So in the last week or two, there were a fair number of posts ’round the blogosphere that could be pretty much boiled down to “I am bloody well sick of steampunk” and “Steampunk is awesome, don’t be a hater.” (I am not linking to these because some of the parties have since recanted, extended olive branches, etc, and while I am happy to beat a dead horse on MY blog, it is bad form to drag those lamentable equines to other people’s parties.)
I am late to the party, as usual. For awhile, this was because I didn’t have much of an opinion-–I think very reasonable people can quite reasonably be sick of steampunk by this point, I myself am very very sick of zombies and vampires and the revelation that apparently zombie steampunk is the Next Big Thing made me do a Digger-style facepalm. Kevin is sick of steampunk and mutters darkly about dieselpunk being far niftier and I respect this position. But I myself am not sick of steampunk. I still think many of the visuals are fantastic, I think the costumes are neat, and I am not a costume snob and thus do not get terribly bothered by the stylistic same-ness that troubles some of the genre, and when somebody rants about just slapping a gear on anything to make it steampunk, I smile and nod and mentally plan out my next garden project in my head. It is a matter of unconcern to me. Steampunk has twenty years of cloning to do before it achieves the stylistic uniformity of Ren Faire Wenchdom, so far as I’m concerned, but that’s really neither here nor there.
I did finally discover that I had an opinion, though, about one specific part of the debate.
It was pointed out–-and with justice–-that the 19th century was a pretty awful place for a whole bunch of people. This was when Dickens wrote. This was the rise of factories and industrial pollution, and there was an exaggeration of already horrible social class dichotomies and miserable rookeries and child labor and squalor of really epic proportions. (One of the best books I’ve ever read about this was “The Ghost Map” by Stephen Johnson, which included descriptions of things like “By the way, they’re keeping cows in apartment buildings!” and so forth that were downright mindblowing. Also, cholera.)
Steampunk generally does not address this. Steampunk is very shiny and involves brass and usually wealthy people drinking tea and shooting airship pirates and smuggling things and (sigh) apparently killing zombies now. The horrors of gaslamp London are more likely to be Cthulhu-esque, the nod to poverty is probably a Lovable Urchin or perhaps someone who speaks briefly but bitterly about growing up in squalor, but has nevertheless taught himself to move in polite society and which fork one uses to eat pickled dormouse brains.
So then the argument goes something like “What the hell, what is wrong with you people, the past was a bloody awful place, what did we fight the American revolution for anyway if you want to be a British aristocrat, and if you MUST deal with the 19th century, why doesn’t somebody write the great Dickensian steampunk work that deals with the horror and the rookeries and the cows being kept in apartment buildings!?!” (Also, cholera.)
I read this argument for more squalor on the airships and went “Oh, hmm, good point, there really isn’t any Dickensian steampunk dealing with the horrors of early industrialization and squalid class warfare, somebody should write that!”
Then I went away for a little while and did other things, and (FINE! I was running prints and leveling my Oddish* so I could take on the Pokemon League, are you HAPPY!?) and something in the back of my brain said “Somebody could write it, but you sure as hell wouldn’t read it if they did.”
Wise voice. I applaud this sort of thing in theory, but I am hardly going to curl up with a copy of The Jungle for fun. Feel free to dismiss me as shallow–-it’s fine. I’ve made peace with that. And it’s not even just that I’m shallow, but when I ran down the number of good readable fantasies that I have enjoyed that handled squalor and the crisis of class dichotomies well–handled it as a major, serious part of the book, the driving force, not a footnote in somebody’s background–-and I came up with Perdido Street Station and Paula Volsky’s Illusion.
They’re both great books, and you should read them. But given the sheer quantity of fantasy I’ve read over the years, the fact that those were the ONLY two I could think of is kinda telling. Pratchett could do it well, and occasionally does, but it’s Pratchett, and that’s another standard entirely. I’d give Tepper an outside shot, but then we’d have to have the big revelation halfway through where it turns out the Artful Dodger is actually an alien and will shortly be devouring Oliver Twist preparatory for his metamorphosis. (Hmm, actually I’d probably read THAT.)
But anyway, I couldn’t write it. Give me a cow in an apartment building and the cow and I will sit and stare at each other for awhile and eventually I will excuse myself and leave, feeling vaguely embarrassed and concerned for the cow, not more cognizant of the general brokenness of a system that requires farm animals being kept in apartment buildings so that people can eat. If the Ghost of Steampunk Future came down and told me that Tiny Tim would die if I did not write the Great Dickensian Steampunk Novel, I would begin making plans for the Timothy Cratchit Memorial Foundation, because it ain’t gonna happen. That is not the sort of story I tell. I am not a Big Picture writer. I write about individual hedgehogs or dog-soldiers or iguanas with glasses.
There are authors who can mark each sparrow’s fall. I’m the kind who names the sparrow Bob and talks about what he had for breakfast.
There are better and different authors than me who could do it, and maybe do it well. But that’s not an easy thing to write. Go too far over and you get preachy and unrelentingly grim, go too far the other way and you get flippant, and I can hardly judge anybody who doesn’t want to write the horrible squalid book about labor organization in the rookeries because I couldn’t write it and I probably wouldn’t read it and I can’t think of many authors who could make something out of it that would grip me enough to overcome that. (Largely the same authors who could write a zombie novel I’d read, actually–-the short list of people from whom I will read ANYTHING.) I’m not saying that all fantasy is escapism, because that does fantasy a horrible disservice, but I will say that judging a genre as young as steampunk for not having produced such a book yet is pretty unkind when there’s a definite dearth of apartment cows in fantasy as a genre, and fantasy’s been around since the days of dreadful pulp. (Can’t remember that many in SF, either, although I’ll give military SF the benefit of the doubt and say that undoubtedly there is scads of well-written Dickensian labor organization on alien worlds and I am merely missing it.)
It occurred to me somewhat later than anybody getting het up about steampunk’s unrealistic portrayal of the 19th century probably doesn’t read a lot of Regency romance either, ‘cos if you’re miffed that the airship isn’t dirty enough, boy howdy, you don’t even want to look at Georgette Heyer.
And that led me to thinking that if I ever do write a great steampunk novel, I’m gonna have a heroine who takes snuff. Snuff is underutilized.
And that was about as far as I got before I ran out of printer toner and had to get back to work.
*He’s a Gloom now! I call him Odd-Bob.
Originally published at Tea with the Squash God. You can comment here or there.

The past is viewed with rose-colored glasses, and adventure is always more appealing without the everyday toil and worrying about dying of hunger, I suppose. Romanticism is always heavy in fiction, perhaps especially so for steampunk.
The basic setting is a post blow-up world of carnivorous mobile cities which eat each other in the wonderfully ironically named practice of "municipal Darwinism". We the reader start at the top, but very quickly descend into the grim underbelly of sewage and slaves, crime and corruption that powers any apparent utopia. Later in the series there's also a rather nasty and protracted war where young lives are squandered and the parallels with WWI and other horrendous conflicts are never far from the surface.
It's a fantastic series and I can't recommend it enough, age range is probably 10+ for the first book and maybe 12+ for the tougher parts of the later ones (it really doesn't pull many punches)
(Not that I'm saying you should write this if it's not your thing, mind. I couldn't write this either. But I can and certainly will read it, and from Boneshaker's success I guess a lot of others will too.)
I have no desire to actually live in the past. Hell, I would kill myself if I was transported to any time before maybe the eighties: I like the Internet and lattes, and I need modern dentistry and birth control. What I'm looking for in any reading material that pretends to be real-world history is sort of an alternate universe which has many of the pleasant trappings of the past and none of the sucky bits. I know this universe never actually existed; I do not, actually, care.*
Also not sure what the American Revolution has to do with it. I didn't fight it; I don't know anyone who did, not being a vampire or whatever; and frankly, if England wanted to take over again, I'd have a hard time caring that much. Particularly if they gave us national health care and rose and violet creams.
*Stylistic uniformity also doesn't bug me--four years of a university creative writing program has rather soured me on holding up originality as an ideal--but that's another story.
I have actually heard people complain about lack of historical accuracy in Steampunk. You know, when you show me the history of people with mechanical arms and goggles carrying brass rayguns to fight off zombies ...
I read this argument for more squalor on the airships and went “Oh, hmm, good point, there really isn’t any Dickensian steampunk dealing with the horrors of early industrialization and squalid class warfare, somebody should write that!”
It's funny, a lot of people keep saying that and completely ignoring that someone did write that -- Cherie Priest's Boneshaker. (See also Scott Westerfeld's rant on the subject.) (There's also some interesting discussion on steampunk here and here and here and here.
All of which goes hand-in-hand with your conclusion.
Leafstone for Vileplume, or Sunstone for Bellossom?
(Thanks for the great overview of this last week of ranting. I really appreciate it.)
How did that ethos get turned into shiny brass aristocracies fencing on the decks of airships?
(Well, I know the answer, and its name was the World of Darkness, but that's a different comment.)
Call it Steambuckling. Call it Brass Fantasy. Call it Space: 1889. (Predated the whole movement by a decade, it did!) But if you're going to put -punk at the end of something, remember that word has a meaning.
Edited at 2010-11-08 04:41 pm (UTC)
In other words, prescriptivist linguistics is a recipe for losing battles.
People dress up as Klingons for Ren Faires.
Ren Faires have long since abandoned any pretense of historical reenactment. They did so with the first roast turkey leg sold.
I do like steampunks aesthetics, but 19th century Europe sucks as a setting.
I guess my summary is: I like escapism.
Steampunk editors frequently need beatings with gears in the bottom of an elegant Victorian stocking for the screamingly obnoxious habit of books and anthologies with such marvelously creative titles as "Steampunk'd", "A Steampunk Anthology", "Steampunk Stories" ad nauseum. I firmly feel that if they can't even come up with a remotely creative title for the collection, I don't trust them to be able to choose properly creative stories to include. There is possibly a fair amount of actually good stories being told in the genre, but they just aren't getting to the publishing phase because of some weirdly misguided idea that people only want to read about airships or some such nonsense.
Still, people are scared of the future right now, and they want their escapist fantasy past to be a shiny happy place I guess. Can't really fault them on that.
Still... giving some thought to a Cthulu Mythos meets steampunk-extra-heavy-on-the-punk story myself...
I think of Stephenson's Neo-Victorians as What Steampunks Want To Be When They Grow Up.
And yes, the core plot of The Diamond Age is class revolution undercutting the pomposity of the Neo-Vics.
I thought of Gearworld as steampunk, but unless it's geothermal, I'd believe it's more likely to be fueled by a golem on a treadmill or the soul of an ancient god than by steam.
When I say I'm into steampunk, I'm not. I'm into the water-driven Medieval Industrial Revolution. I'm into spring-driven technology and overly-complex clocks. (But I still pay no respect to the lack of bathing in any time period.)
I still like Wild Wild West and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. (The movies, not whatever they're based off of.)
And I'm really into the idea of wearing long skirts and a laced bodice, but with modern aesthetics in mind. (What is annoying is that almost all historical skirts have so much fabric that I couldn't go into most stores.) And running around in all sorts of historical underwear.
I am one of those weirdos who would totally read about happy people in a utopian society, too. I don't LIKE sad stories. The world is sad enough outside of fantasy. I LIKE my escapism.
That being said, I just read a damn good juvie fantasy novel called The Lost Conspiracy, in which the conflict is basically a race riot. But yeah, not the easiest thing to read.
"how do you know he's a king?"
"he's the only one not covered in shit!"
I am a huge fan of Ford, and still quote "How Much For Just The Planet" mostly internally on occasion.
On a related note, I'll second the "please, no more undead!" motion. And as far as I'm concerned, you could also reassign everyone in the publishing business doing anything at all with "supernatural romance" and I'd stand up and applaud.
Take Paulo Bacigalupis extraordinary "Windup Girl" setting (it's a novel, but there are half a dozen shorts set in the same dystopian future world). In a barely functional world made unrecognisable by peak oil, runaway climate change and locked-down genetic engineering, is it more interesting to spend your time in the boardroom with the soy-barons, or in the gutted villages with the starving poor who tried to plant infertile terminator seeds and eke out an existence on the edges of society? History may be written by the winners, but fiction is almost always more interesting when it's about the underdog
*I realize this probably won't happen, but the fact that you also play pokemon makes me really happy. :)
Also, Neverwhere seems to me to be a book that's sort of steampunkish but with much awareness of the social problems of the era (though I know it may seem a stretch on both counts; I may be influenced by the very SP and socially-aware production I saw at Chicago's Lifeline Theatre last spring).
Edited at 2010-11-08 05:23 pm (UTC)
Fast-forward a few decades. . .
Steampunk is anything with a zeppelin on the cover.
Sure, steampunk generally leaves out the cholera and choking clouds of coal smoke that all those wondrous steam gadgets will be belching out, but to be fair fantasy tended to leave out the plague, leprosy, and that every town had a Shit Creek to empty the chamberpots into.
Not to mention how sci-fi has everybody gainfully employed even though robots and AI do all the work.
Mostly my reaction to people complaining about steampunk being "unrealistic" due to a lack of squalor is, well, okay, get off your butt and write your awesome squalid steampunk novel and sell it to other people whose idea of a good time is rolling in the mud of class difference and pollution. And I probably wouldn't read it either. Not when I have Iain Bank's new Culture novel sitting on my drawing board staring at me...
I'm not saying you need to be rolling around in the mud, but likewise denying there IS any mud, or saying "I got muddy once, it's a good thing I had a wash" makes for a dumbed down setting.
Steampunk is supposed to be fun, like renfaire is fun, and apparently Civil War reenactors think that's fun (without the amputations, gangrene and the like). Steampunk fiction is escapism, mind candy. It's not pretending to be history. It's alternate history, actually, and maybe in that alt universe cholera didn't exist.
I've mentioned a few very steampunk-like settings where the squalour and nastiness aren't brushed aside.
Hell, take Alan Moores "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". The books are about the upper parts of society and based on and inspired by rip roaring adventure yarns, but the grim reality is extremely prevalent throughout the books and they are all the better for it