Well, I’m not sure what to say about that. Honestly I tend to associate the “do-it-yourself” ethic more with home repair projects and the Whole Earth Catalog than with Punk philosophy. While it may indeed be a common feature of the subgenre, I’d argue that it isn’t especially unique or distinctive to Punk-- at least as it applies to SF, which has historically elevated the individual visionary as hero, a tradition which probably owes its origin to such prominent inventors as Edison and the Wright brothers. How many stories have been written about the lone genius who builds his own moon rocket or discovers the secret to life in his isolated basement laboratory? The classic Victorian and Campbell-era SF stories almost invariably used this device, so I can’t see it as a particularly distinguishing feature of Punk SF.
So Terrifel…are you cheesed off about the “-gate” suffix attached to political scandals, because it infringes upon the concept of stepped terraces abutting a riverbank? 
Your examples seem (at least to me) to fall in the “pulp adventure” category. I’m not sure how many people make that association, however.
I have no idea how successful this would be, but I love the idea.
As for the wider usage of the term “steampunk”…eh. It’s established, it’s evocative, it’s time to let it go and be a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist.
Names are important, Ranchoth. To change a thing’s true name is to change the thing itself.
I learned that from the famous dragonpunk novel,* A Wizard of Earthsea.*
And yet a rose by another other name would smell as sweet. Got that from Shakespunk.
Then I hardly consider you qualified to judge whether something is or isn’t Punk, quite frankly. If you think Punk in this context is all about a silly hairdo or hooliganism, you’re not talking from any informed position. More info…
So how come they didn’t change the name when they put it on TV? 
Oh, whoopie ding. Your link claims that the DIY ethic is “loosely tied to Punk ideology and anticonsumerism.” So what are you claiming, then? All fiction with a DIY slant is somehow Punk and anticonsumerist? *This Old House * with Bob Vila was Punk performance? You earlier claimed that Victorian SF doesn’t qualify as “steampunk,” but you don’t get much more DIY than building your own goddamn time machine. Of every SF plot ever written, probably over 85% have some do-it-yourself element, simply because it isn’t as interesting to read about the main character paying someone else to do the work. Was Dr. Moreau espousing anticonsumerism because he didn’t special-order his manimals from a factory farm somewhere?
Nope
Nope
Did you actually read my link? We are not talking trips to Home Depot or Builder’s Warehouse here…it’s anticonsumerism as a political statement -sticking it to the Man and the MilIndustComplex. If you think the Time Traveller was an anarchist rebel, we didn’t read the same book.
Anyway, I don’t think Victorian and Edwardian Scientific Romance qualify because they predate the whole Punk movement. Only something that postdates Punk can even be considered.
Not to do a True Scotsman argument, but an awful lot of stuff gets mislabelled as Steampunk when it doesn’t really fit. I think that’s where your problems stem from
Again, you misunderstand the nature of the Punk DIY ethic. It’s not as simple as just doing it yourself, but also why you do it yourself.
Not really, as you’re well aware.
I think you’re completely missing the point of the “-punk” part of steampunk, or cyberpunk for that matter. It’s punk in tone that matters, not punk in plot or punk in character. Your obsession with the window dressing elements of punk, as shown in this quote:
kind of serves as a large “Does not get it!” label.
Alcohol, actually.
Hey, let’s call that genre “neopulp”!
MrDibble, I think you and Terrifel pretty much agree on most points. You are both saying that not every story set in Victorian times with science fiction elements in it deserves the name steampunk. A special punk element is also needed. The only real disagreement between you seems to be Terrifel’s description of that element as
But that seems to me just to be a somewhat simplistic description of the same thing you would also consider necessary for steampunk, namely a punk aesthetic. What am I missing here?
The difference is that Terrifel doesn’t think ‘steampunk’ is a viable term for any Victorian-era science fiction due to the lack of modern-day punks. He seems to be arguing that if steampunk is applicable to any SF story set in the Victorian era, then it would be applicable to all SF stories set in the Victorian era, and hence the term is so broad as to be meaningless.
Conversely, MrDibble’s stance is merely that it applies to some but not all Victorian-era SF.
I actually prefer the more general ‘19th century’ designation over Victorian-era; that way it includes the movie Wild Wild West.
Terrifel’s head should be popping any moment now…
No. In Terrifel’s own words:
My earlier capsule diagnosis of Punk was intended in a lighthearted vein; but when I click on “Punk ideology” in that link you provided, what do I see? The very first heading is “Punk fashion and visual art,” followed by “Anarchism.” When I further explore the link on “Punk subculture,” at least four of the ten illustrations depict people sporting mohawks or spiked hair. (The tenth photo is the album cover for “Chipmunk Punk,” which may not be relevant one way or the other.) So actually, it seems to me that a loud haircut and an “Anarchy” tattoo turn out to be very good criteria. Check out this young lady – do you think she is involved with the punk subculture? Or should we refrain from guessing until we see her practicing bicycle repair?
Sorry, but it has to look like a punk and quack like a punk before I’ll call it a punk. If a person’s definition of “punk” is based on loose ties to DIY and anticonsumerism, then that person is probably incapable of distinguishing between punks and hippies. And I don’t think either group would appreciate that.
I concur.
Well, it’s nice that you’ve come around to this position, but c’mon: up 'til now, your position has been explicitly that the term steampunk had no merit at all. It’s nice to know that our arguments had an effect, but it’s time to admit that you’ve been beaten, General Zod.
Actually, yes, I do. I fully support the destruction of your bourgeosis musical genre classifications. No longer will your facist filing system oppress the people! Anarchy in the RIAA!
A happy compromise!
Steve Jackson Games simply calls it “Steam-Tech.”
Never! My position has always been that SF labeled as “-punk” must contain punks. In this mixed-up, topsy-turvy world, someone has to take a stand for truth in advertising. If the rest of you don’t possess the ability to interpret my rambling incomprehensible assertions to that effect, how is this suddenly MY fault? Don’t project your own shortcomings onto me.
I thought as much. Just remember: if you insist on tearing down the boundary between punks and hippies, then don’t come crying to me when your society is overrun with puppies.
It’s amazing how many problems can be resolved by adding fire. It’s the great purifier.
Well, I know that I am right, but I am magnanimous enough to pretend that you’re correct as an act of courtesy.
This is where we fundamentally differ - I think SF labelled as “-punk” has to contain Punk, the idea, not punks, the people.