Sometimes these discussions get too close to "Anything you can think, I can think better. I can think anything better than you." Which could be a good song, but stressful.

Depends on whether you prefer ideas over friends.

I really don't think they're mutually exclusive. Though it may depend on your set of friends.

I don't think anybody writing a manifesto is out to make friends though.

Mostly I find the entire gesture quaint, an early 20th century art reflex when people thought that the Vorticist movement would change the world.

And they're interesting, usually crystalizing some cultural tension in the zeitgeist in which they occur. The Futurist Manifesto is fascinating because on the one hand it makes some attempt to insist on an art that represented the (then new) 20th century, while at the same time you can see some of the justifications for Italian fascism under the surface.

Sometimes these discussions get too close to "Anything you can think, I can think better. I can think anything better than you."

What does that mean connie?

The Futurist Manifesto is fascinating because on the one hand it makes some attempt to insist on an art that represented the (then new) 20th century, while at the same time you can see some of the justifications for Italian fascism under the surface.

I always find it interesting that people looking for an art that "represents" a time think that humanity is essentially different for being in a new time frame. The environmental framework may have changed, but the motivations of people haven't. The manifesto manifesters keep thinking/hoping that somehow the times will pull the people, but the people just gain new tools for their old instincts.

I always find it interesting that people looking for an art that "represents" a time think that humanity is essentially different for being in a new time frame. The environmental framework may have changed, but the motivations of people haven't. The manifesto manifesters keep thinking/hoping that somehow the times will pull the people, but the people just gain new tools for their old instincts.

I think one of the central concerns of science fiction (and certainly the cyberpunks) is exactly how changes in technology create changes in culture.

Human motivations (sex, power, greed, whatever) may remain constant but the way they found expression in Ancient Egypt was very different from the way they found in 13th century France from Manchester in 1888 and today. The choices people have available to them and why they would make those choices certainly changes.

I think I knew there was a manifesto for cyberpunk , but I hadn't ever read it before. I just like good stories. I have always seen cyberpunk this way:

Society is such that everyone has some sort of access to the highest levels of technology. However, instead of being a miracle cure for poverty , it seems to have made the division between the have and the have-nots even greater. the punks are the intelligent poor ( middle class seems to be gone). They don't really have a lot to lose and they use their knowledge and their resources to the fullest. The flaw in the system - 1) no one is looking for it and 2) no matter how good there is always a flaw. the hack is a cross between a con game and a revolution. the desired result is improvement for the punks' life ( sometimes in a minor way) with the possible ramification of change to entire world( however, there is the realistic expectation there there will always be poor) . Pat cadigan, bruce stearling and gibson tend to go with the Big picture. later gibson and most of neal stephenson seem to focus on smaller stories that have larger implications.

( i argued with myself throughout this whole post)

So far, i have never found any steam punk that I liked

I completely couldn't wrap my brain around steampunk till I saw a movie that did it. For some reason, the visual clicked for me.

As for the oppressiveness of moderation, I just find that I'm much more easily persuaded to a new idea when I don't want to rip out my interlocutor's tongue and strangle him with it. It's a thing.

What movie?

I think it never got distributed in the US; I saw it at a con on a film projector. It was called Rook, and had Martin Donovan in it, and it made no sense at all, except aesthetically.

I just find that I'm much more easily persuaded to a new idea when I don't want to rip out my interlocutor's tongue and strangle him with it.

An immoderate response.

I think how you imagine the dialogue happening would affect how it feels to you. If you're hearing a manifesto as if you're being hectored in a bar at a sci-fi con then a combative tone is going to feel boorish. If you already have a hate-on for say New Yorker short stories and think it's a circle jerk of pale academic writing, then you're going to welcome a big broadside blast.