Welcome to Gaia! ::

I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper
I_Write_Ivre
Nah, the esoteric ones seem too vague and not really separate from the others from what I've seen.


Fair enough. I think the general consensus amongst most in this thread has been that there are many -punks that don't deserve to be termed as such razz I'm interested to know what you think though; would you say that a technological revolution in a specific time period is a good criterion for determining -punks?


No. Not all punks involve technology (stitchpunk) The point is the corruption and flaw of humanity that is mask by a government or other form of societal control Hell, I'm not sure what kind of punk it'd be, but Brave New World and 1984 are far more punk than many things that try to ape punks.

I have a story that can easily LOOK clockpunk, but it's not. There's no punk. not revolution is too outward and not inward enough.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

Kairi Nightingale
Quote:
These are typically considered unofficial and are often invented by readers, or by authors referring to their own works, often humorously.


This quote is right at the top of the list of punks you just showed me in that source. So, seeing as they are unofficial and just pretty much nicknames made by authors for fun, I wouldn't count those as actual punk.

The other ones I listed in my previous post are official, though. So, my argument still stands.

(Though I forgot teslapunk, which is based on the early discoveries of electricity. sweatdrop )


Decopunk is included in the list of 'official' Punks but doesn't revolve around a technological revolution. What about that one?
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper
Kairi Nightingale
Quote:
These are typically considered unofficial and are often invented by readers, or by authors referring to their own works, often humorously.


This quote is right at the top of the list of punks you just showed me in that source. So, seeing as they are unofficial and just pretty much nicknames made by authors for fun, I wouldn't count those as actual punk.

The other ones I listed in my previous post are official, though. So, my argument still stands.

(Though I forgot teslapunk, which is based on the early discoveries of electricity. sweatdrop )


Decopunk is included in the list of 'official' Punks but doesn't revolve around a technological revolution. What about that one?


Is it about fighting and revealing the flaws of humanity in a dystopia where the central power tries to cover up their wrongdoings by somehow placating or distracting society?

Also, the only Decopunk I know of is Grim Fandango.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

I_Write_Ivre
Is it about fighting and revealing the flaws of humanity in a dystopia where the central power tries to cover up their wrongdoings by somehow placating or distracting society?


xD That sounds like an awfully specific criterion even by my book. I'm not sure there are very many which would fit that bill, even amongst the more well-known Cyberpunk and Steampunk works.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper
I_Write_Ivre
Is it about fighting and revealing the flaws of humanity in a dystopia where the central power tries to cover up their wrongdoings by somehow placating or distracting society?


xD That sounds like an awfully specific criterion even by my book.

As pointed out by someone not me, it's what -punk is. Find theirs and see if it applies.

enchantedsleeper
I'm not sure there are very many which would fit that bill, even amongst the more well-known Cyberpunk and Steampunk works.

Steampunk actually has several, as does dieselpunk. Both were born out of changedin technology, but even more, a huge political upheaval, most notably changes in the Victorian Era and WWII.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

I_Write_Ivre
As pointed out by someone not me, it's what -punk is. Find theirs and see if it applies.


Well, we've had a lot of different definitions as to what constitutes -punk. Personally I still think it's open to the interpretation of both readers and writers.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper
I_Write_Ivre
As pointed out by someone not me, it's what -punk is. Find theirs and see if it applies.


Well, we've had a lot of different definitions as to what constitutes -punk. Personally I still think it's open to the interpretation of both readers and writers.

But only one is actually official.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

I_Write_Ivre
But only one is actually official.


Why? What makes it "official"?
Mortok's avatar

Tipsy Exhibitionist

Anytime someone starts to harp on about the "official" definition of a genre, my nuts clench up. It's just a completely ******** stupid debate. 'Genre' is an extremely loose and nebulous concept to begin with. Labels can help to define content, but they should not dictate it.

Genre labels exist primarily to help readers find what they're looking for while searching for new books to read, and readers mostly care about the aesthetic. I doubt very much that anyone is going to pick up a 'steampunk' novel and then go "Oh boo, it's not enough of a dystopia".

Besides which, definitions evolve. And thank ******** for that. If genres still blindly followed the standards established by their founding authors, the literary world would be an extremely boring place.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper
I_Write_Ivre
But only one is actually official.


Why? What makes it "official"?

I don't know who decides genres (what makes mystic punk official?), but -punk is an accepted term only one way as part of literature so far.

Again, I'm just parroting someone far more articulate than myself; perhaps they should be the one for you to ask.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

Mortok
Anytime someone starts to harp on about the "official" definition of a genre, my nuts clench up. It's just a completely ******** stupid debate. 'Genre' is an extremely loose and nebulous concept to begin with. Labels can help to define content, but they should not dictate it.

Genre labels exist primarily to help readers find what they're looking for while searching for new books to read, and readers mostly care about the aesthetic. I doubt very much that anyone is going to pick up a 'steampunk' novel and then go "Oh boo, it's not enough of a dystopia".

Besides which, definitions evolve. And thank ******** for that. If genres still blindly followed the standards established by their founding authors, the literary world would be an extremely boring place.


Actually, that's very true - what constitutes a 'genre' is still a hotly debated topic to begin with. Someone started a topic on the NaNoWriMo discussion forum about it a couple of years ago, and fur started to fly pretty quickly xD The OP maintained that the Greek dramatic genres of Tragedy and Comedy were in fact the only "true" genres to exist. I don't agree, but it goes to show that there are a lot of differing opinions around.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper
Mortok
Anytime someone starts to harp on about the "official" definition of a genre, my nuts clench up. It's just a completely ******** stupid debate. 'Genre' is an extremely loose and nebulous concept to begin with. Labels can help to define content, but they should not dictate it.

Genre labels exist primarily to help readers find what they're looking for while searching for new books to read, and readers mostly care about the aesthetic. I doubt very much that anyone is going to pick up a 'steampunk' novel and then go "Oh boo, it's not enough of a dystopia".

Besides which, definitions evolve. And thank ******** for that. If genres still blindly followed the standards established by their founding authors, the literary world would be an extremely boring place.


Actually, that's very true - what constitutes a 'genre' is still a hotly debated topic to begin with. Someone started a topic on the NaNoWriMo discussion forum about it a couple of years ago, and fur started to fly pretty quickly xD The OP maintained that the Greek dramatic genres of Tragedy and Comedy were in fact the only "true" genres to exist. I don't agree, but it goes to show that there are a lot of differing opinions around.


The problem is, as much as things evolve, society needs to accept them for them to become official. How? Beats me. But without something being official, it's just wrong wording.

Take Fifth Element. 'Green' is a sysnonym for good, cool, awesome, capiche, etc. If I said it now, you'd think I had aphasia.

Evolution of literary terms depend on society and time. The changing of punk and the new genre haven't been given enough of either to be accepted as official yet.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

I_Write_Ivre
I don't know who decides genres (what makes mystic punk official?), but -punk is an accepted term only one way as part of literature so far.


That's a massive generalisation, though, and rather obviously untrue as far as I can see. Accepted by who? There are many, many artistic works that have been accepted as -punks which don't fit that definition. And if you don't regard the general public as qualified to make that decision, who is, and what makes them more qualified?

I never claimed that Mystic Punk was an "official" anything. I just think that it has as much right to call itself Punk as the myriads of other -punk genres out there.


I_Write_Ivre
Again, I'm just parroting someone far more articulate than myself; perhaps they should be the one for you to ask.


Well, the question is really open to anyone in this thread. And are you referring to Miramelle?
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,550 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
enchantedsleeper

That's a massive generalisation, though, and rather obviously untrue as far as I can see. Accepted by who? There are many, many artistic works that have been accepted as -punks which don't fit that definition. And if you don't regard the general public as qualified to make that decision, who is, and what makes them more qualified?

i said 'society' not 'the general public'. Whatever part of society is involved decides it. I'm not part of that and neither are you.

Neither of us can rewrite the dictionary, but if I say 'egg' means 'to perform a foul move in cricket' I'm wrong.

Playing devil's advocate doesn't work here. First, I already said I didn't know. Second, there are things that are and are not official when it comes to literature. It's a given, like the sky being blue and needing to use proper spelling. Third, when you play devil's advocate, you need to actually know about what you're asking, not just be a parrot or broken record.

You can ask why the sky is blue, but there's a reason. You can ask 'why do birds have feathers, but all you'll get is 'because they evolved them.' What opens up thoughts on things is 'how did birds evolve feathers?' but to ask that, you need to know they evolved them, when, about species that are considered proto-birds etc.

I don't have anything on what makes things official. I don't know how it works or the history of how it did. I just know what's official (sometimes).

Besides, you can easily ask the reverse question and get no answer here. 'Why is some art that doesn't fit the -punk definition considered part of a -punk genre?'

I'd like to know that, as it would enlighten me.

I have no idea where to start looking, though.

I_Write_Ivre
Again, I'm just parroting someone far more articulate than myself; perhaps they should be the one for you to ask.


Well, the question is really open to anyone in this thread. And are you referring to Miramelle?

Probably. She might know, but she might not.
enchantedsleeper's avatar

Eloquent Explorer

I_Write_Ivre
I said 'society' not 'the general public'. Whatever part of society is involved decides it. I'm not part of that and neither are you.


Why not? We're still seeing literary works being produced under these names in our time. And new names like Mystic Punk are being pioneered quite often. You've already made a decision that Mystic Punk isn't a valid term, and I've made a decision that it is. Doesn't that make us involved and our opinions both worth taking into account?

I_Write_Ivre
Neither of us can rewrite the dictionary, but if I say 'egg' means 'to perform a foul move in cricket' I'm wrong.


I don't think that's a comparable example. An egg is a tangible, visible object. Genres and subgenres of literature are not, and have already proven themselves open to opinion and debate. I also don't think you'll find a dictionary that gives a definition of the -punk suffix.

I_Write_Ivre
Playing devil's advocate doesn't work here. First, I already said I didn't know. Second, there are things that are and are not official when it comes to literature. It's a given, like the sky being blue and needing to use proper spelling. Third, when you play devil's advocate, you need to actually know about what you're asking, not just be a parrot or broken record.


But if you don't know what makes it the official definition of -punk, what makes you so sure that it is official? Where does your information come from? I've searched what you told me to search and I didn't find any sources that agree with you, just more differing opinions. This is your opinion on what constitutes a Punk subgenre. That's fine, but you can't just argue "it's official because it is, just like the sky is blue because it is". There's a scientific reason for the sky being blue. As of yet I don't think any scientist has investigated the Punk suffix.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games