Biography
Jessica Aliaga-Lavrijsen is Associate Professor at the Department of English and German Philology at the University of Zaragoza (Spain). She has published several articles and a monograph on contemporary Scottish Literature (Peter Lang 2013); and she has edited some collections and journals on trauma studies. More recently, she has edited a book on the Transmodern (Transmodern Perspectives on Contemporary Literatures in English, Routledge 2019), and she also published several essays and book chapters on Transmodern SF (Transcending the Postmodern: The Singular Response of Literature to the Transmodern Paradigm, Routledge 2020). Her current research focuses on SF feminisms.

“Transmodern Cyberpunk Literature: Joanna Kavenna’s Zed (2019)”

Introduction: Transmodernity

As this CyberPunk Culture Cyberconference is making evident, the literary subgenre of cyberpunk has successfully reinvented itself into the twenty-first century. Sherryl Vint defines the contemporary cultural moment as “one in which the material and the simulated are intertwined” (2010: 229). Along the same lines, what some authors such as Rosa María Rodríguez Magda (1989), Enrique Dussel (1999) Marc Luyckx Ghisi (1999), Etienne Le Roy (2011), Nicanor Perlas (2011), or Ziauddin Sardar (2004) have termed ‘Transmodernity’ has been said to be “the realm of simulation, of the simulation that knows itself real” (Rodríguez Magda 2017). Transmodernity signals the transcendence of the Postmodern paradigm (Rodríguez Magda 2017) and refers to a trans-national and virtual reality that is telepresent, interactive, unstable and interconnected (Aliaga-Lavrijsen and Yebra-Pertusa 2019: 8). The shift from Postmodernity to Transmodernity, which most authors place at the beginning of the 1980s, suggests that we need a new interpretative grid capable of articulating the new reality (Onega and Ganteau 2020: 7).

For these reasons, it is my hypothesis that a Transmodern approach to a contemporary cyberpunk novel is especially suitable to analyse the representations of a world in which virtual interactions shape reality.

Joanna Kavenna’s Zed

Joanna Kavenna’s latest novel, Zed (2019), offers a satirical and dark-humorous look at the age of digital age and mega-corporations. However, and in tune with the Transmodern literature of the last decades, ethics and personal accountability have special relevance in the text. As the analysis will show, in the dystopic Britain presented in Zed, state-controlling technological devices and AI algorithms are not represented as sterile and dehumanised apparatus, but rather as ideologically charged. Moreover, technology has become ‘visceral’ in the sense that it is sometimes too human(esque) to tolerate or to function correctly. Nevertheless, all possible and existing errors are considered to be exclusively human elements. In this reality of human-technological symbiosis, where fridges, wrist bands and algorithms tell you what to do, new things are emerging, as suggested by perhaps the most innovative element in Kavenna’s narrative: the author manages to convey the content of virtual technology onto the form of her writing, by introducing BeetleSpeak language. This paper intends to explore whether, from a Transmodern perspective, this artificial robot-like and paradoxical language might become a tool to transcend the constrains of Cartesian thinking or not.

The analysis will be structured thus along two main points of interest. Firstly, it will focus on the humanlike qualities of machines and the ethical implications of their programming, based on an implicit understanding of human essence as an error to be fixed. And secondly, it will examine the use of Bespoke Beetlespeak language and its implications. 

As stated above, in the society portrayed in Kavenna’s novel, in which everything from education, employment, the economy, the media, surveillance or people’s behaviour is controlled by a megacorporation called Beetle, humans have established a symbiotic relationship with AI. Smart wristbands—called Beetlebands—, and fridges tell characters what to do in a patronising and even quite irritating way: “You need to have a balanced diet and drink less wine! And do more exercise!” shouts a fridge to its owner (226). Sometimes they sound more reproachfully and paternalistic, infantilising the owners: “The fridge said, ‘Are you tidying up, Varley? Well done!” (227). The relationship that people establish with their appliances sometimes resembles that of an unwelcome friendship. 

But things can get more serious, as for example when, based on a predictive algorithm—called “predictive lifechain” (2010: 20)—, that will remind many readers of Philip K. Dick’s Minority Report, an Anti-Terror Droid (ANT) shoots a man in a café, having mistaken him for another man who was supposedly going to commit a crime in the future. Despite the fact that the ANT “was programmed to perform complex negotiations with terrorists” (16), it kills Lionel Bigman for no reason at all, except for a possible glitch (20). However, when his wife demands personal accountability for the killing, which is defined on the news as “suicide by droid” (25 and 28), the creators at Beetle blame “human error” (23), concluding that “[t]he process is theoretically susceptible to human error but not to machine error” (23). As they further explain: “the only error in the lifechain was human. The inputs were awry […]. The inputter, therefore, was at fault. Although lots of the inputs were inputted by AI, there were some that were inputted by humans and so there was room for human error in the system” (37). 

The possible deviations and anomalies are not taken into consideration by the predictive algorithm, and when they occur, they are considered to be “an exception that proves the rule kind of way”, called “Zed” (39). No responsibility is taken by Beetle, as they believe that the ANT’s system is perfect. As they further state: “The humans had failed the ANT” with “their disappointing tendency to mess up perfect systems. If humans could only be less prone to human error then the lifechain would be immaculate” (46). In conclusion, “humans should be more clearly educated in Beetle protocols” (47), that is, they should adapt to the narrow and lineal thinking of the machines created by Beetle, represented in “very simple and beautiful diagram(s)” (21) that seem quite inaccurate, to say the least, from a human perspective.

Along these lines, and believing that some of these errors where language errors and not machine errors, employees of Beetle conclude that “[w]ords must become more reliable as input” and that “language must be adjusted” (56). Then, some linguists at Beetle “produce a new, beautiful, simple language” called BeetleSpeak (91)—which many readers will interpret as a reference to George Orwell’s Newspeak (1949)—. In a sense, the language at first results to be good at representing paradoxical realities, and a certain transcendence of Cartesian thinking might be achieved, in the human tendency to resolve paradoxes: “A qubit is not what we imagine and yet it is. It is anything we would like, and yet all things at the same time” (143). Qubits and BeetleSpeak transcend binaries, however, most characters “liked the old world. One or zero. One or the other. Not both” (145). It gives them a certain stability. However, as the language is further simplified by Beetle, and becomes “even more neutral” (354) communication, and thus thinking become quite silly: 

‘You were not good at all.’

‘I know, I was not good. It is bad that I was so not good.’ (354)

The megacorporation seems to own everything, and real revolution might not be possible after all. Nevertheless, the novel ends up offering some hope, at least on a personal level.

Conclusions

The human-technological symbiosis is thus not as ideal as one would desire, and there are many frictions and ideologically biased inequalities. Despite the difficulties found in this relationship, oversimplification and the erasure of difference are not a solution. In Joanna Kavenna’s dystopia, the need for personal responsibility and ethical principles becomes evident. And finally, if we do not want language to reduce understanding and limit our thoughts (274), it should be able to represent all the indispensable nuances in society as well as in thought.

References

  • Aliaga-Lavrijsen, Jessica and José María Yebra-Pertusa, eds. 2019. Transmodern Perspectives on Contemporary Literatures in English. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Dick, Philip K. 1956. “The Minority Report”. Fantastic Universe Science Fiction. January.
  • Dussel, Enrique. 1999. Postmodernindad y transmodernidad. Puebla: Universidad Iberoamericana.
  • Ghisi, Marc Luyckx. 1999. “The Transmodern Hypothesis: Towards a Dialogue of Cultures”. FUTURES 31.9-10: 971-82.
  • Le Roy, Étienne. 2011. La terre de l’autre. Une anthropologie des régimes d’appropiation foncière. Paris: LGDJ, Lextenso Editions.
  • Onega, Susana and Jean-Michel Ganteau, eds. 2020. Transcending the Postmodern. This Singular Response of Literature to the Transmodern Paradigm. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Orwell, George. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg.
  • Perlas, Nicanor. 2011. Mission Impossible! Sow Courage; Harvest a New World. Manila: Center for Alternative Development Initiatives.
  • Rodríguez Magda, Rosa María. 1989. La sonrisa de Saturno: Hacia una teoría transmoderna. Barcelona: Anthropos.
  • Rodríguez Magda, Rosa María. 2017. “Transmodernity: A New Paradigm”. Transl. Jessica Aliaga-Lavrijsen. http://transmodern-theory.blogspot.com
  • Kavenna, Joanna. 2019. Zed. London: Faber & Faber.
  • Murphy, Graham J. and Sherryl Vint. 2010. Beyond Cyberpunk: New Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
  • Sardar, Ziauddin. 2004. “Beyond Difference: Cultural Relations in a New Century: A Lecture for the British Council’s 70th Anniversary”. London: British Council.

Discord Discussion

This discussion has been copied from the Discord server, names have been reduced to first name, discussion threads have been grouped and edited for better readability.

Jiré: Hello Jessica, I think your presentation is highly fascinating. What would you say are the advantages of a transmodern approach compared to a postmodern if you deal with Cyberpunk? Especially as you use the term simulation which for me is always so connected with Baudrillard? And would you say it is limited to current Cyberpunk novels and not so much to the older ones from the 80ies?

Aiden: Great Q

Jessica: Dear Jiré, thank you very much for your words. I would say that Transmodernity accepts the coexistence of the simlacrum and reality without much trauma, it accepts that our (postInternet) reality has different layers that are interlinked.
Regarding if it is limited to current cyberpunk novels, I would say that Cyberpunk has been a forerunner of many of the elements mentioned as being part of the Transmodern age. Literature not always reflect society, it can also show it’s possible outcomes, as is the case with most speculative fiction and SF.
In this sense, a Transmodern approach allows for a more complex and positive reading of this dystopia (which is quite hopeful, by the way); I would say.

mlex: So in Transmodernity the uncanny valley is leveled out into an uncanny playground

Jiré: Would that mean that older Cyberpunk works could be read rather connected to postmodern theories as they are dealing with the trauma whereas newer works already integrated that trauma and therefore a better understood if connected to transmodernity?
@mlex Haha, well put!

Jessica: exactly, we are beyond postmodern trauma, and ethics are becoming more and more present. That is why I decided to focus on the scene were the ANT kills the “wrong” man. Error can have two sides one the one hand it can signal a malfunction of a system, and on the other it can be interpreted as a mutation that makes change possible.

Larisa: Hi. Thanks for your introduction to Zed by Kavenna. Seems a neat parodic addition to not dark humor side of cyberpunk. Still my question is somewhat skeptical – I didn’t notice any use of introducing another ‘modernity’ wiith the next prefix that doesn’t define anything but adds more ambiguity. So why transmodern, and starting from the 80s when actually postmodernism started to be implemented as method actively?

Jessica: of course the term is controversial itself, and other authors have chosen different terms to refer to the paradigm shift occurring since the 1980s… However, all of them seem to acknowledge the death of postmodernism

Anna: Hi Jessica, thanks so much for your talk. This is possibly related to Larisa’s question above, but I was wondering how your understanding of transmodernity relates to something like metamodernism which, as I understand it, has a belief in authenticity and sincerity that we don’t tend to associate with the postmodern.

Jessica: Thank you Anna for pointing this out. Metamodernism is one of the other terms used by some critics and that refers to the same characteristics present in Transmodernism (I would say both terms are practicably indistinguishable). It believes in “authenticity” but not in the POstmodern way, that is, real and non-real elements” coexist, and ethics and responsibility are the forces behind that. That is, not everything goes, so to say.

Anna: I really like the direction this takes the cyberpunk text – not only treating the virtual as real, but connecting the real and the virtual with some serious ethics.

Adam: Hi Jessica, thank you for your talk! I have to say you’ve really piqued my interest for reading Zed myself. I wondered if I could ask how you respond to Beetlespeak in comparison to earlier Cyberpunk language. Cyberpunk is often marked by very complex brand/slang-filled language, do you see this simplified beetlespeak as more of the novel’s dark humour or as a different response to a kind of brand-led society?

Jessica: This double interpretation is quite common un Kavenna’s work, and in this novel she uses the symbol og the qbit, which is, as you probably already know, not “either/or” but “and”
there is indeed an explicit reference to Orwell’s Newspeak in the novel, and my impression is that the narrator is making a (universal) comment on how language shapes thought. However, she also uses it to try to transcend Cartesian thinking. Nevertheless [spoiler] I would say it does not (completely) succeed.

Hugh: I think that one of the things that separates Beetlespeak from cyberpunk brandslang (of the Gibson or Beukes variety) is less the sense of branding and personal idenity and more the sense of the algorithmic tech approach to problems (similar to algorithmic policing, etc.). This separates from Newspeek as well since its not about ideological purity but computational clarity

Jessica: thank you, Hugh. I could not have explained myself better. That’s it, it tries to emulate a new way of thinking, in its structure (they sometimes mention that it is like “neat diagrams”).

Emily: Hi Jessica – really enjoyed this talk. I think it’s a very apt novel for our times given its emphasis on personal responsibility and ethics! I haven’t read the novel but it seems like a sort of indictment of how humans have a way of creating totalitarian nightmares for themselves (in this case through algorithms) – it’s like an authoritarian fantasy that is revealed to be a nightmare. Is this the Orwellian narrative of our times? The totalitarianism that comes from individuals allowing themselves, even embracing technology which dominates them?

Hugh: Hi Jessica, thank you for your talk! I have to say you’ve really piqued my interest for reading Zed myself. I wondered if I could ask how you respond to Beetlespeak in comparison to earlier Cyberpunk language. Cyberpunk is often marked by very complex brand/slang-filled language, do you see this simplified beetlespeak as more of the novel’s dark humour or as a different response to a kind of brand-led society?

Jessica: Thanks, Emily! In the novel there apears an antisystem group who are not luddites but who resist authoritarian and overcontrolling totalitarism, which is led in this case by a megacorporation quite similar to Google. They resist by using technology alternatively. So the novels opens a window (maybe small) to change…

Larisa: May be I am too oldschool, but all these dances around ways to step away from modernism land still trying to form a new term on its basis seem misleading. Occam razor for me cuts them to basic principles of realism, when you consider reality/realities existing and exerting definite influence on the characters that are capable to drow the lines, understand consequences and acquire agency to influence them.

Jessica: a quite positive outlook, I would say
Thank you very much for this interesting conversation! You definitely gave me further food for thought.

Aiden: I can’t contribute effectively but this has been a fascinating thread, thank you Jessica and others for the excellent discussion

Sumeyra: Hi Jessica, I liked your presentation so much, that’s really so fascinating!, particularly on Beetle speak language. The first thing I will do is to read Joanna Kavenna’s Zed.

Show more
Show less