So, did you actually, you know, read the articles, or were the pretty pictures too distracting? I mean, from the intro to the first one:
You have to admit, the pictures are extremely distracting. I mean, spiked hair in four out of ten pictures? What are the odds of that, I wonder? It’s almost as though the idea of “Punk” encompasses a distinct style which can be conveyed through fashion and visual art.
Let me try out this “reading” thing you speak of:
Hmm… interesting. So if I am “reading” this correctly, the punk subculture is based on punk rock… Now what does this say about the characteristics of “Punk rock?” Pictures again… must focus…
Well, that is curious. Because youthful rebellion, nihilism, anti-authoritarianism, and the DIY attitude all predate “punk rock” by hundreds if not thousands of years, don’t they? So how, pray tell, is the “Punk idea” dsitinguished from these other ideologies, absent such “window dressing” as fashion and music style?
Maybe it would help if you could expand upon some of your earlier comments? For example:
Now, what exactly about the presence of “brass goggles” contributes to “steampunk?” It can’t be a fashion or stylistic conceit, obviously; that would be “window dressing.” Is it that the brass goggles help to block out distracting pictures and/or hairstyles, allowing the wearer to focus on the purity of the Punk message inside his own head?
Or how about:
I can only presume that you find the WETA rayguns relevant to your philosophy of “steampunk” in some manner, unless you were having an episode and momentarily imagined you were posting to an entirely different thread. So please, do us the courtesy of explaining how those mass-produced consumer items represent “steampunk” in an idea-driven, non-fashion, non-stylistic sense?
If I have to explain “Brass Goggles” as a throwaway reference to you, then you truly know jackshit about steampunk as a subculture.
What, the handmade rayguns that cost more than my monthly income? I’d hardly call them mass-produced consumer goods - you certainly won’t see Walmart stocking them, but I’ll bite - they look cool, and can (and do) serve as inspiration for people to make their own.
And, of course, you can quote where I said that everything non-Punk is immediately verboten in steampunk, yes? Rather than where I set out the defining characteristics of the “punk” part.
Bonus points if you can do it without sarcasm.
I remember a great anthology edited by Stanley Weinbaum called Science Fiction by Gaslight. That, however, was a collection of stories actually written during Victoria’s reign. Great old stuff.
Whatever we call the genre, another fun novel is Anti-Ice, by Stephen Baxter.
Not steam, not punk, but should be: Theo Jansen kenetic sculptures.
It should be noted I’ve never yet seen an author call thir own stuff steampunk (Mieville, for instance, call his Weird Fiction a la Lovecraft).
IME, the term is used a lot more by the crafters and lifestylers than the literati. Certainly, the steampunk blogs I frequent are as into the material culture aspects as the books, films and games.
You’re not going to post a Wikipedia link explaining how your “brass goggles” reference has a profound anti-authoritarian philosophical underpinning that validates your conception of “Punk as fashion-independent ideology?” I’m profoundly disappointed.
Uh huh. So, “looking cool” has nothing to do with fashion or style in your universe, does it?
It seems unlikely. I’ve got a better idea: Why don’t YOU quote where you set out the defining characteristics of “punk?” Because (and indulge me here, I’m relatively new to this whole “reading” scene) it seems to me that the only defining characteristics you’ve explicity mentioned are DIY and “anticonsumerism as a political statement-- sticking it to the Man and the MilIndustComplex.” Guess what: those are also characteristic of the Hippie Lifestyle.
Oh, and you also specified that “SF labeled as ‘-punk’ has to contain Punk, the Idea, not punks, the people.” Wow, that’s… that’s deep, man. Maybe you should loosen up those brass goggles a couple notches and put the bong down.
Do you begin to understand just how wrong you are?
You know, I just did a Google image search for “American Presidents,” and nearly half the images that came back were of George Washington or Abe Lincoln. Clearly this means that all presidents looked like Washington or Lincoln.
I thought we had agreed that you would pretend I know what I’m talking about, Miller. You’re not sticking to the bargain. Frankly I feel betrayed.
However, I was not talking about a Google image search, I was talking about a Wikipedia page. Interestingly, I just did a Wikipedia search on the phrase “American Presidents,” and exactly 2 out of 43 images on that page looked like Washington or Lincoln.
But for the sake of comparison, I also did a Google image search for “Punk.” Out of the first 20 results, I counted seven people with mohawks. So I’m not sure your observation really disproves my point.
This thread is a good example of why Margaret Atwood writes novels rather than speculative fiction/science fiction/fantasy novels, despite having written “The Handmaid’s Tale” (1987 Arthur C. Clarke Award and 1985 Governor General’s Award) and Oryx and Crake (2003 finalist for Governor General’s Award).
Well, you shouldn’t be too surprised. It was sudden, but also inevitable.
The point is that MrDribble isn’t saying that punks never have mohawks, but that they don’t always have mohawks. The fact that less than half of the subjects in the article you linked to have mohawks support this. Sure, it’s a part of the punk music genre, but it’s not requisite for the punk music genre. And, anyway, the punk in “steampunk” is not necessarily the same sort of punk in “punk music.”
No need - the fact that you don’t get the reference means your opinion on what should and shouldn’t constitute steampunk is worse than worthless. “Brass Goggles” is a shibboleth, and you failed the test.
Because that was the entirety of what I said, of course :rolleyes:
So Hippies and Punks share an ideology - what’s your point? That one can’t consciously choose to use “-punk” as a label because the characteristics are shared with other counterculture movements? That’s certainly an … interesting prescriptivist view, even if it’s lunacy. The label’s applicable both because of the ideology and the timing of the genre. Hippies were old news, Punks were the new counterculture. Context, context, context…
Well, I thought so…
Nope - I have, however, discovered that your opinion on the matter is not of any moment.
Who cares what some *outsider *thinks about the genre and the subculture? It’s all just “Gobble! Gobble! Gobble!” The name’s an insider thing, not an outsider imposition.
You are no longer needed here, thank you. Here’s tuppence for your trouble, and should we require your genre-defining “expertise” in future, we’ll be sure to send a telegram…
Point taken. I’ve learned a valuable life lesson.
I’m starting to get the sense that my intent might have been better recieved had I used more “smilies” earlier in the thread. I tend to avoid them in general, but it seems as though my use of hyperbole is not always obvious. I wasn’t trying to imply that punks ALWAYS have mohawks; that was intended as a humorous example (or stereotype, I suppose) to illustrate that the term “punk” is associated with a distinctive style. Granted, it’s unreasonable to expect that ALL elements of that style would translate to a steam setting; but I feel that there should at least be some identifiable points of correspondence (as indeed was pointed out earlier with the rebellious roller-skating youths of The Difference Engine).
Absent stylistic indicators, it just seems to me that there doesn’t seem much call for the “-punk” label on most speculative-technology Steam period SF. Anti-authoritarianism and the do-it-yourself philosophy are both already extremely common currency in SF, so I feel that a “punk” message would have to be extremely explicit in order to qualify. Whether that message is associated with a particular youth culture is perhaps negotiable, but there’s got to be some meat there that says “punk,” rather than just the usual lot of historical 18th-century malcontents.
BTW, upon rereading my earlier posts, I realize that my stated criteria were somewhat unclear regarding the presence of actual punks, or simply a setting amenable to hypothetical punks. So you were correct that my message had shifted. I will have to review my stance with this in mind.
I’m not saying that I was in error at any point, you understand? I’m simply suggesting that my position could potentially be made even MORE correct, much as a fine setting may further enhance a flawless gem.
Phil & Kaja Foglio, of Girl Genius fame, refer to it as Gaslamp Romance or Gaslamp Scientific Romance.
See post #18 for more info.
Yes, you have: never trust me.
MrDibble: I hope you are still following the thread so you have a chance to read this.
I wish to sincerely apologize for the tone of my earlier remarks in this thread. Obviously you have a keen interest in steampunk and SF. My initial post was intended in a joking manner, and somehow I managed to let it snowball out of control. I didn’t understand what you were saying to me, and I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to keep my observations more civil. I have an unfortunate tendency to get sarcastic and defensive when stressed, as you noted earlier. You’ve been contributing to the boards longer than I, and it’s not typically my intent to stir up argument or throw grit in the wheels of others’ enjoyment. I am sorry for souring the tone of this thread on a topic which you plainly enjoy.
I’m not sure what else I should say at this point. I believe that sometimes SDMB members post such apologies in the Pit as their own threads, and I can do that too if it’s deemed appropriate. I’ve never had cause to do so before, but I feel that I should do what I can to make amends. I enjoy these sorts of topics, and I feel bad that I’ve carelessly cut off a potential source of insight. Again, I apologize, and thank you for taking the time to share your perspective.
FWIW, Terrifel, I caught the tone of your posts and was amused, despite the obvious lunacy contained therein. 
Well, it’s about 10 PM where I am, and I just sat down and read this stuff again, and was like: “What the hell?! This is quite possibly the worst job of communicating I’ve done all month.” And this is coming from a guy whose co-workers frequently interpret my remarks to mean the exact opposite of what I think I’ve just said. Although I’m not entirely convinced that’s accidental on their part.
Anyhoo… yeah, I thought I was being funny. But obviously that train derailed at some point without my noticing.
I blame the zodiac.
Terrifel, I accept your apology without question - I did get carried away too, so I hope you’ll accept mine as well.
I guess my main problem was that the genre is fairly close to my heart, and I got very defensive. Sorry for my tone there towards the end.
One slight nitpick, though - even if you’d joined yesterday, your opinion would carry as much weight as mine, provided we could back our arguments up (as we both did). So no worries there.
Cheers.