Oh, I didn’t mean it as a stigma. Not at all.
I grew up as a science fiction fan of Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke, and others of the 1950s to 1980s literary eras.
And then the 1990s came around. There were quite a few female SF writers who I gravitated to in short story collections and/or novels: Nancy Kress and Connie Willis come immediately to mind. I also read several of Orscon Scott’s Ender’s Game series.
But the Cyperpunk writing was almost alien to me. SF has always been about what can happen if the setting is outer space or far in to the future. I’ve never been interested in knowing how or why the dilythium crystal interstellar drive worked, just that it got the heroes from point A to point B. Cyperpunk, however, would go into incredible detail on the technology that shaped the character’s reality: think the authors behind Johnny Neumonic and The Matrix.
It’s not about skill set: I have no doubt that William Gibson is an outstanding writer in the same way that Stephen King is. But given the choice I’d prefer to read a different sub-genre of science fiction.
I suspect that’s what feels the most frustrating about the second season of your series: they successfully established the characters and the world they inhabit in season one, so the possibilities for season two should be far beyond what you’ve been given instead.
Sometimes a SF series will escalate the conflict so many times, and with so many different characters added, that by the end of the third or fourth season it has no real path to continue on. Dark Matter is a good example: the show’s conflict could’ve been resolved at the end of season two, but they created a new conflict that felt like an excuse to continue for another season. 12 Monkeys ran into similar difficulties, although there were many fans who happily continued to watch after the end of season three.
But to run out of creative storylines after only one season would be incredibly frustrating. My condolences on the disappointment.