Steampunk is a Misnomer

[Soviet Heavy]

In fact, most speculative fiction aesthetics that end in "punk" are a misnomer. Punk settings are focused on the anti culture, the punk movements from which they get the name. They aren't so much about the visuals or the setting as they are about the conflicts between the strict conformism of the majority and the radicals opposing the norm in the lower class.

Cyberpunk gets its name not because it is a techno driven future, but because it shows how the lower class would function in such a future.

Which is why I don't like the term Steampunk. Steampunk and Dieselpunk both focus primarily on the technology of the world, not the social ramifications of how people would live. The aesthetics' names are not indicative of what you are getting.

What the settings should be called is either retro futurism, or industrial fantasy. Just because you have a giant steampowered robot and use clockwork guns does not make you a punk setting. Likewise, just because you take the same idea and transplant it in the 1920s-50s and replace steam with diesel power does not make you a punk setting.

To have a setting be considered "punk", you need to actually include the punk elements, not just the visual. An industrial fantasy setting that shows the working class's perspective in the Victorian era, where high living decadence is juxtaposed against the horrific conditions the workers live through to maintain the upper class's comfort could be considered Steampunk.

A setting where you have steam powered robots just for the sake of it is not Steampunk.

Dieselpunk, while not as common, can still be misused. A game like Bioshock is Dieselpunk, as it fits the aesthetic, as well as dealing with the social ramifications of science gone wild and just what the working class had to go through in order to keep rapture running. Bioshock = Dieselpunk.

Fallout is not Dieselpunk, but retro futurism. It contains the same visual idea of a 1950s with advanced technology, but it's setting is post apocalyptic, not Dieselpunk.


Sorry if this is a little ranting and incoherent, but it's been bugging me. Dieselpunk, Steampunk and Cyberpunk are not aesthetics, they are settings, and you have to conform to the criteria. Otherwise, you have simply an art style, which could be termed Retro futurism, or any more specific titles.

 

[Nickolai77]

Sounds like for steampunk to be steampunk you need be slightly Marxist and show how the working classes get screwed over.

Still, i think the OP's made a good point and i find myself in agreement. Even though i'm going to feel incredibly pedantic pointing this out to my friends.

 

[Rastien]

The english language is ever evolving, words begin to mean different things and the meanings that people give to words are what make them words. So whilst technically correct in what your saying when someone reffers to steam punk you instantly understand and know what they are on about.

I guess the prime example i can give is ****** that word has evolved from various meanings and imho is at a point where its getting past meaning gay, in the UK a ****** is a large meat ball made from various offel damn tasty ^^.

Hope that wasn't to conveluted and as i said i agree with you but words evolve and the only reason they are words is the meaning people give them.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Also:

Most steampunk isn't even about steam engines. For the most part it's more about clockworks. Sure, most "steampunk" settings have both to a certain degree but there's still a difference between a clockpunk aesthetic and a steampunk aesthetic.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Yeah, it confuses me too. The closest thing I've read to something that could actually be considered steampunk is the Bas-Lag series.

 

[gazumped]

The funny thing about the word is that it was first used by an author to describe his work as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion, probably in reference to its similar genre of Cyberpunk; sci-fi set in the future.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/03/birth-of-steampunk.html

And people basically went, "Actually, that's a really awesome word!" and ran with it, no one exactly sat down and had a meeting to decide whether or not it was thoroughly appropriate.

There is a very punky side of Steampunk subculture (this is my favourite Steampunk-y band, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYZTvRgTupY ) but it doesn't permeate the whole subculture and isn't particularly prevalent in the literature.
It's a very loose definition in general, really, and while some people reckon you need to have certain rules for something to quantify as Steampunk (like, for example, that it should include steam somehow) but a lot of Steampunks I've met just seem to feel that if it's Victorianesque and cool, it'll do.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

As any of these "movements" gain momentum and popularity you can't expect them to be anything other than a decadent celebration of aesthetics and nostalgia. If you think that decadence is it's own reward because it motivates people to get involved and be a part of something for it's own sake then that is up to you.

But it most definitely isn't about technology. As Charles Stross pointed out if Zeppelins are a Steampunk theme and Steampunk is a Victorian themed setting then it isn't really about linking technology with their era's. It's just a mishmash that is aesthetically pleasing to people who don't know that much about Zeppelins or the Victorian era.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I'm sick of seeing the word "punk" at the end of things.

 

[Arsen]

*shrugs*

It means clockwork machines, men with Victorian hats, and a mixture between fantasy, science fiction, and horror. Whether or not it involves the poor classes (since fiction tends to grow), youth revolt, or presents a "message" overall is irrelevant towards the "technicality" of the definition.

 

[Scrustle]

I don't really know much about any of these "punk" subcultures. When I see them nothing about them really seems to resemble what I always thought punk was supposed to be. Even the modern version of what you would simply call "punk" doesn't seem to show any resemblance to what the movement started as. It seems shallow and even contradictory to that. At least this has cleared up some of the stuff I didn't get about some of the subcultures of it, or rather how they're not.

 

[Cry Wolf]

In fact, most speculative fiction aesthetics that end in "punk" are a misnomer. Punk settings are focused on the anti culture, the punk movements from which they get the name. They aren't so much about the visuals or the setting as they are about the conflicts between the strict conformism of the majority and the radicals opposing the norm in the lower class.

Cyberpunk gets its name not because it is a techno driven future, but because it shows how the lower class would function in such a future.

Which is why I don't like the term Steampunk. Steampunk and Dieselpunk both focus primarily on the technology of the world, not the social ramifications of how people would live. The aesthetics' names are not indicative of what you are getting.

What the settings should be called is either retro futurism, or industrial fantasy. Just because you have a giant steampowered robot and use clockwork guns does not make you a punk setting. Likewise, just because you take the same idea and transplant it in the 1920s-50s and replace steam with diesel power does not make you a punk setting.

To have a setting be considered "punk", you need to actually include the punk elements, not just the visual. An industrial fantasy setting that shows the working class's perspective in the Victorian era, where high living decadence is juxtaposed against the horrific conditions the workers live through to maintain the upper class's comfort could be considered Steampunk.

A setting where you have steam powered robots just for the sake of it is not Steampunk.

Dieselpunk, while not as common, can still be misused. A game like Bioshock is Dieselpunk, as it fits the aesthetic, as well as dealing with the social ramifications of science gone wild and just what the working class had to go through in order to keep rapture running. Bioshock = Dieselpunk.

Fallout is not Dieselpunk, but retro futurism. It contains the same visual idea of a 1950s with advanced technology, but it's setting is post apocalyptic, not Dieselpunk.


Sorry if this is a little ranting and incoherent, but it's been bugging me. Dieselpunk, Steampunk and Cyberpunk are not aesthetics, they are settings, and you have to conform to the criteria. Otherwise, you have simply an art style, which could be termed Retro futurism, or any more specific titles.

Thank you! It's nice to see I'm not alone in this.

Most steampunk isn't even about steam engines. For the most part it's more about clockworks. Sure, most "steampunk" settings have both to a certain degree but there's still a difference between a clockpunk aesthetic and a steampunk aesthetic.

Ninja'd, but so much this.

*shrugs*
It means clockwork machines, men with Victorian hats, and a mixture between fantasy, science fiction, and horror. Whether or not it involves the poor classes (since fiction tends to grow), youth revolt, or presents a "message" overall is irrelevant towards the "technicality" of the definition.

In this case, I believe it is important. "Punk" fiction is a well established category that "steampunk" detracts from. The number of people who try and say that the major difference between say Cyberpunk and Steampunk is the overall aesthetic is irritatingly high.

They aren't so much about the visuals or the setting as they are about the conflicts between the strict conformism of the majority and the radicals opposing the norm in the lower class.

This is EXACTLY why I like Steampunk. Less full of whiny bitches and more full of awesome.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/the-10-best-of-why-because-ffffuuuu

So, fiction which tries to make social commentary is suppose to be a bad thing? >.<

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

In fact, most speculative fiction aesthetics that end in "punk" are a misnomer. Punk settings are focused on the anti culture, the punk movements from which they get the name. They aren't so much about the visuals or the setting as they are about the conflicts between the strict conformism of the majority and the radicals opposing the norm in the lower class.

Cyberpunk gets its name not because it is a techno driven future, but because it shows how the lower class would function in such a future.

Which is why I don't like the term Steampunk. Steampunk and Dieselpunk both focus primarily on the technology of the world, not the social ramifications of how people would live. The aesthetics' names are not indicative of what you are getting.

What the settings should be called is either retro futurism, or industrial fantasy. Just because you have a giant steampowered robot and use clockwork guns does not make you a punk setting. Likewise, just because you take the same idea and transplant it in the 1920s-50s and replace steam with diesel power does not make you a punk setting.

To have a setting be considered "punk", you need to actually include the punk elements, not just the visual. An industrial fantasy setting that shows the working class's perspective in the Victorian era, where high living decadence is juxtaposed against the horrific conditions the workers live through to maintain the upper class's comfort could be considered Steampunk.

A setting where you have steam powered robots just for the sake of it is not Steampunk.

Dieselpunk, while not as common, can still be misused. A game like Bioshock is Dieselpunk, as it fits the aesthetic, as well as dealing with the social ramifications of science gone wild and just what the working class had to go through in order to keep rapture running. Bioshock = Dieselpunk.

Fallout is not Dieselpunk, but retro futurism. It contains the same visual idea of a 1950s with advanced technology, but it's setting is post apocalyptic, not Dieselpunk.


Sorry if this is a little ranting and incoherent, but it's been bugging me. Dieselpunk, Steampunk and Cyberpunk are not aesthetics, they are settings, and you have to conform to the criteria. Otherwise, you have simply an art style, which could be termed Retro futurism, or any more specific titles.

It can be annoying but I suspect it's due to the word itself. The word "steampunk" sounds a whole lot better than "industrial fantasy." It doesn't help that a mainstream media and the public in general generally doesn't care particularly about correct usage of words like the ones you have stated.

 

[malestrithe]

I prefer Scientific Romance than Steampunk because Scientific Romance is a better description of the reasons I like the genre. It is about the wonders of science and not the problems of it.

However, definitions only come about because of popular use and right now it's popular to call genres -punk.

Also, Cyberpunk and Steampunk were both commentaries of what was going on at the time they were both written. Steampunk was a commentary on all of the reforms that Margaret Thatcher passed in the Early 80s and Cyberpunk was against Corporations.

 

[Eamar]

I'm not all that bothered about the word people choose to use, though I have often wondered why "steampunk" seems to have so little to do with either steam or punk...

What I want to know is, is steampunk an actual, full-blown subculture? I have friends who are into steampunk stuff, but (as far as I'm aware, and I'm fully prepared to admit that I may be wrong) there doesn't seem to be much more to it than just dressing up. Other subcultures, for example, goth, punk, metalhead (which I'd describe myself as), and all of their many, may subdivisions seem to have more to them than just aesthetics, music being the most obvious, but also in some cases things like politics and a general philosophy, as well as a real sense of community.

I guess my question is, what is steampunk as a subculture all about? I'm genuinely curious. Not trying to belittle steampunk in any way, I just don't know much about it!

 

[Dafttechno]

I particularly like the term Gaslamp Fantasy. It was coined by the creators of the webcomic Girl Genius http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Fallout is not Dieselpunk, but retro futurism. It contains the same visual idea of a 1950s with advanced technology, but it's setting is post apocalyptic, not Dieselpunk.

I didn't know it was even considered that. In fact this is the first time I've even heard (read) the term "dieselpunk."

 

[BENZOOKA]

The fight over loose tags as genres is always kind of a pointless thing to see. Especially when you mix in literal meanings, with followed through contexts, to the brand-like themes that genres tend to have.

The terms are already quite well established, so it doesn't make a difference no more. Except for the sake of arguments on anything. And of course to assert oneself with such profound remarks.

 

[PatrickXD]

That's just the name for it, if you don't want to call it punk then fine, but equally don't expect everyone to conform to the notion. Perhaps the term 'steampunk' was spawned with the intentions stated in the OP, but it has spread out to incorporate most given dystopian game worlds - as a means of efficient categorisaton.
Just as a more direct counter here; I thought that 'steampunk' was more about the design than the social ramifications. To me 'steampunk' has always been defined by the use of steam technology at a higher level than it ever developed. I know that the phrase was coined circa. 1980, though I couldn't tell you who it was that invented the term, I can assure you that it was not Karl Marx.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I don't know why but I expected this thread to be an ill informed rant about some offensive title or other, instead it was a very well considered, deep and intelligent rant about exactly what the title suggested

Very good points raised there, some food for thought. I always considered Fallout to be precisely as described, no -punk style was even considered.

While I appreciate the points being made about the social aspect being intrinsic to wearing the -punk monicker, and though I hate to sound like the dumb ignorant one in a discussion, I think the term has grown beyond what I'm sure the OP is quite right in describing. "Steampunk" is for all intents and purposes, an entirely new word which may share origins with it's constituent parts, but isn't wholly defined by them. If I was presented with an industrial age setting but with some futuristic shenangians agwan, or a fantastic element in lieu of technology, I would consider it steampunk, even if it's not strictly by the definition.

Please don't mistake me OP, you raised very interesting points and I can't but see where you're coming from. But I think the term has a broader usage than you allow it now. Consider "Intelligence" as another such term. Technically speaking, it relates specifically to mental abilities of spatial reasoning, logic, problem solving and comprehension, etc. However it is used instead as a generic term to describe someone who is academically smart. Perhaps you could consider these not-true steampunk settings to be a sub-genre, or derivative?

Saying all that, it would be interesting to add that rebellious/social aspect back to the genre. What would you all describe the Thief series of games as then? The setting that is, not the FPS (first person sneaker) gameplay

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

I agree with the 100% about the proper usage of the term steampunk and how it relates to the proper meanings and usage of the work punk and how it relates to actual punk culture.

I also think he's being an overly sensitive whiney ***** about it too. Not really but I do honestly think it's such a minor complaint about semantics it's hardly worth mentioning. meanings change. In Canada you say, "I want a gay man to come over with a ******" you're not going to get a happy gentlemen with a bundle of sticks coming to your door.

Does it make it right? Dunno. Do I realize the futility and stupidity of railing against it? Damn straight.