The Steampunk Kerfuffle and Going Beyond the Zeppelins

Any rising genre ends up getting attacked after it gets to a certain level of popularity/notoriety. Remember all the debate about Paranormal Romance, Urban Fantasy, and Vampires? Wait that is all still going on. But now it is Steampunk's turn apparently again. I've been feeling the tide coming against Steampunk recently and it was finally set to a fever pitch a couple weeks back by Charles Stross.

Stross set everything off with:

I am becoming annoyed by the current glut of Steampunk that is being foisted on the SF-reading public via the likes of Tor.com and io9.....

Which made me go why pray tell? What has Steampunk ever done to you? He goes on:

Contemplating the numerous errors of the zombies'n'zeppelins fad in SF makes me twitch, for reasons that parallel China Mieville's denunciation of The Lord of the Rings (except that I have the attention span of a weasel on crack and am besides too lazy to anatomize the errors of a generation at length in such an essay: personally, I blame the internet). The romanticization of totalitarianism is nothing new (and if you don't recognize the totalitarian urge embedded in the steampunk nostalgia trip, I should like to remind you that "king" is a synonym for "hereditary dictator" and direct you to the merciless skewing Michael Moorcock delivered to imperial hagiography in his Oswald Bastable books). Nevertheless, an affection for the ancient regime is an unconsidered aspect of the background of most steampunk fiction: much like the interstellar autocracies so common in space opera (and again, let me cite Michael Moorcock on Starship Stormtroopers). The Science! in steampunk (which purports to be science fiction, of a kind ... doesn't it?) is questionable at best (Cherie Priest, I'm looking at your gas-induced zombies) and frequently flimsier than even the worst junk that space opera borrows from the props department, because, as it happens, the taproots of steampunk lie prior to the vast expansion in the scientific enterprise that has come to dominate our era. But that's just about forgivable, inasmuch as much modern SF doesn't even like to pretend that sometimes a spaceship is just a spaceship, and not a metaphor. That leaves the aesthetic ... which I can't find anything intrinsically wrong with, as long as steampunk is nothing more than what happens when goths discover brown. Viewed as a fashion trend for corsets and top hats, steampunk is no more harmful than a fad for Che Guevara tee shirts, or burkas, or swastikas; just another fashion trend riffing thoughtlessly off stuff that went away for a reason (at least in the developed world).

So he goes on to lambaste Cherie because her science isn't right in regards to zombies. What kind of nonsensical comment is that? Maybe Stross should think about writing The Science of Zombies so all the writers out there can get it "right" according to him. Because writers need guidelines to work with if they're going to please Stross. That's what most authors want isn't it? To be told how their stories should have been?

Priest fired back:

OMG YOU GUYS it has come to my attention that SOMEONE on the internet is saying that my fictional 19th century zombies are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND. Naturally, I am crushed. To think, IF ONLY I’d consulted with a zombologist or two before sitting down to write, I could’ve avoided ALL THIS EMBARRASSMENT.

If you’ve been heretofore unaware of my EGREGIOUS CRIMES against reason and scientific probability, but you too would like to criticize my technique when it comes to MAKING SHIT UP about the pretend undead … then boy, have I got a proposal for YOU!

I think she let it off a little lightly, but many others have taken up the cause to take on Stross. Scott Westerfeld came to the defense of Steampunk:

Yes, the current emblematic book of steampunk is totally Dickensian, but no one pays attention to that because it’s got zombies and airships, and therefore must be a madcap lark. Because this whole conversation has been about flap copy, not actual texts.

By the way, I think I’m the first person in this whole internet kerfuffle to quote text from AN ACTUAL STEAMPUNK BOOK. And thus I win.

.....

Not to go flat out into Sturgeon’s Law mode here, but space opera is a subgenre of which an astonishing percentage is crap, both aesthetically and politically, and which gluts the bookshelves far more than steampunk. But no one will be declaring how much they hate it, because it’s been around long enough that old people aren’t bothered by it.

And yes, this is about YOU being OLD, steampunk-haters. (In spirit, not in years.)

THIS is why I don’t write for adults. Their heads are all full of genre cooties and “Taj Mahal? Nah, don’t like tombs.” Whereas a kid will come home from the library with a mystery, an sf novel, an autobiography, and three books about sharks. That’s how kids read, and when something’s cool and fun and awesome (or weird and gnarly and thought-provoking), they don’t worry about how many times it’s been mentioned on io9, or whether it’s that-genre-Fortnight on Tor.com.

Catherine Valente than entered the fray as a Steampunk detractor saying:

Steampunk is starting to look a lot like the endless dragons and maidens covers of old extruded product fantasy. Sameness is never exciting, and steampunk

......

When I look at steampunk books and how they're marketed to us, all I see is surface. Look! The megasitesthings that either sparkle or blow up strung together on the hope that some kind of magic will happen and a zeitgeist will be capitalized upon.

Others have gone to bring up very good and pertinent points even if they aren't necessarily falling head over heels for the genre such as:

The most interesting thing to me about steampunk (though I’m not really an enthusiast, more of a vaguely interested observer) is that it isn’t a literary movement at all. It’s very much a mixed media movement with a huge emphasis on artwork, craftsmanship and costuming. That’s where the greater passions of steampunk seem to lie, with the literary aspect desperately trying to catch up. There’s a flashmob sensibility to it, rather than a single line of influence. Many people in the comments of Catherynne’s post preferred to define steampunk as an aesthetic, rather than a literary movement or sub-genre.

So it seems more people are upset by the dress-up factor of Steampunk than anything else. But Cosplay has been going on for decades. In fact it had its origin in modern culture with Sci-Fi. Star Trek conventions anyone?

Valente than came back with a good piece on what she actually likes about Steampunk:

I like how steampunk is a deconstructive genre, or at least has the potential to be so. I see this lately in costuming, where the insides of the bustles and corsets can be worn on the outside, (hell, corsets themselves were never meant to be worn on the outside), the workings of the clothes made explicit. That's one of the things I like best in books of any type, and I'll be interested to see how it trickles down--or up--into literary steampunk, showing the workings of the novel, the culture, the history, the insides on the outside. I love postmodernism, and sometimes it looks an awful lot like pre-modernism.

So what does this all add up to? It all comes down to if you don't like it have you actually read it? Because it doesn't seem like most of the haters have actually read much of what is going on in Steampunk. Sure some is fluff, but there are a lot of amazing stories going on. And aren't fiction books for entertainment? For the detractors out there go out and read more in the genre to see what it is you "think" isn't good. I did the same a few years ago with Urban Fantasy and now I'm a big fan. Sure there is crap out there, but there is in every genre.  I'm not in them for a history lesson and while that can be a nice bonus with some books it is not something I'm after as a fan and reader. If you actually want to find out what Steampunk is about than read Shweta Narayan's short clockwork bird stories, Felix Gilman's The Half-Made World, or Steampunk Reloaded edited by Ann & Jeff VanderMeer just to get a taste of what is out there beyond the zeppelins.


You Might Also Like:
The Old West Brings the Steam by Felix Gilman
Steampunk: The Spirit of the Time by Mark Hodder
The Future of Steampunk by Paul Jessup
INTERVIEW | Cherie Priest author of Boneshaker
Steampunk is...(13 Authors & Editors Answer)

NEWS | New I, Robot Universe Trilogy

This is a little late, but the news have been chafing me a bit.  In a surprising move Isaac Asimov's estate has authorized a trilogy of new I, Robot Universe books.  This is shocking because Asimov had plenty of time to add to that Universe if he so desired considering the last book in the series was written about a decade before he passed away and he was prolific till the end.  Suffice it to say if he wanted more he would have done so and to add to that world is just as bad as what Brian Herbert has done to Dune and makes Eoin Colfer's take on Hitchhiker's Guide easily palatable.  I haven't mentioned much about Sanderson taking over The Wheel of Time, because I have no problem with it.  Brandon is mostly following notes that were left behind and he is trying to stay as true as he can to the series, which I laude. 

Now Mickey Zucker Reichert has been tapped to pen the new I, Robot trilogy and if that name sounds unfamiliar that is because she is relatively unknown, especially in Sci-Fi.  Her best known work is the Norse themed Fantasy series Renshai.  The first in the new trilogy will be titled Robots and Chaos centering around Dr. Calvin, which will most likely be released sometime in 2011 with other volumes probably released a year apart.  It is no surprise they picked this title as Greg Bear's Foundation book was titled Foundation and Chaos, but again some originality would have been nice. Yes, there have been Foundation books authorized by other authors since Asimov's death, but at least those were written by the likes of Gregory Benford and David Brin, names you could trust to do his work justice to some degree, but even they failed somewhat.  However, to pull out a relatively unknown author sours me to no end.  Also, from what little has been released these will be fill-in the gap books instead of taking the narrative further.  According to one source:

The first novel, she said, would introduce Calvin as she begins her psychiatry residency at a big New York teaching hospital, "so we'll see the character's interest in 'robot psychiatry' develop from its beginnings", as well as a "witty and innovative" take on Asimov's Laws of Robotics.

Could I be wrong in that Reichert will do a bad job?  Possibly, but why can't people have respect for an author's memory?  I could see if a book was published in homage to what Asimov created as was done by the recent Songs of the Dying Earth for the world Jack Vance created, but that was done with his full blessing and as far as I know didn't impinge on what Vance has done.  By the way there was a Foundation themed anthology along the same lines as the Vance book titled Foundation's Friends about a decade back.  However, we might be in store for something worse than the abomination of a movie they slapped the name I, Robot onto a few years back.


You Might Also Like:
To Read, or Not to Read Stephen King's Under the Dome
Science Fiction Where Have You Gone?
The Martian Chronicles: The Complete Edition by Ray Bradbury

OPINION | To Read, or Not to Read Stephen King's Under the Dome

Okay, firstly I should say I'm not the biggest King fan.  Not that I don't like his work.  I, like most people have read more than a few Stephen King books over the years.  My first taste was The Eyes of the Dragon, which was King's first and to my knowledge only long form YA effort.  Eyes greatly influenced my early teen reading habits and I probably devoured  it 5 times by the time I was 12 in addition to being one of the first Fantasy books I had to own.  I've also enjoyed The Stand, Tommyknockers, parts of The Dark Tower saga, Pet Cemetery, and It.  There were probably a couple others as well, but these are the ones that come to mind.  However, other than It and Cemetery I haven't read too many of King's more standard Horror fair, as they aren't really my thing.  It particularly screwed with my teenage head a bit much to the point where I still have an aversion to clowns.  So it is safe to say I'm more a fan of his Fantasy/Epic related works more than anything else.

However, in my eyes King has been going downhill for a long time.  Especially, since his Publishers have essentially stopped editing him.  Granted there are parts of The Stand, Uncut Edition that could have been left in the original release, but still some of it should have been trimmed.  Now it is almost verboten to do anything to his text, while most of his books could stand to lose at least a few dozen pages.  The last King book I read was Cell, which had a nice zombie-ish plot about the foibles of technology engraining itself in humanity and how it could turn itself on us.  Sounds decent right?  It was at first, but the cop out ending totally ruined it.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoyed Cell so I'm not looking for flaming comments about how wrong I am.  This is just how I view it.  Since Cell I've vowed to stay far away from any new King novel, although I've re-read some of his older work and he is still pretty good with short stories.  Now comes Under the Dome, which King has been working on and off for a couple decades in some form.  Here is the description:

On an entirely normal, beautiful fall day in Chester’s Mill, Maine, the town is inexplicably and suddenly sealed off from the rest of the world by an invisible force field. Planes crash into it and fall from the sky in flaming wreckage, a gardener’s hand is severed as “the dome” comes down on it, people running errands in the neighboring town are divided from their families, and cars explode on impact. No one can fathom what this barrier is, where it came from, and when—or if—it will go away. Dale Barbara, Iraq vet and now a short-order cook, finds himself teamed with a few intrepid citizens—town newspaper owner Julia Shumway, a physician’s assistant at the hospital, a select-woman, and three brave kids. Against them stands Big Jim Rennie, a politician who will stop at nothing—even murder—to hold the reins of power, and his son, who is keeping a horrible secret in a dark pantry. But their main adversary is the Dome itself. Because time isn’t just short. It’s running out.

Sounds pretty great to me.  From what little I've read Under the Dome could be his best Epic since The Stand.  It is also his third longest book ever following The Stand and It.  And as my readers know I like my books like I like my burgers: big and fat.  Also, the cover is wonderful and a departure from all King's past covers.  Here is the wrap around which shows a lot of interesting detail.

Dan Simmons also had some very nice things to say about Under the Dome last year:

What’s amazing to me is that Under the Dome is the kind of huge, generous, sprawling, infinitely energetic novel that we (or at least I) associate with gifted young novelists in their 20’s—all energy and enthusiasm, the young author having not yet learned a long-distance novelist’s greedy trick of holding back characters or plot or techniques for future novels—and yet here with a master’s total control of the telling, myriad of characters, tone, and effects.

I take this as a huge vote of confidence as Simmons is one of modern masters of Epics.  So do you think I should give Under the Dome a shot?  Will you be reading it?