Welcome to Gaia! ::

Seconded.

The question of whether science can be described as magic is indeed semantics. I like to use the definition that magic is that-which-cannot-be-explained-by-science-or-which-is-contradicted-by-science (etc.) - in short, beyond the realm of science (or even shorter, not-science). As is the way with out beloved language, words can mean lots of things. Indeed, steampunk as a genre can be said to contain the 'magic' of evoking certain feelings and such...

... then it gets awfully confusing.

~

Clarification of my own thoughts:

- I prefer my steampunk to be without magic.
- I have no problem with steampunk and magic (they are not mutually exclusive).
- I like steampunk fantasy (just not as much as magic-less steampunk).
- I like fantasy.
- Magic ≠ Science.

I never really liked the term 'pure steampunk' - as I think it implies that magic is bad, or rather 'impure', which it isn't by any means.

I believe that the person calling Steampunk, well, steampunk, used the name as a tongue in cheek approach, and quite a few people suggested the term Gaslamp Fantasy.

Now who's to say magic can't be explained? It doesn't just 'have to happen'. How do you explain a small iron ball of steam generating TONS of PSI that never seems to end? You can't. Magic? Let's say a human can control the magnetism around his body, and can manipulate it so he can gather certain things at a subatomic strubture. Let's say, for example, that a human can gather heat in one specific spot, and that heat accumulates and creates a fireball. Doesn't seem too out of place, it almost makes magic sound sci-fi!

Magic is fantastic. It adds something science can't give, and that is the sense of surrealism. It's easy to see how a clockwork automaton might work in your head, which makes it real for you, which gives it too much realism, but the feeling of surrealism, that there MIGHT just be something besides that, goes out the window, and it's not as interesting anymore. And, since steam is a technology that is real, understanding it is as easy as going tinto Wikipedia and reading about it. Then, it's not fantasy, it's real.

While you'll be seeing humans and humans walk amongst themselves, I see humans, elves, dwarves, and other races, be it working together, or at war.

It wasn't a company, the Empire created magitech, which is mixing magic with technology. Magitech Armor is one of such things.

Quite easy to obtain it, actually, for free! FF6 is THE best FF of them all, everyone should play it.

I'm not completeyly opposed to the idea as long as it doesn't get silly.If the 2 are fused into one story so it makes sense it's fine. And there should be a a heavy enough emphasis on the tech side of it so the magic doesn't take over the story. Every one in the techno-steam world shouldn't have access to it. Part of the lore of magic is that it's mysterious and unobtainable. I'm not the biggest fan of mixing them. I like the technological aspect of steampunk, that's the most appealing part. But again, it can be done.

Captain, I think you phrased your opinion in a most clear way, and just because you don't like milk with your tea (errr... fantasy with your steapunk) never made me think you'd oppose adding that special flavour to the genre. You clearly stated that it was just your preference, not a matter of definition.

That's why I quoted this specific reply telling fire - link to call his setting fantasy, just because it included magic/alchemy. It's one thing to not like arcane elements in your Steampunk setting, but a totally different thing to "caution" someone to not call something Steampunk just because of those elements.

This whole thing to some people bubbles down to tech vs. magic.
Im on the train for steam fantasy and and magic in steamy victorian england, except it needs to be a minority such as a cabal of mages trying to destroy britania, or urban werewolves destroying undead creations of mad men

Points for a stunning misinterpretation of what I was trying to say. Really. Well done. I mean, did you even read what I was saying or just see the words and make up you own sentences around them?

If you had read what I said, you would know that I am not furious about people calling Steampunk Fantasy Steampunk. That would be stupid and hypocritical, because I just called it Steampunk there when I said "Steampunk Fantasy". As to calling your favourite genre fantasy, well, if it includes magic that it is fantasy. That is, after all, the definition of the fantasy genre. I am not denying you the choice to call Steampunk Fantasy Steampunk, as you evidently think I do. Not in the least.

If you had read what I said, you would know that I said the Steampunk Fantasy genre exists a sub-division of Steampunk. It's in the diagrams, and not only that, but also a major part of what I was actually trying to get at.

It you had read what I said, you would know that I fell that magic is not an explaination for the currently unexplainable, but it is the unexplainable, in the way I see it. What is not yet explained is not magic, just unrealised science.

If you had read what I said, you would know that I said nothing to even remotely suggest that I thought authors you used magic were in any way inferior. My opinion is actually on the contrary; skillfully including something in your world that is not in our 'true' reality, and makling it seem believable, is a significant acheivement. Anyone can write about what does happen, writing about what might or could be requires real imagination.



If you had read what I said, you would not that I was not telling him to call it Fantasy at all. I said, quite clearly, that I would call it fantasy. Alchemy occupies a tricky place between Science and Magic, not really fitting into either, and so makes classification difficult, which is the point that I was making. 'Caution'ing someone wasn't what I was doing.

If you had read what I said, you would know that I actually quite like Steampunk Fantasy. Not as much as either on their own, granted, but a good book is a good book.

To summarise: If you had read what I said, you would know that I am not attempting in any way to deny you the choice to call Steampunk Fantasy Steampunk, as that is what I do. What I am arguing for is that Steampunk does not necessarily contain magic, that something that is Steampunk, not Steampunk Fantasy, does not contain magic. Not that you cannot include magic in Steampunk setting.

And this is not just an opinion, but by necessity: By the definition, a work with magic in it is in the fantasy genre, and we cannot allow Steampunk to include magic, and thus always be a Fantasy genre, by standard, as this allows no place for works that are Steampunk in all but magic to exist, which is ludicrous, as Steampunk in it's inception was all about rampant Scientific advancement in a Victorian(-like) era. It makes no sense at all to have "includes magic" in part of the definition of Steampunk, that is reserved for Fantasy addendum.

I hope I have reiterated my point often enough in the last paragraphs alone for you to be able to grasp my actual conclusion even if you read as poorly as you did before.