This just sounds like a lower digestive tract situation you do not want to have, ever.
Hmmm…How about “Nuclear Furnace”?
I didn’t state that very clearly. I don’t Dune invented those motifs; I just think that was the first time those visual came together, were synthesized, in the manner that came to be known as steampunk. I’m not even sure it directly influenced much that came after; certainly not consciously. But I think to some degree it lit the steampunk spark–in movies at least–even if the kindling was supplied by many other sources.
I’d suggest “Radium Furnace”. 
While not arguing against lissener I’d suggest that Lynch’s Dune perhaps portrayed a slightly different aesthetic, I’m not sure if there’s a genre name but “SF Gothic” might fit. Something similar appeared in the Nemesis the Warlock comics, which seem to have (generously speaking) “informed” GW’s Warhammer 40,000.
I could go with that.
This is an interesting link, but seems abandoned.
There’s a lot of crossover in writers and artists between 2000AD and Games Workshop, so I’d put it down more to the UK being a small pond than any cribbing, myself. Not that there isn’t a lot of “homage”, of course - I mean, if the Adeptus Arbites aren’t straight Dredd tributes, I’ll be very surprised:dubious:
Most arguments here neglect fully one-half of the equation.
It appears PUNK is unknown to y’all. Hmm?
One thing is clear: Steam-punk DOESNOT equal Victoriana.
Punk is not static! Punk would revile nostalgia.
Where is the Punk?!
Historically Punk was a post-1960’s reaction to shrinking dystopias of an England within an Orwellian American Century. Punk has forever been inherently “political”- ie., it speaks a truth which may not be named in the world: Punk loudly reviles Imperialism. Was not our dear Captain Nemo merely an Anti-Imperial imperialist- & as such, a favorite SuperMan model for the Nazis?
But Punk not only served as a foil for the emergent New World Order, it also attacked the consumers of Consumerism: the Hippies. The Psychedelic Revolution failed- b/c the Flower Children were “non-political”, often isolationist.
Verne sought ways to manipulate, overpower and escape regime- not to undercut social power at it’s source. He found “empire” a sound structure; he moves armies of men to the whims of individuals, his protagonists. His worlds are actually populated by ants.
But Punk is inherently Inter-national. The only form of punk production is art, where Labor is collective yet distributed. Punk shares many ideals of Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalism as well as the Soviet 4th International- a socialist “global revolution”.
The best S-punk novels develop the Syndicalist theme, most notably in Bruce Sterling’s <Islands in the Net>.
Above all, Punk is a Teen-Ager 'tude. (nb.: “Teen-Agers” would not exist before 1940) Punk is outrageous subversion of “safe”, stable values. That subversion ranges from socio-opathic attacks on any and all structures… to academically informed rebellion against all power which exploits humanity via economic inequities.
----Leo
<Dune> draws its line in the sand.
webmaster@straightdope.com
Most arguments here neglect fully one-half of the equation.
It appears PUNK is unknown to y’all. Hmm?
One thing is clear: Steam-punk DOESNOT equal Victoriana. Punk is not static! Punk would revile nostalgia.
Where is the Punk?!
Historically Punk was a post-1960’s reaction to shrinking dystopias of an England within an Orwellian American Century.
Punk has forever been inherently “political”- ie., it speaks a truth which may not be named in the world: Punk loudly reviles Imperialism.
Was not our dear Captain Nemo merely an Anti-Imperial imperialist- & as such, a favorite SuperMan model for the Nazis?
But Punk not only served as a foil for the emergent New World Order, it also attacked the consumers of Consumerism: the Hippies.
The Psychedelic Revolution failed- b/c the Flower Children were found to be “non-political”, even isolationist “druggies”.
Verne sought ways to manipulate, overpower and escape regime- not to undercut social power at it’s source.
Verne finds “empire” sound political structure; he moves armies of men to the whims of individual protagonists.
His universe is actually populated by ants. The elaboration of hydraulic engineering does not a Steam-Punk aesthetic make.
Punk is inherently Inter-nationalist. It celebrates democratic, collective action and does so via propaganda techniques, within the means of meme production: Mass Media.
The only form of production in punk is Art. Here Labor is collective yet distributed.
Punk largely shares political ideals of Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalism, as well as the Soviet 4th International- the ideal of Socialist “Global Workers’ Revolution”.
But Punk wont take a job.
Production structures accrete around production goals; the means of production (electric guitars and drums) are freely available,
as natural resources of the post-industrial environment.
Today the Punk Revolution, the change to a DIY aesthetic, has successfully infiltrated --and de-stabilized-- the corporate agenda.
The best S-punk novels develop the Syndicalist theme, most notably in Bruce Sterling’s <Islands in the Net>.
Above all, Punk is a Teen-Ager 'tude. (nb.: “Teen-Agers” would not exist before 1940).
Punk involves outrageous subversion of “safe”, stable values. That subversion ranges from socio-pathic attacks on any and all structures…
to academically informed rebellion against all power which exploits humanity via economic inequities.
How all the theories translate into visuals is harder to describe . . .
But I suggest that pre- WWII, little of Punk could conceivably exist, save “precursors”-
such as Les Communards, Luddism, streams of the Archaic Revival, Marshall McLuhan’s theories of slave control…
Overall, <The Wild Wild West> has certain elements of anarchy; but discussion of collective goals is limited; and Revolutionary thought would seem actively ignored.
However <Dune> draws its line deeply in these sands.
----Leo in berkeley
Steampunk <> punk.
Zombie thread = anarchy.
Son, the ‘punk’ aspect of modern Steampunk involves a rebellion against the comfortable middle-class malaise. We do this by being polite, dressing well, and being careful in our use of the language.
It would serve you well to recall the historic origin or the term – it was first applied as a joke and parallel construction to “cyberpunk,” such as the Bruce Sterling novel you cited (which did demonstrate a Punk aesthetic) to the neo-Victorian adventure books being written in the late 70s to mid- 80s.
Steampunk has a sense of humour about itself that is sorely lacking from the overly earnest Punk political agenda. You take yourself too seriously, and should read a few things for entertainment.
Come on out to a Steampunk event and meet some real Steampunks. They are fun people, and are trying to make this a world of wonders for all, with an emphasis on quality craftsmanship and respect for each other.
Dear Correspondent:
- A more cultured respondent might not refer to another as “son” where a familial or senior relationship has not been demonstrated or may not be intended. That this minor forum concerning usage of a neologism would provoke such self-exposure suggests something of the callow in itself.
Taking the discussion off-topic to promote your costume social life gets you one more. Dad. Let us alert the earnest punk demons of Dionysius… Boss. Theyre missing out on a genuine middle-class “world of wonders”, Chief- “quality craftsmanship” and “respect for each other”.
Potent stuff. Sarge… And no doubt “real” enough for those above “earnest” pawing thru art & history. Please be sure not to miss any crazy conventioneer shenanigans on my account. Top Hat.
- Your analogy to the “Cyberpunk” term as precedent is noted.
You make a point that a “-punk” suffix indicates an overall “humor”.
That does not follow. Punk exponents were frequently savage in not-funny ways. The point may have some limited truth, but only as speculative fictions are entertainments.
You write “[SteamPunk] was first applied as a joke”. That’s a new one alright. Is it a private joke?
It might be more correct to say that the term was created “analogously” to the term Cyberpunk.
Your points about humor are subjective at best.
Otherwise, it appears your position is that this term -punk"- especially in its use as a suffix- is essentially meaningless, offering little for the wordsmith.
Betting against a meaning is betting against the tendency of meanings to proliferate.
Do you also- like several writers above- suggest that Verne wrote Steampunk?
And if so- Do you truly feel Steampunk is essentially indistinguishable from Victoriana?
But-- if not-
Can you describe what consistently distinguishes “this from that”…
in your senior moments?
Faithfully
----Leo in Berkeley
DrFidelius Son, the ‘punk’ aspect of modern Steampunk involves a rebellion against the comfortable middle-class malaise. We do this by being polite, dressing well, and being careful in our use of the language.
It would serve you well to recall the historic origin or the term – it was first applied as a joke and parallel construction to “cyberpunk,” such as the Bruce Sterling novel you cited (which did demonstrate a Punk aesthetic) to the neo-Victorian adventure books being written in the late 70s to mid- 80s.
Steampunk has a sense of humour about itself that is sorely lacking from the overly earnest Punk political agenda. You take yourself too seriously, and should read a few things for entertainment.
Come on out to a Steampunk event and meet some real Steampunks. They are fun people, and are trying to make this a world of wonders for all, with an emphasis on quality craftsmanship and respect for each other
you say this twice. Care to elaborate just what was wrong with the characters in league? Or how they were “made travesties” of?
the film version goes one further by “making travesties” of other characters not in the graphic novel, using these characters in ways completely nonsensical vs they way they are written in their own stories, (Dorian Grey can’t look at his portrait? tom sawyer as a cop?) and coming up with a story not even remotely connected to the material they claimed to source.
Moore may come off seeming like a jerk, but in the graphic novel the characters generally act like their book counterparts would likely do at that point in their lives. Mina Murray is a bit of a libertine and divorced form her husband due to horrific scars caused by her encounter with one Bavarian count. Allan Quatermain is a washed up OLD adventurer on drugs and long past his glory days in king solomons mines. Captain Nemo is an indian prince who has withdrawn from the world and lives under the sea for reasons unknown, where he designs amazing new technology. DR. Jekyll is a scared timid man, afraid of when he might become a beast. MR. Hyde is a beast, a large towering man lusting for violence and sex who even explains his situation and WHY hes larger than Jekyll. The invisible man, isn’t beholden to any book, because it’s stated he’s not even the original invisible man hes a common criminal who found the previous invisible mans notebook.
Of course you also praise the Disney version of “20,000 leagues under the sea”…
I love this hair-splitting.
Steampunk takes in many things: books, movies, clothing, props. To say that this is Steampunk and this is not is only a matter of opinion.
And yet, I agree with this, mostly. His stuff was science fiction, or steampunk, both terms did not exist when he was published. One could call them ripping yarns.
Difficult as it is to take a thread “off topic” which has been dead for over a year, I am glad for the opportunity. That you for performing the Herbert West act.
And yes, the “-punk” suffix is meaningless. If Steampunk were developed in the 1950s, it may have been called “Steamorama,” if it had been developed in the 1960s it may well have been called “Steam-a-go-go.” (The thought of “Victoriana 2: Steam Boogaloo” in the '70s is truely too horrible to behold.)
If I may quote again for emphasis? “Punk exponents were frequently savage in not-funny ways. The point may have some limited truth, but only as speculative fictions are entertainments.”
I believe you are making my point for me. Punks have, so far as I can determine from observation since Sid was still alive, no discernable sense of humor. Which is just one reason why "Steampunk " is an entirely different aesthetic.
(Verne did not write Steampunk, although he is one of the major influences on those who do write pseudo-Victorian adventure tales.)
On a side note, not to go all ad hominem here, I must presume you are much younger than I, as you bring all the earnestness of a sophomore bull-session to your posts. I am well out of that habit – marriage, a real job and raising children tends to focus one’s energies elsewhere.
Thank you for playing.
Oh. and for the record, I have long felt that the term “gonzo historical” fit the genre better than “Steampunk,” (in parallel construction with “gonzo journalism” as practiced by Hunter S. Thompson et al), but I was not consulted at that meeting of the SMOF.
Question: is Neal Stephenson’s* the Diamond Age *condsidered steampunk, at some level?
Looks and feels like it. It’s on my bookshelf. As far as I am concerned, it is a Steampunk novel, as it fits my definition of the subgenre (in short, modern writings in a science fiction / fantastic mode influenced by Victorian style).
Definitely.
An excellent steampunk movie is Mutant Chronicles. The highlight is a coal-fired, steam-powered aircraft of some type.
Specious Doctor,
Sorry. Dint realize this was your personal thread to define. Perhaps you should not have left it open? But you are simply defending rudeness- demanding a free pass for your arrogance and declaring your whining that of a superior person “out of that habit”.
lol.
Having “a real job & raising children” (not to forget “quality craftsmanship” of your earnest-yet-ironic fashion clique) ? These actually make you a one --in- a -million suburban consumer with brats, honey. But sorry! None of that makes anyone superior or senior. Not mature, nor a more honest person, not bigger nor brilliant either.
It just seems that way 2U b/c You have bought a lie. Children beget children these days.
Keeping natural children according to the rules of the nuclear family appeals to self-interest. Not “Family Values”. Not “The Future”. If you need respect, tell us how you’ve taken on society’s burden of unwanted children. Tell me you send $20 to that kid in Haiti. Then tell me how your little urges are not over-population and not overtaxing the sustaining environments. Lol!
Likewise to suggest that any human culture is inherently incapable of a basic mammalian impulse, eg., humor-? Your defense of your ignorance re-defines “callow”.
All your points save one pursue similar random courses of opinion.
My suggestion that you could define your terms is apparently pointless.
But what you do prove is Americans are overwhelmingly self-involved, insensitive to culture and POV- and will defend their rude poverty with aggression.
Nancy Spungen’s parents would relate.
Parents, dont define your life thru your children,
so your children wont need to abandon you the same way.