Subgenre Saturday: Steampunk

So last week, we talked about bizarro fiction, the new kid on the block, kind of weird. You're pretty sure he worships some kind of god he made up, but you don't ever want to call him on it just in case he snaps.

This week, we're going mainstream… or as mainstream as it really ever gets with SF/F: steampunk. Steampunk isn't just literature anymore. It's a whole movement, and it makes for some very polarized opinions. I know people who hate it and say that it's all full of fun vampires who obsess over the historical accuracy of buttons on a jacket. And I know people who do, in fact, obsess over the historical accuracy of the buttons on a jacket… they most certainly are fun vampires.

On the flipside of the steampunk coin, you have people who think that like gears and so they throw them on their outfit and think: Boom. Steampunk. In a way, they're not wrong. It might take a little more care, but if you're using brass and gears and goggles and corsets and top hats, you're probably going to hit close enough to the visual aesthetic that people will say, "Hey look, steampunk."

Steampunk literature sure didn't suffer from the popularity of the movement, either. The word steampunk, like all of the other punk genres, came about from the big bad granddaddy that, unfortunately, most people aren't as familiar with: cyberpunk (more on that another week). They do have some similarities, the most obvious being the technology. Steampunk is, of course, tech from the steam-powered Victorian era, and the works are often set in an alternate history version of the Victorian world, though by no means is that always the case. My favorite steampunk books, the Leviathan trilogy by Scott Westerfeld, focuses on the first world war. Still not exactly modern, of course, but certainly not Victorian.

One of the other defining factors is the subversion. It's where the 'punk' comes into all of the many X-punk subgenres. It's not ubiquitous—beyond the tech, nothing is ubiquitous in steampunk literature—but it's extremely common to see something or someone railing against social convention for one reason or another. Hence why the steampunk skies are full of female mechanics and air captains, in a world where it simply wouldn't have happened, and Ada Lovelace is raised onto her (deservedly) high pedestal. It's why a chimney sweep who also repairs complex machines on the side would work just fine. But moving outside of the Victorian era, subversion is still very much present. Rebels exist throughout steampunk, people working outside the rest of society (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes to mind, there, although that's still Victorian.). Even in my very limited steampunk offerings, subversion is everywhere. Two mad scientists bonding over conquering the world, or an automaton going against government rule to provide water for the boilers of the poor.

 

I've mentioned a couple of my favorite works already: Leviathan, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (the comics and the movie). But there are many more, and many of them are considered some of the greatest in (and about) the genre. The Difference Engine, Boneshaker, and a fair number of the offerings of Jeff and Ann Vandermeer, most notably the Steampunk Bible.

There's also a fantasy side to steampunk called gaslamp fantasy, but that's also for another week. But while we're talking about things that aren't quite steampunk, I'd like to touch on the Victorian sci-fi out there. This is personal opinion, so feel free to ign

ore it, but I think it needs saying:

Jules Verne did not write steampunk. Neither did H.G. Wells. Steampunk is retrofuturistc, meaning that it deals with the past, but with advanced science and technology. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were writing contemporary sci-fi. I will wholeheartedly agree that their work should go among the big influences for steampunk, but they were not writing steampunk. Sorry… but not really.

Now, if I haven't horribly offended you with that last little tirade and you want more Subgenre Saturdays, make sure to subscribe to the blog, an if you have any speculative fiction subgenres you'd like to see on future Subgenre Saturdays, leave a comment below. Always happy to hear from you.

Voss

Commas and Their Ilk

Yes, gasp away—I'm writing about craft.

Well, sort of.

I'm really writing about the dangers of waxing poetic. You see, I started as a poet, publishing my annoying teenage drivel for years and years before seriously writing anything. Now there are good things about that—it taught me to use words to create bigger effects, for one—and there are horrible evil things about that, the worst of which is pacing my prose with punctuation.

Now, to an extent, this is allowable, such as when your character talks. Like. This. That's a good, widely accepted way to use non-grammatical, artistic, poetic punctuation in prose.

However, there are two things not to ever use for pacing, one of which I am horrendously notorious for: commas and em-dashes.

Now, I blame the standard school system for a lot of the comma issues—they tell you commas are pauses, and they are in poetry. Not in prose. I've seen people inadvertently change the entire meaning of sentences by using commas as pauses, and editors let that slip by, for some reason. Luckily, I don't see it terribly often, but it warrants a mention here.

Now for my big problem—the em-dash. I overuse them for two reasons, the first of which is poetic. It creates more of a pause, better delineates a thought from the surroundings. The other reason, and I believe this holds wider prevalence, is literary analysis. For years, I wrote literary analysis papers, which encourage you to have long, complicated, compound sentences, mixing commas, colons, semi-colons, parentheses, and em-dashes. Of course, being in the public school, no one bothered to properly explain the em-dash.

However, these kinds of errors can be overcome, but they don't die easily. To this very day, if I'm tired or unsure of exactly what I'm writing (i.e. writing by the seat of my pants (the same way I write any and all literary analysis papers)) my em-dashes explode everywhere, and normally they shouldn't be there. It's an ingrained habit but, I still think awareness is the number one thing we can have to make ourselves better writers and more proficient editors.

A good dose of black humor helps, too—makes it much easier to laugh about rejections and the like.

Tchüss,
Voss

Top Five Female Characters

I caught a commercial of some kind for "The Hunger Games" today. They were doing an interview with a fan, I think, and they were just so happy to have a strong female character. Of course, that set my radar going.

There are a lot of strong female characters. A whole lot. Why are you acting like there aren't?

Now, I was going to post this yesterday, but I'm glad I waited until today--it's more important, today...somehow. The top five list (although in no particular order, as is par for my course) of female characters in literature.

~Lyra Belacqua: The heroin of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. From book one, she's brazen, scoffing at the standard male authority. She also manages to run off, see the world, take part in politics. And that's the first book. We see her rise to womanhood by the end of book three. She stands as a lone voice of reason, traversing the land of the dead for her cause.

~Narcissa Malfoy: All right, don't hit me. How much stronger do you get than Narcissa. I'm not even talking about her power or skill as a witch. I mean as a mother. Molly is supposed to be the 'mother' of the book. I understand that, but a part of me would rather have Narcissa. For her son, no other reason, no thought of the consequences to herself, Narcissa lies directly to Lord Voldemort, and lies so believably that even he believes it. Everything she's ever done, really, has been for her son--and normally in direct defiance of the Dark Lord.

~Loor: Fans of 'Pendragon' will understand immediately. Loor is a consummate human being--compassionate, physically powerful, calm, wise, and possessing of foresight most people will never have. Through the series, she grows into a serene, respectful woman, capable of leading anything you put before her, and willing to take up that challenge. And she has a quality lacking in many literary characters--the ability to defer. If she isn't the best to handle the job, she will step down.

~Lisbeth Salander: Possibly the epitome of the strong female, she isn't necessarily a role model. As she stands, however, she can take care of herself--and does. Intelligent enough to hold a high-paying, high-stress job and she doesn't take anything from anyone. She doesn't buckle to the evils of the world, instead she takes her fate in her own hands, handles her own problems, and, eventually, cares. Slow to emote, she stays resilient to everything trying to erode her.

~Elphaba: The main character of "Wicked", from birth she struggles to her place in the world, and is constantly brought down. Left well and alone because of her green skin, dishonored for pursuing her chosen research, harassed by the government of Oz, thrust into the shadows by Galinda--and yet she still gains power, gets a castle, ends up, through a strange, somewhat confusing series of events, in control of a country, and carries on her research until the very end of her life.

Of course, there are other strong female characters out there--Esme Cullen, Hermione Granger, Osa, Ororo Munroe, Rosalie Hale, Alyss, Homburg Molly, Weaver, et cetera, et cetera--but that's a good sampling, for now, don't you think?

Feeling the girl power,
Voss

News Flash of the Century

To some people, anyway (WARNING: This blog post contains content that may not be suitable for those with weak constitutions or any who have performed the actions held within. I hold no responsibility for any killing spree or other semi-psychotic episode(s) resulting from the reading of this article.).

I've been looking around the Internet, and I got on a tangent. Blame the Internet--everything links to something else. What I found? A lot of people shocked over stupid things. So, I'm here to tell everyone one very important thing:

People have sex. A lot. More than some of us may think. From young to old. So it's only understandable that you might run across sex, be it highly graphic or fade-to-black, in the books you read. Now, I'm not saying "You little whiner, just read it and get over yourself." I totally understand that people don't necessarily want to have sex thrown in their face.

What I'm tired of is people acting all kinds of shocked when, say, there's anything more than a fade-to-black scene with seventeen year olds. Le gasp. If people want realism in their books, which seems to be the consensus among readers, that's a part of real life. Now, I'm not talking graphic scenes--that's illegal--but if two people have sex in their teens, and it doesn't stop right after the kissing, I'm afraid that's the reality of the world, and people need to shut up about it. I walked through the halls of my high school and saw it on the stairs leading to the theatre. More than once.

So, here's the real news flash: teens have sex. I do have a slight problem with it being shown in graphic detail, but we should all understand the feelings. As teenagers, aren't we all hopped up on hormones and ready to jump just about anything, at least some days. And, if they're in a romantic relationship, then some people really need to remove the pickle from the unpleasant orifice.

And, let's just take a look at sci-fi and fantasy right quick. In science fiction, in the future, on an alien planet, who says they have to have the same morals and standards. Maybe there's terrible population crisis in the future, so people have to start having sex as soon as puberty hits. Look at fantasy, in particular the medieval, classic high-fantasy. People didn't live as long in medieval times--so they did everything earlier than we do now. Marriage, sex, babies, and death.

I'd like to reiterate for anyone that might be upset now: I'm talking light stuff. Implied sex, more than anything. That's all I'm asking, here, is that people loosen their sphincters just a touch. I mean, look at "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." We all accept that book, right? It's an amazing book, but it has uncomfortably graphic rape scenes. How can that be okay, but a little grab-ass at the junior prom is tantamount to a call to arms for every "moral compass" out there?

Just my two cents.

Viva la realism!
Voss