can provide some examples I can be sure of. Directly following the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes the Migration Period, which includes widespread economic upset and a partial return to bartering economies. The factory-line sword production of the WRE is gone, but specialised smiths from various tribes and kingdoms work (with apprentices and other employees) to produce long-bladed, steel swords for those that can afford it. Swords are expensive because of how complex their forging process is, but highly valued due to the relatively newfound durability of steel and the rarity of heavy armours. Everyone who can afford a sword has one, if possible, because there aren't many defenses that can resist them and they're highly versatile. Swords of this period are ubiquitously one-handed and designed to be used with shields. 

By the time we get to the "high" medieval period, organised weapons production has been resumed and swords commonly have cross guards. Think around the conclusion of the Viking Age, which could be considered to have occurred with the great British clusterfuck of 1066. We're talking the era of the early Crusades, well after Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire stabilised the central continental region (and then proceeded to fragment, but that's neither here nor there). Swords are becoming increasingly common both on and off the battlefield due to reduced production costs and developing trade relations (predominantly stemming from Germany and Italy at the time), but aren't cost-effective purchases for most people, even if they could theoretically purchase one if they really wanted to. 

Once we hit the late medieval period (c.1250-1550, but the latter date is really contentious), swords are highly developed technologically and readily affordable (but still not cheap). Factory line production is the standard of the day; Germany, Italy, and Spain all export high quantities of quality blades cheaply, which are usually hilt fitted in the local sale location. For instance, most Scottish claymores have German blades, but the hilt design and construction is Scottish. Many commoners now have swords, be it through choice or through arming policy (as in the case of England and its archery policy). Some governments try to ban or partially ban civilian swords, mostly fail, and proceed to unban them. Every single soldier of every type has a sword, but it's usually not their primary weapon, which is usually a polearm or some kind of projectile weapon. The exception comes via "true" greatswords, which are designed to be long and devastating enough to compete with polearm -- or just to suit the preferences of one who purchases them on commission. 

One of my favourite cases of sword use in the late medieval period comes through English and Welsh longbow archers. They were almost universally armed with a one-handed sword and a buckler to accompany their bows, and those of greater means often wore pretty heavy armour (such as a coat of plate) sans gauntlets (so as not to interfere with their archery). These archers could be effective close combat infantry, especially those in armour, because the strength developed by longbow practice made their sword blows very decisive. So in practice, these "archers" were actually multifunctional soldiers whose sword skills were pivotal to their economical nature. This is only compounded by the fact that medieval warfare of various periods was not predominantly expressed through pitched battles, but through raids and sieges, where individual skill at arms was a substantial virtue. 

tl;dr The sword was rarely a primary weapon, but beloved by many due to its versatility. A sword is rarely an optimal weapon outside of unarmoured (or lightly armoured) combat, but it's a good weapon in almost any situation as it has the versatility to find a solution to any plausibly winnable combat scenario -- provided one is able enough. Additionally, as always, we should bear in mind the defensive benefits of long steel swords, especially when they develop cross guards and other developed hilt types. Contrary to our perspective informed by media, medieval combat was about winning primarily and killing secondarily (or even as a tertiary consideration, given the prevalence of ransom). Other weapons are better at killing or wounding, but swords are good at winning a strong position in combat, which is why they were the universal sidearm and sometimes the primary weapon. 

Alduin

more on-topic: I'm going to go on another adventure tomorrow :D

Odradek

Bronze is the best metal because it is made of the bones of thunder gods

Alduin

I think that another aspect of cyberpunk that didn't carry forward was the notion of the rest of the world becoming very secular. 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror thoroughly disabused us of that notion.

Klinotaxis

yes, well, sci-fi has been doing the "imagine no religion" thing for many decades now and it hasn't really panned out

Alduin

That's been a thing ever since the end of the French Revolution, and lo and behold where we are now.

Corvina

Cyberpunk is one of the few sci-fi genres that mostly actually happened. Whether that can become a good thing is up to us.

Alduin

I guess that that's a positive way of looking at things.

Alduin

Eliot said:

Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:

Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question ...

[...]

Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets
And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes
Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? ...

That's how it feels.