I typically tell people that I write science fiction. No, the punk genre isn’t well known, or perhaps not even considered a genre at all by the average reader. I have no lack of fantastic-yet-scientifically-plausible scenarios – mind uploading, extravagant online worlds, omniscient computers, etc. So why bother with the term punk?
Because I know that I’m more a writer of punk than anything else. As I’ve been saying, punk is an individualistic attitude, so even writing in that style shouldn’t sway to public opinion. To hide the term punk is to portray that very message as impractical in reality, despite scientific practicality of everything else. Science fiction is an aspect of my style, but punk is more fundamental.
Without punk, I’d feel generic, a wannabe Heinlein or Asimov without anything unique to say. The reason Gibson had such an impact for science fiction is because his implicit punk message would not regard what is popular, but how to make use of what you have for your own sake. Self-dedication to use a technological world to make life bearable as Chase did in Neuromancer. Using writing ability to convey a message of where society is going whenever possible as Gibson did in each of his books.
Any good writer does not follow metadata to discover the popular bits of information that so many people click on. But by punk, I don’t just mean whatever happens to be based on a writer’s beliefs. I mean that the topic of interest for punk writing is primarily about a few individuals using self-stylization to overcome extreme setback, cyberpunk world or not. Science fiction may be so common with punk because technology is a way to conceive of radically new setbacks and overcome those same setbacks with the very same technology.
That’s what makes my style punk first and foremost.