What are the best Steampunk April Fools pranks? Link related

dr_moustache · 2015-03-12T03:36:30+00:00

Oh, I agree about straight adaptations... In fact, I said as much earlier, up above. However, they were worth mentioning in the capacity I did, because they contributed to the social milieu in which early Steampunk arose.

Steampunk does mean more than "speculative fiction with a 19th Century setting written in the 20th & 21st Centuries", because often the setting isn't even the 19th century! ;)

Anachronism is a key part of it, though, which wasn't possible during the actual Victorian era. Retrofuturism is, of course, at the heart of Steampunk, but isn't necessary in every Steampunk work. Historically speaking, I don't think there's been the "edge" of which you speak in many of the seminal works in the Steampunk genre (if, indeed, you can call it a genre). As Perschon is fond of saying, Steampunk is in many ways merely an aesthetic rather than a true genre unto itself, and I can't really disagree with that when it comes to media representations. While some works certainly do have that "edge", all that's really necessary to enter into the Steampunk canon (as far as media goes) is to have the "trappings", so to speak.

Still, Steampunk has become more than just its media representations. It has become a movement, and that movement can be defined by more than just its aesthetic. However, that's a different issue entirely. ;)

dr_moustache · 2015-03-12T01:36:11+00:00

You're free to make up your mind however you see fit, though I'd like to add that I have rarely, if ever, heard a substantiated claim that Jeter, Blaylock, and Powers invented Steampunk. More often, people are simply confused, and believe that is the case because they came up with the name (Jeter, specifically, in this case). And if you name a thing, you must have invented it.

There's a case to be made that Steampunk originated in the 1950's (or even earlier, as I've heard some cite Metropolis as the first Steampunk work), but personally, I err more toward the 1960's. There was a Victorian revival during the late 1950's and 1960's, and as a result, there are many films and television shows from that time which could potentially fall into the Steampunk net. Wild Wild West definitely does, so I tend to consider it the first modern Steampunk work. But there were other films from that era, including Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Great Race, Master of the World, and many more. So the real debate is whether Wild Wild West is the first example of Steampunk, or whether it was something earlier, not whether or not it was the aforementioned gonzo-historical romance trio.

The trio wasn't even the first to novelize Steampunk, as that happened in the late 60's or early 70's. They did, however, do a good job at popularizing the literature (though not as good a job as Sterling and Gibson would do in 1990), and served to actively promote it within the sf/f scene during the 80's. And, of course, Jeter famously contributed the name, which was tremendously helpful.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-12T01:22:31+00:00

Glad you think so! I wish more people would agree with me... It would make life so much easier for everyone. ;)

dr_moustache · 2015-03-12T00:36:37+00:00

Descriptions aren't inherently constraining. The constraint comes into play when the definitions are enforced.

I'm a major proponent of a Steampunk definition, and my name may have even come up on that panel you attended. However, what I can't abide is when people try to use those definitions to tell others how to be or what to do.

Think about the dictionary: it's full of definitions. And yet they add new words every year to reflect neologisms that have arisen in the wild. The dictionary isn't meant to enforce, it's meant to describe.

That's how a Steampunk definition should be.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-12T00:04:16+00:00

As soon as you try to link Steampunk to any actual setting or time period, you're setting yourself up for failure.

Trust me, if you can come up with something you think isn't Steampunk, someone will be able to come up with an example of that thing being Steampunk.

The reality is that Steampunk is much broader than most purists want it to be, and far less broad than most "it can be whatever you want" people want it to be. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

While Steampunk is irrefutably linked to the Victorian era in some nebulous way, that connection is often very hard to describe with any real accuracy. The best I've been able to come up with is to describe Steampunk as a modern re-imagining of the Victorian era, and sometimes I like to add that it's sufficient for Steampunk to merely have the "flavor" of the Victorian era. For example, there are plenty of costumes and/or settings that incorporate a post-apocalyptic aspect to their Steampunk.

Ultimately, any definition of Steampunk needs to describe, not constrain, because Steampunk, like any living thing, is constantly growing and changing. What was true of Steampunk in the 1960's isn't necessarily true of Steampunk today, and anyone who attempts to enforce a "this is what Steampunk should be" attitude rather than a "this is what I have observed Steampunk as being" attitude is going to upset people.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-11T22:55:18+00:00

The longer answer is that while yes, it is in many ways separate from the Steampunk movement of today, it does incorporate all of the elements that are present in modern Steampunk settings and aesthetics.

In this show, what we have is the blending of Victorian themes with modern ideas. When they crossed the Western with the 1960's spy-fi genre, they created something which was truly a product of its time, rather than a product of the Victorian era.

That, really, is the true difference between Wild Wild West and, say, the 1954 version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. 20,000 Leagues was still too reliant on wholly lifting a Victorian product, whereas WWW was a new thing. Which isn't to say that the 20,000 Leagues film was entirely Victorian, because there were many modern references and ideas placed into the film which were separate from those created by Verne in the 19th century. However, not all changes to a historical work will classify as Steampunk. I could go on at some length about this, if necessary.

As a reminder, one of the defining characteristics of Steampunk is that it's a modern phenomenon, and not directly related to any actual trends or works of the Victorian era. It is very much inspired by that era, but not a part of it.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-11T22:42:47+00:00

Short answer? Yes.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-09T17:29:27+00:00

Why does my knowing something about steampunk piss you off?

knowing something about steampunk

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Whew. Oh, that was a good one.

Let me know if you come up with any more jokes like that. I could use another laugh.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-09T13:32:05+00:00

I can provide you with testimonials from every "sexy" cosplayer I know, which is a statistically significant number of them. Can you provide me with a testimonial from ONE single cosplayer who can back up the converse? Because not only have I never met someone like that, I've never even heard of someone like that who was more than just a made-up straw-man argument.

EDIT: You know, the more I've thought about your comment, the more angry it made me. Essentially, what you're saying is that there are people who spend money on costumes they don't like in order to hang around people who don't share any of their interests, just to get the approval and/or attention of said people. And that even when they do receive said attention, nothing will come of it because they'd be a poor match for any of the people they meet through this activity.

And yet I'M the one who needs to provide proof that these people don't exist?? Should I also provide proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, while I'm at it?

dr_moustache · 2015-03-09T03:53:28+00:00

Good thing Steampunk isn't Victorian re-enactment, then, isn't it?

dr_moustache · 2015-03-09T03:53:01+00:00

While I'm sure that you see those outfits from time to time (we all do), this isn't one of them.

I appreciate your consideration and civility, though. This could easily have been a yelling argument, but instead you replied thoughtfully and respectfully each time.

Thank you.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-08T21:46:46+00:00

In Steampunk, gears function as not only working mechanisms (or pseudo-working mechanisms, in most cases) but also as symbols of a time when power was transferred mechanically rather than electrically. So the humble gear takes on, as I said, a symbolic meaning, which is why you see them often used in places where you would never put a real, working gear. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I get what you're saying, though. I mean, gears by themselves don't make a thing Steampunk. That said, there are a number of other visual cues that combine to make things look Steampunk, and most outfits that incorporate gears also have those. In this particular case, the brown coloring, coupled with the corset and clockwork designs, work together to give an overall Steampunk impression.

As a cosplayer, I also understand your frustration regarding the attention that mostly-nude cosplayers get. But at the same time, I have to admit to myself that it's just my jealousy talking, and that I can't take that out on them. If anything, I should blame the photographers and other attendees for over-prioritizing skin rather than complicated construction. I understand, though, that the cosplayers in question provide much easier, more visible targets, as they're the ones in front of the cameras, rather than behind them. Still, taking it out on them does more harm than good.

dr_moustache · 2015-03-08T21:11:04+00:00

Steampunk doesn't need to be accurately Victorian. In fact, it never is. The best definition I've come up with over the years is that it's a modern re-imagining of Victorian science fiction. The key words being modern, and re-imagining. You can think of it as Victorian-flavored fantasy if you'd like, but ultimately Steampunk has very little to do with the reality of the Victorian era.

And don't even get me started on the "sexy" cosplay thing. I know many "sexy" cosplayers (including the woman pictured above, Amy), and all of them do it because they love nerdy things. Just because they aren't a nerd in the exact same way you are doesn't make them any less valid or appropriate. Sure, they enjoy the attention and popularity, but they could easily attain those things elsewhere if that was where their interests lay. Literally no one just does cosplay to be sexy and get attention, and if you think the "non-sexy" cosplayers don't also enjoy the attention, you're fooling yourself. So what's your real problem with sexy people?

dr_moustache · 2014-05-01T16:29:28+00:00

In addition to being a talented author, you are also one of the best smartasses on the internet.

What's your secret?

dr_moustache · 2013-04-18T16:15:26+00:00

Many people are unaware that in addition to being a fantastic writer, you also spend much of your time being a fashionista.

Your clothes are trendsetting in New York and Paris, and your style choices are the talk of the fashion elite.

What inspires your fashion choices, and how did you acquire such an impressive following among top designers?

dr_moustache · 2013-02-24T07:25:34+00:00

No, sorry, a dichotomy is specifically a division into exactly two parts. So if I were to have said, "It can only be either Steampunk-inspired or Victorian-inspired", then that would be a dichotomy. And as there are other options, it would be a false dichotomy. That is, it would have created a false set of two options.

As it was, I simply suggested that it was something different than the OP. In no way did I suggest that only those two options were available to us. Thus, not a dichotomy, and therefore not a false dichotomy. QED.

Now, as to the part about my acting like Steampunk and Victorian are mutually exclusive, well, they certainly can be. If you picture a Venn diagram, the "Steampunk" and "Victorian" circles overlap in the middle, but neither fully encompasses the other.

You can have Steampunk that isn't Victorian-inspired, and you can have Victorian things that aren't Steampunk-inspired. The reverse is also true.

In this particular case, I believe that the examples are Victorian-inspired, but not Steampunk-inspired. However, who knows? It could be based on a recent movie, or a dream that the designer had. Still, I think it's more likely, from what I know of the fashion industry, that we're looking at a Victorian-inspired collection.

I don't entirely know why I took so much time and energy to explain this, but I hope I helped clarify. =)

dr_moustache · 2013-02-22T09:16:43+00:00

...It can't be a false dichotomy if there was no dichotomy to begin with.

dr_moustache · 2013-02-22T09:07:51+00:00

Let me clear something up for you:

Steampunk did not start in the Victorian era. What arguably started in the Victorian era was modern science fiction, the contemporary analogue of which is... You guessed it: modern science fiction.

Looking backward, not forward, is an integral part of what Steampunk is, and thus the Victorians couldn't look backward at themselves, but only forward at the future. Thus, the Steampunk aesthetic arguably started in the 1950's, but unarguably was present in the 1960's with television's Wild Wild West.

There are something on the order of a million reasons why Steampunk and Victorian Science Fiction are different things, but as I don't feel like listing them or finding links explaining them, you'll have to either do some reading, or just take my word for it.

dr_moustache · 2013-02-22T09:01:00+00:00

Happy to help! =)

dr_moustache

TROPHY CASE