I KNEW I could stir up some trouble in here! I've
been away from the board 24 hrs. and now I find 10 new
posts! Hooray!<br><br>I'm also gratified to see that my
pedantic desire to nail down just what is "Steampunk" has
produced such an interesting discussion thread.
:-)<br><br>Some responses:<br><br>Flashback: I think you see what
I'm saying, but I'd like to press my point a little
harder. First: I'm not saying a thing about which of the
two "steampunks" is better, and definitely not
suggesting that any of us will give up enjoying one or the
other. But I DO think (as you agreed) that the
distinction exists...and that words exist to give us a handle
on distinctions. This being the case, it seems to me
that if we can come up with two useful "handles" for
these two different genres we will improve our ability
to think about them creatively. I suggested that
"Steampunk" be limited to "retro" stories of the second
type...for reasons I will outline below.<br><br>Cory: Yes,
the term "Steampunk" is a play on Gibson. And yes, it
was coined with "The Steampunk Trilogy." But what (as
you ask) does "punk" mean in this context? Let me
offer this: "Cyberpunk" doesn't just mean any story
with cybernetics in it. Gibson used it to mean a story
which pushes the implications of virtual reality and
artificial intelligence to such a degree that it makes you
start to question what is and isn't "reality" and
whether there's any way to know whether what you're
experiencing is it or not. It's "punk" because (like punk
music) it has "attitude"--it pushes people's noses into
the vast deeper implications of things they don't
usually think about. So...it seems to me that "punk" used
as a suffix to a certain type of SF story is
normally used to imply that the story is "self-aware,"
done with a purpose, and contains odd, radical
juxtapositions of ideas thrown together in unfamiliar ways, with
the intent of "making your head hurt..."<br>(cont...)