Bushido/Samurai code may not have been as homogenous as a lot of us think:
][/url]The first person to popularize the term bushidō in the west was Japanese author Nitobe Inazō (a converted Quaker living in Philadelphia who married an American) in his 1899 book Bushidō: The Soul of Japan, which was originally written and published in English and only later translated into Japanese.
Codes they had to adhere to varied wildly between different times and eras anyway, and I believe (if I remember my Japanese history class) they were sort of a house thing. One lord might have a set of rules for his samurai, unique to him.
][/url]The results of any research into the subject reveal limited evidence of honour (by Western standards) in samurai culture. Prior to the Tokugawa era, the only notable attempt to corral a strict set of samurai values can be attributed to Hojo Soun (1432? – 1519) who wrote “Lord Soun’s Twenty-One Articles”, a number of lessons directed at regulating the behaviour of samurai retainers. Hojo Soun’s work was before its time, though, and a prevalent structure of samurai values would not be solidified for many years to come.
Yet even when samurai ideals became most rigid, it seems likely that more so than any written code, it was a new brand of Confucianism which gained popularity in the Tokugawa era that inspired much of the samurai ethics as we know them today. Neo-Confucianism put loyalty at the very core of its ideology and promoted rationalism, social harmony, and learning.
With regard to the more open-ended matter of honour itself, ... it became exceedingly important in the late stages of samurai history, ironically in a time of peace; the Tokugawa era, wherein it prominently factored into political and social conduct. However, our Western conception of ‘honour’ did not mean very much to the samurai at any point in time as far as the conduct of battle was concerned. The samurai valued practicality above all else. In war they would frequently break truces, ambush opponents, attack in the middle of the night, and make use of any deception that would give them the edge. The concept of honour, as we see it in the relatively honest conduct of warfare in medieval Europe did not have an equivalent in Japanese culture.
Basically, honor codes and whatnot became more important the more Samurai became a bureaucratic noble class and the less they had to do with being warriors.
Anyway, my thoughts on the story: Hated it. It did nothing for me. It wasn't exciting, it didn't inspire any deep thoughts, suspense, surprise, or emotion at all. I could forget the setting by tomorrow, and it should have been an interesting one. I took Japanese, I'm interested in these things, so how did it lose me? Maybe because I've read cyberpunk before, reducing the novelty value to zero here. OMG he had a computer interface in his neck!!1!
I have the same problems with the overtly rape-y crime being trivial, the hacking-as-magic, and the nonsensical code of honor, but my main problem is with the central character:
Yuriko does an amazingly small amount of thinking about honor for how much she claims to be bound by it. Maybe that is the point, that it is fear of death keeping her in line rather than any devotion or honor, and she takes her first escape when she has the chance, but why kill Tanuki then? Especially given how haunted she's supposed to be by previous kills.
She shows none of the personal growth it's implied she should be showing, she neither finally understands honor (would probably require her dying at the end, a better story) or finally renounces the whole thing, tells tradition to go to hell, and does what she thinks is right (also a better story). Committing to either resolution would be fine, but the author, like Yuriko, can't seem to figure out which way to go. There is no emotional resolution besides a touch of revenge, and it seems like we're expected to see her growing, but she is still stuck in limbo.
