Heh. I'm not sick of steampunk, although I can see how some people are. I'm actually working on a steampunk comic idea that came to me while surfing Wikipedia on Ancient Greece and saw that the Greeks had steampower back then(not especially surprising when you know how advanced their water technology was).

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.

Ancient Greek steampunk is something I'd read. Far more to my interests than most of the Victorian-style stuff out there. :D

I thought that Philip reeve did a pretty good job of making a (post apocalyptic) steampunk(ish) setting where the nasty underbelly is very much an important presence in the world. the series is "the hungry city chronicles", book 1 is called "Mortal Engines" for anyone interested

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)

As Scott Westerfeld pointed out, Boneshaker was pretty Dickensian, and I found it loads of fun! It was more directly focused on battling blight and zombies than any class inequalities, but class inequality played an important part in the very premise of the book, and the main character was a poor single mother. I think you can still have a rollicking fun adventure story in a bleak setting, it just depends on how it's told - and I'm someone who has a lot of trouble reading anything that's particularly bleak and depressing. (I couldn't read Perdido Street Station, actually.) Stories don't have to be super-heavy, preachy, or really anything in particular to acknowledge the negative effects of inequality and -isms and so forth on society. I think there's plenty of sff out there that does. (I could make a short rec list, if anyone's interested.)

(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 started ready Boneshaker the day before Ursula posted this, and am amused by the timing. So far, I'm enjoying it.

More or less. I'm...not particularly interested in historical realism in anything I read. Yes, everyone had horrible breath in the Middle Ages and pirates were nasty nasty people with syphilis and coal pollution in Victorian England and no indoor plumbing and the Black Death and YES I GET IT LIFE WAS UNPLEASANT.

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.

Thank you! I love my local renaissance faire and I don't particularly care about 'historical accuracy' for exactly these reasons. Actually I'd go so far as to say I relish in the historical inaccuracies! (I'm diabetic. In the renaissance era I'd be ... well, dead for about 10 years now, actually.)

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 ...

Man, the discussions of steampunk lately have been driving me up the wall. Lots of 'my genre is better than yours' and 'writing is SRS BZNS' and 'stop having fun guys!' and carefully ignoring anything that doesn't fit their thesis of how much steampunk sucks, like how it is indeed a young genre.

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.

Precisely! And despite being bleak and full of squalor it was a very fun read.

I am a little surprised to be asking this, but...

Leafstone for Vileplume, or Sunstone for Bellossom?

Ha! That's just what I was going to ask!

(Thanks for the great overview of this last week of ranting. I really appreciate it.)

Actually, I'm somewhat bothered that Steampunk isn't entirely about the underclass clawing its way among the squalor of the gears. Cyberpunk isn't about the corporate leaders sipping sake while taking internal pictures of things on their Zeiss optics and occasionally shooting down net pirates -- it's about the unknowns and cyphers who have been wiped from society's database gnawing at the foundations and ekeing out their living while striking a blow against a system that considers them just part of the foundation.

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)

Language being the way it is, that meaning has changed -- much like the geek fight to retain "hacker" as a non-evil term has long since been lost. The "-punk" suffix these days is largely just an indicator of some specific kind of alt-history or alt-future setting. Heck, I had some friends talking about wanting to set up a "sandalpunk" setting in ancient Greece.

In other words, prescriptivist linguistics is a recipe for losing battles.

Ehh, Renfaires are idealized too. So are toga parties.

People dress up as elves for Ren Faires.

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 don't like sexism, racism, or classism.
I do like steampunks aesthetics, but 19th century Europe sucks as a setting.

I guess my summary is: I like escapism.

See, I wrote a very pompous version of this down the page. I like yours better.

Ian McLeod's the Light Ages might fit the bill on the class stuff. Despite the fact that it involves a lot of magic, it's basically about growing up in a Victorian coal-mining town.

I was just in Borders yesterday, and had a discussion (or possibly rant) about this very topic, after staring disgustedly at the "steampunk" selections. Steampunk as a genre (especially a tactile/visual one) amuses the ever-loving hell out of me. The music that's been coming out of it is fantastic, and some of the art pieces are phenomenal.

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.

Hmm... there really isn't much 'punk' in steampunk, not when you compare it to cyberpunk. Although "The Difference Engine" is a pretty good early-steampunk example of something that encapsulates some of that gritty grime. [although I still gripe at that title, it's a bloody analytical engine for Babbage's sake!]

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...

The title of The Difference Engine is a pun. The refinement and perfection of Babbage's technology is the factor that made the difference between that world and our own.

(Deleted comment)
That's one I cite a lot, most particularly the passage in which one of the Neo-Victorian characters states flat-out that they strive to capture the positive ideals and aspects of the era, while consciously rejecting the squalor, racism, and other "isms".

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.

Steampunk can be such a huge blanket, though. The annoying part seems to be what's visible, and that's a bunch of weirdos with fake British accents and women who put on their bustled overskirts while forgetting to put on anything underneath them.

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.

If you like clockwork, try Mainspring by Jay Lake. I won't describe it well, but you can look it up easily and see if you like the description.

The thing is, it's a question of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The steampunk aesthetic is pretty cool itself. The question is whether detaching it from its context is proper. I believe that it's okay to do that--hell, Standard Fantasyland is a detached version of medieval Europe, plus keeping things that work and chucking those that don't just seems ike a smart move socially--but I've heard good arguments from people who feel that it devalues something to remove it from context.

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.

I think that while detaching it from it's context isn't "improper", but doing it TOO much is *boring*. I LIKE a setting with squalour and dregs and nastiness. Shit and death and conflict.

"how do you know he's a king?"

"he's the only one not covered in shit!"

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
Oh, and also: I am not sick of steampunk, but GOD DAMMIT WHEN WILL THE UNDEAD GO AWAY?! Let's have some living characters for a change!

Or at least more interesting forms of undead. I like playing with mortality themes! Too bad the zombie/vampire stuff never really does.

You know, I have this weird image of you as impossibly-well-read, and so I get brought up short by things like Steven Brust not showing up in this post, and somebody recommending John M. Ford to you last week or so. Which is not fair of me. But you ought to read them anyway, if somehow you haven't. (Not that John M. Ford is notably squalorous.)

Ack, I forgot Brust, and you're absolutely right, he does class in fantasy fairly well. Although when I re-read the Taltos books, I generally skip find myself skipping Teckla and Orca, so....well, yeah.

I am a huge fan of Ford, and still quote "How Much For Just The Planet" mostly internally on occasion.

The interesting thing about your mention of Mieville and Volsky, to my mind, is that both of them have backgrounds which would likely make them extremely conscious of class-struggle ideologies: Mieville's an avowed Marxist, and Volsky (according to her Wikipedia page) worked for Housing and Urban Development before going full-time as a writer.

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.

I always thought any revolution viewed from the bottom was a more interesting place for stories.

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

Oh man, I suddenly just got extremely excited about the possibility of putting you in my Pal Pad.*

*I realize this probably won't happen, but the fact that you also play pokemon makes me really happy. :)

Seconding this. As someone who gets occasional taunts from friends for playing Pokemon at 24, it is always reassuring to me to find other people who play it too.

I can understand being sick of steampunk, but are you sick of steampunk CAKES?

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)

No one is sick of steampunk cakes.

Back in the "old days" sci-fi was anything with a rocket on the cover. Fantasy was anything with an elf on the cover.

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.

You have to admit, a shirt with Tupac riding a dolphin would be pretty damn awesome.

I think you have a very, very good point. I can't think of many novels I've read that focused on squalor outside of Perdido Street Station, Illusion, and some of the Discworld books (mostly the earlier Night Watch books). Sure, some time in the nastier parts of whatever society I'm getting a tour with is okay; heroes need to be brought low before they can come back triumphantly, and being cast down into Underlevel 14 to keep the foo counters turning by the sweat of their brow is a fine way to do that (Swanwyck's The Iron Dragon's Daughter for instance, which starts in a hideous Dickensian dragon factory and ends with the heroine trying to destroy all of reality). But one of the major components of fantasy and sci-fi is escapism, and the real world is full enough of nastiness already.

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...

Player of Games did a nice job of illustrating the deep nastiness of parts of Banks' setting. You could say that it was a book all about "class" struggle, without actually needing to go to the bottom itself.

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.

Renfaire ignores the bad parts of history, too. The Lord isn't going around the faire raping the wenches, the people don't (usually) smell worse than their animals (which, in history, frequently lived in the house, too), the lower orders don't have to eat the higher orders trenchers... so steampunk is not the first genre to do this.

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.

it IS at the moment, but does it all HAVE to be?

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

?

Log in