Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't think anyone said you had to have a steam powered pocket watch.

Put simply: Steampunk is not Clockpunk (and vice versa) - they are not the same thing.

Yes, they're both anachronisms.
And yes, you can have clockwork in Steampunk - that doesn't make it Clockpunk (i.e. it is still Steampunk).
If said clockwork is a high-tech clockwork machine, then it displays clockpunk traits, but the setting is still Steampunk.

~

To consider their distinction as 'micro-management' is folly. If we combined them, we might as well combine Dieselpunk, and Biopunk, and Stonepunk, and Sandalpunk (etc.) - and then you're left with 'Anachronism'. Just Anachronism - with no distinction whatsoever, and it'd all get confusing quickly.
And then you'd have to call things Steam-Anachronism, or Clockwork-Anachronism, or Stone-Anachronism just so you knew what you were talking about; and we'd be back at square one.

Put simply, Steampunk and Clockpunk as separate and distinct things. Similar, but quite distinct in many traits. You can have one without the other.
For instance, suppose you have a setting in the Renaissance, with Da Vinci creating all manner of clockwork devices, that is Clockpunk - not steampunk.

Calling a setting with no steam whatsoever 'Steampunk' makes absolutely no sense, so it seems like madness to me.

NB: You can mix the two, you just don't have to. Same applies to any two anachro-punks.

I don't know what you're getting on about, but sub-genres and classifying things are all there is to keep a genre from stagnating and dying. Subgenres are there to let you know "this is something new and different from the generic stuff from before," and that subgenre takes off with a volley of new ideas and innovation until it inevitably stagnates itself and splits into a new subgenre. I'd say it's fairly rare for the move vague, simple genres like "sci-fi" to stay innovative and fresh. When was the last time you saw a "sci-fi" movie that was innovative and fresh? They're all remakes these days, remakes and sequels and movies inspired by other sci-fi movies. So, along comes a subgenre, and it says, "Let's narrow this down a bit," and you can focus on more specific things so that you don't keep ending up with the same Space Marines and Some Aliens plots.

So what if it's all Speculative Fiction? Vague/broad categories like Sci-Fi and Fantasy are just for simplicity's sake because it would be crazy for a book store to set up individual sections and signs for each subgenre; just because Barnes & Noble or some place doesn't bother breaking Sci-Fi down into smaller categories doesn't mean that those categories don't exist. That's such a broad genre, if you didn't have words for things like "steampunk" or "dieselpunk" then you'd have to say "I like books with neo-victorian settings, anachronistically advanced steam power, and an early industrial revolution, preferably with airship pirates and whatnot" and that's a LOT to say, just to say "I like steampunk." It's the same with music... we have a lot of BS-sounding genre's like "mathcore," "avant-garde" and "grindpunk," but you go to Best Buy or some music store (if you can find one these days, lol) you'll see them all listed under one big blanket term, "Rock." If we didn't classify new things to some extent, everything would get lost in a big sea of vagueness. You know how hard it is to find the "heavy metal" section in Best Buy? There is no heavy metal section, you have to already know which bands are considered heavy metal. In that same sense, we come back to steampunk, and we have to decide for ourselves (or by what it says on the cover/box/wrapper) whether that Fantasy or Sci-Fi book is Steampunk or not. But we know that we like this "heavy metal" stuff, so if we can find something else that's "heavy metal" we might like that, too.

Now, I don't think that every time you change something, that warrants a new subgenre; otherwise, EVERY book ever written would be it's own genre. That's what authors and titles are for, actually, if you count them as categories rather than just an inevitable part of the book itself. But when you change the most defining part of a genre, like replacing steam-power with internal combustion power, that lays a new foundation. Taking the typical neo-Victorian setting and replacing it with the Medieval era, well that's great but that doesn't change the fact that it's steampunk.

Also, of course you wouldn't make a steam powered pocket watch. A pocket watch, in a steampunk world at least, is by no means "highly advanced" or "anachronistic." I wouldn't see any reason not to build a giant, steam-powered clock tower, though.

I disagree; I think things need names. Everything does.

Without a name, how are we to know what something is, or what is being described? It's just convinient, if nothing else. By that token, there must be something specific the name applies to, even if there is wild variation from that.
That aside, giving something a name does not rob it of originality; it has still plenty of room for growth and variation - steampunk being no exception to this.

e.g. Steampunk is the name applied to that which associates with steam-powered anachronisms. But there is variation, like wild west settings, addition of magic etc. Steampunk is not made any worse for it's name.

Heed Xeigrich's words (even if it is a wall of text).


Here I also disagree.

Specifically, Steampunk is more a concept - that of steam-powered anachronisms etc. - which is merely embodied most evidently in literature and film. The notion existed long before pen was put to paper on the subject.
However, anything can be called or described 'steampunk' - music, people, objects - so long as it fits them theme and 'spirit' of steampunk.

When something is labeled properly, at conception, how can that hamper originality? If anything, that is when innovation truly begins anew. When a baby is born, we name him or her, because a baby can't go about life without a name just for the sake of novelty. By applying a name to a literary innovation such as Steampunk, we are pointing out a loosely defined set of ideas for someone to take and mix it up in their own way. Before we give it a name, it's just another anachronistic science fiction work, and you have nothing to compare it to except other anachronistic science fiction works.

It seems you have some sort of bias against categorizing things, but mankind as a whole is obsessed with categorizing, classifying, organizing, everything we come across. Every known possible variation in genetics from one plant to another, one microbe to another, has it's own name, which itself is a subcategory. We have names and naming conventions for every element, every molecule, every subatomic particle. It only make sense to jump at a chance to classify a new, uniquely identifiable subgenre in literature and entertainment.

*I refer to steampunk as a literary genre primarily as that is its root, that one short story it always comes back to, being itself a parody of cyberpunk. Except in rare cases where it becomes impractical, I see no reason why literary genres should not be interchangeable with cinema, video games, and other story-telling mediums.

Really, I don't think steampunk should really end in '-punk'. As whilst the term was first attached to literary works stemming from cyberpunk, steampunk itself is not that. That is to say, not necessarily Punk, nor even a work of literature - steam-powered anachronisms being instead a concept, from which we get what-we-now-call-steampunk (and indeed could be said to stem from the Victorian Era itself).

That said, steampunk is as good a name as any (so long as we don't forget the 'Punk' is purely optional); and frankly I think it sounds 'right'.

Note: I am not saying Steampunk does not entail certain elements common to both it and Punk; but the same could be said of many things which we don't call 'punk' at all.

Well exactly, steampunk works.

I suppose he word describes what it describes; even if it deviates from what the word itself suggests.
But yes, that (i.e. rebelling) is one of the things steampunk (as well as many other things) has in common with 'true' Punk.