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.