I finally go insane and rant about hipster sci fi

[Internationalist Bastard]

I consider myself a member of the dieselpunk subculture. I enjoy 1920-30s clothing, I subscribe to largely outdated political views from an era where people thought we actually stopped fighting wars. I want to learn auto mechanics and then proceed to build a Model T. I am, in one word, a hipster.
And so I keep an eye on an increasingly popular concept in what’s varibly called cyberpunk derivatives or steampunk derivatives, depending on where you want to point the trend setter. Much of these are referred to as Suffixpunk, taking a key technological factor of the genre, then racking on punk to denote it’s actually an anachronistic sci fi. (Note the punk actually refers to a feeling of dark overtones and rebellion, but people kinda forgot that to use it more like how I defined it above.) Examples include Cyberpunk, a futuristic dystopian literary setting/aesthetic that’s basically just what people thought the future looked like in the 80s, or Steampunk, which is essentially the same thing but with an excessive use of brass and zeppelins.
So imagine my surprise to find out about castlepunk. A medieval setting which uses anachronistic technology, basically most fantasy games. Which got me wondering about why this phenomenon of artistic sci fi is so prevalent in the first place
Is it that as we remove ourselves from the past and gain more outlandish views of the future, we seek to combine the two, applying the appeal and aesthetic of the past with the technology of the future? Do we see the past as a better time and seek to make it better with fantasies of technology? Is it simply a trend started because enough people like me pushed it that it gained a market? I’d like to hear your thoughts
As for me, I think it comes from a desire to take historical periods that we love and to idealize and turn into a paradise, in an ironic twist from its original purpose to point out the inherent flaws and dysfunction that come from said societies. Ah well, what does the night of NSG think?

[Auze]

Clickbait. You didn't go insane and that was a little too short for a rant.

[Joohan]

tag

[Internationalist Bastard]

Clickbait. You didn't go insane and that was a little too short for a rant.

That’s my secret cap, I’m always ranting
But seriously I was trying to keep these from being too rambly to actually talk about the pervasiveness of a sub genre

[Farnhamia]

tag

*looms* We don't do tags in this forum.

[Las Palmeras]

One of the wonderful things about sci-fi is that it often needs to have some kind of sense of historical or contextual consciousness to base its fictional setting off of, to imagine a future -which varies in how feasible it is depending on how "hard" the science is. Granted, this isn't all sci-fi.

Though, my personal hunch is that its just as capable of mythifying and idealizing a past, or a desire to return to said edenic past. I actually want to make my undergrad thesis on how the Paleocontact Hypothesis and ancient astronauts sci-fi shows a lot of the post-war problem of modernity/progress instead of an actual desire to understand antiquity.

[Joohan]

tag

*looms* We don't do tags in this forum.

... Didn't we used to have a shoulder shrug smiley?

[Internationalist Bastard]

One of the wonderful things about sci-fi is that it often needs to have some kind of sense of historical or contextual consciousness to base its fictional setting off of, to imagine a future -which varies in how feasible it is depending on how "hard" the science is. Granted, this isn't all sci-fi.

Though, my personal hunch is that its just as capable of mythifying and idealizing a past, or a desire to return to said edenic past. I actually want to make my undergrad thesis on how the Paleocontact Hypothesis and ancient astronauts sci-fi shows a lot of the post-war problem of modernity/progress instead of an actual desire to understand antiquity.

So essentially, because history plays a part in literature, it leads to people studying history and deciding their minds eye version is better then modern reality?

[Farnhamia]

One of the wonderful things about sci-fi is that it often needs to have some kind of sense of historical or contextual consciousness to base its fictional setting off of, to imagine a future -which varies in how feasible it is depending on how "hard" the science is. Granted, this isn't all sci-fi.

Though, my personal hunch is that its just as capable of mythifying and idealizing a past, or a desire to return to said edenic past. I actually want to make my undergrad thesis on how the Paleocontact Hypothesis and ancient astronauts sci-fi shows a lot of the post-war problem of modernity/progress instead of an actual desire to understand antiquity.

So essentially, because history plays a part in literature, it leads to people studying history and deciding their minds eye version is better then modern reality?

Sure, why not? I know that my version of history is considerably better than what people like to call "reality."

[Internationalist Bastard]

So essentially, because history plays a part in literature, it leads to people studying history and deciding their minds eye version is better then modern reality?

Sure, why not? I know that my version of history is considerably better than what people like to call "reality."

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

[The South Falls]

Sure, why not? I know that my version of history is considerably better than what people like to call "reality."

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

Yes. Because it's entirely different than reality.

[Internationalist Bastard]

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

Yes. Because it's entirely different than reality.

I get that but it’s such a pervasive theme. Why focus so much on anachronistic Victorian London? I’d like to think there’s larger meaning to a social trend like this fixation on historically based stories with fantastic technology

[Aeritania]

a long rant

In my humble opinion, I just think certain historical periods are interesting. I'm not going to romanticize anything. *shrug*
More to your point, I think it's all recently become more popular because of famous works in these genres becoming more prevalent: Look at all the hullabaloo over the second Blade Runner movie (classic cyberpunk), and the (unfortunate) enduring success of Star Wars, which must be quintessential "castlepunk". There are no castles, sure, but there's a princess, a knight, and wizards up the space wazoo.
Also, I wouldn't take the "-punk" part so seriously; "-punk" genres have always been more aesthetics than actual genres.

[Valentine Z]

I'm not sure if this topic is relevant, but I always like and find it fascinating about the aspects of a solarpunk - a futuristic setting ran with renewable energy.

As for steampunk itself, it is actually a pretty good premise if done properly. You can see all the peculiar yet fascinating pieces of machinery that could have been if the people at those times have the money and time to do so.

[Farnhamia]

Sure, why not? I know that my version of history is considerably better than what people like to call "reality."

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

My first impulse is to ask "What's the difference?" but I think it depends on whether the author intends the story to put forward a philosophical or political theory, or intends to entertain. Of course, this can't really be a hard and fast rule, because Robert Heinlein, in his later works, was very much putting his libertarian political ideas forward in books that are very entertaining. One might cite Thomas More's Utopia as being on the less entertaining side, though there is a narrative framework (and, of course, 21st century readers will find that 16th century prose fiction lacks something).

So, I dunno, would you read Utopia for escapist fun? Would you read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress for the philosophy?

[Genivaria]

So you're basically talking about Warhammer Fantasy right?

[Las Palmeras]

One of the wonderful things about sci-fi is that it often needs to have some kind of sense of historical or contextual consciousness to base its fictional setting off of, to imagine a future -which varies in how feasible it is depending on how "hard" the science is. Granted, this isn't all sci-fi.

Though, my personal hunch is that its just as capable of mythifying and idealizing a past, or a desire to return to said edenic past. I actually want to make my undergrad thesis on how the Paleocontact Hypothesis and ancient astronauts sci-fi shows a lot of the post-war problem of modernity/progress instead of an actual desire to understand antiquity.

So essentially, because history plays a part in literature, it leads to people studying history and deciding their minds eye version is better then modern reality?

Ehh, well, I have to clarify my idea...which really doesn't reflect on all sci-fi.

I consider that sci-fi's plausibility opens up the public opinion to what can and can't be possible, or at least that was the case for the Golden Age of Sci-Fi. Y'know, Amazing and stuff. And that the mid 20th Century's technological developments gave sci-fi, or fictional elements of it, some bit of credibility.

BUT, the big fat issue was that ethical progress was lacking after the world witnessed WW2 and its horrors, and technical progress only caused more unease as it only expanded the capacity for destruction and not just well-being. Hence, the need to idealize or criticize in fiction.
...
I'm just using the idea of precursor aliens as an example on how archetypes are used to idealize. After the war, a lot of stories about not only technically superior, but also spiritually and morally superior ETs began to pop up, reflecting this crisis of modernity. Add in the Space Race craze and guys like von Daniken who seemed to take elements from sci-fi and misapplied scientific hypothesis...

Sure, why not? I know that my version of history is considerably better than what people like to call "reality."

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

Well, depends on how it can be analyzed. I tried using Bajtin to do a project on Asimov's Foundation series this semester and ended up using Bruno Latour.

But if you consider narrativity to be lineal or structural, it leads to implying that a lot of fiction is "eschatological" to use the term generally, that's sorta helped by the basic "Conflict-Climax-Resolution" way of laying things out. So the return to a mythical golden past is a really ingrained thing.

[Internationalist Bastard]

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

My first impulse is to ask "What's the difference?" but I think it depends on whether the author intends the story to put forward a philosophical or political theory, or intends to entertain. Of course, this can't really be a hard and fast rule, because Robert Heinlein, in his later works, was very much putting his libertarian political ideas forward in books that are very entertaining. One might cite Thomas More's Utopia as being on the less entertaining side, though there is a narrative framework (and, of course, 21st century readers will find that 16th century prose fiction lacks something).

So, I dunno, would you read Utopia for escapist fun? Would you read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress for the philosophy?

I can get that. Sorta like, I love starship troopers in spite of the er, connotations
But why this specifically?

[Mushet]

Wouldn't this fit in better in A&F?

[Internationalist Bastard]

So you're basically talking about Warhammer Fantasy right?

(Image)

Precisely
I also like For Honor with ballistae that shoot bridges

[Internationalist Bastard]

a long rant

In my humble opinion, I just think certain historical periods are interesting. I'm not going to romanticize anything. *shrug*
More to your point, I think it's all recently become more popular because of famous works in these genres becoming more prevalent: Look at all the hullabaloo over the second Blade Runner movie (classic cyberpunk), and the (unfortunate) enduring success of Star Wars, which must be quintessential "castlepunk". There are no castles, sure, but there's a princess, a knight, and wizards up the space wazoo.
Also, I wouldn't take the "-punk" part so seriously; "-punk" genres have always been more aesthetics than actual genres.

Eh the original point of the punk in cyberpunk was one of denoting a theme. Technology was everywhere, and ultimately humanity was worse for it. I’d imagine steampunk started off similar, based on the horrors of Victorian society, but over time the gadgets overtook the themes

[Farnhamia]

My first impulse is to ask "What's the difference?" but I think it depends on whether the author intends the story to put forward a philosophical or political theory, or intends to entertain. Of course, this can't really be a hard and fast rule, because Robert Heinlein, in his later works, was very much putting his libertarian political ideas forward in books that are very entertaining. One might cite Thomas More's Utopia as being on the less entertaining side, though there is a narrative framework (and, of course, 21st century readers will find that 16th century prose fiction lacks something).

So, I dunno, would you read Utopia for escapist fun? Would you read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress for the philosophy?

I can get that. Sorta like, I love starship troopers in spite of the er, connotations
But why this specifically?

Why what? Heinlein and More were the first people who popped into my head. I did think of Plato's Symposium, which has a narrative framework, too, the drinking party after Agathon's victory at the Dionysia of 416 BCE. I suppose it's the intersection of what the author intends and what the reader takes away from the work.

[Farnhamia]

Wouldn't this fit in better in A&F?

You go find a place for it and wait.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So essentially, because history plays a part in literature, it leads to people studying history and deciding their minds eye version is better then modern reality?

Ehh, well, I have to clarify my idea...which really doesn't reflect on all sci-fi.

I consider that sci-fi's plausibility opens up the public opinion to what can and can't be possible, or at least that was the case for the Golden Age of Sci-Fi. Y'know, Amazing and stuff. And that the mid 20th Century's technological developments gave sci-fi, or fictional elements of it, some bit of credibility.

BUT, the big fat issue was that ethical progress was lacking after the world witnessed WW2 and its horrors, and technical progress only caused more unease as it only expanded the capacity for destruction and not just well-being. Hence, the need to idealize or criticize in fiction.
...
I'm just using the idea of precursor aliens as an example on how archetypes are used to idealize. After the war, a lot of stories about not only technically superior, but also spiritually and morally superior ETs began to pop up, reflecting this crisis of modernity. Add in the Space Race craze and guys like von Daniken who seemed to take elements from sci-fi and misapplied scientific hypothesis...

True, but does that make it escapism or utopian thinking?

Well, depends on how it can be analyzed. I tried using Bajtin to do a project on Asimov's Foundation series this semester and ended up using Bruno Latour.
Interesting. The present is seen as wrong, so highlight the past. Go to a time technology meant people traveling further faster and not when it was an arms race
But if you consider narrativity to be lineal or structural, it leads to implying that a lot of fiction is "eschatological" to use the term generally, that's sorta helped by the basic "Conflict-Climax-Resolution" way of laying things out. So the return to a mythical golden past is a really ingrained thing.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I can get that. Sorta like, I love starship troopers in spite of the er, connotations
But why this specifically?

Why what? Heinlein and More were the first people who popped into my head. I did think of Plato's Symposium, which has a narrative framework, too, the drinking party after Agathon's victory at the Dionysia of 416 BCE. I suppose it's the intersection of what the author intends and what the reader takes away from the work.

I mean why this trend of technology in past settings? Why so many stories set in a Victorian setting, or a world war setting, or heck a medieval setting, where a focus is put onto the technological marvels they have either equivalent to later tech or far beyond our own? It feels specific