|
|
| Which term do you prefer? |
| Steam-punk |
|
85% |
[ 24 ] |
| Clock-punk |
|
10% |
[ 3 ] |
| Other (explain below) |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:32 am
So I've become familiar with the term "steampunk" its history and emerging culture. I have a few thoughts as I come to understand my discovery of the genre-fication of some of the literature I love and a few elements of what has always been a personal style taste for me.
I've always thought of it as being primarily based on literature, first and foremost.
In contrast to the term cyberpunk, steampunk, to me seems to be more evocative/indicative of a way of powering things, as opposed to just a way of life or vision of an alternate universe.
Another thought. What are your thoughts on the term 'clock-punk' as opposed to 'steam-punk' ?
I think I prefer and identify more with the term 'clock-punk', but I need to ponder it more before I write anymore.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:25 pm
My thoughts:
- Literature does play a large part in steampunk; but I don't think steampunk is based on such literature, rather based on the theme being the genre.
- [Assuming you're referring purely to the names]. In terms of name, I suppose so - although one might argue cyberpunk is referring to the 'cyber-technology' that is prevalent. Ultimately I view this distinction as moot.
- No. Clock punk refers to (largely) pre-steam technologies that rely on clockwork and such to function; i.e. an earlier period. Similar to 'sandal-punk' (Greek/Roman based) or 'stone-punk' (think the Flintstones).
NB: It seems all anachropunks are named for the sort of technology prevalent in that time, largely because that's the significant difference from reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:40 pm
Reading over both posts, I'm inclined to agree with the good Captain.
The way I see it is that some Clock-punk can be considered to fall in with the same technology as Steampunk, but that Steampunk itself is not Clockpunk, if that train of thought makes sense. I shouldn't try to think semi-philosophically when it's getting late where I am. I can explain later if need be.
I also disagree with Steampunk being based out of literature. There is an argument there, but you could also argue that it is based out of fashion. In my opinion the fact that it pulls its foundation from so many different things (literature, fashion, history, art, music, etc) is what makes it a subculture in its own right. But I would like to see an argument for its basis being primarily literary, if you don't mind a minor debate. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:10 pm
Dragonflora The way I see it is that some Clock-punk can be considered to fall in with the same technology as Steampunk, but that Steampunk itself is not Clockpunk, if that train of thought makes sense. Alluding to the fact the clockwork technology exists in a time of steam; but steam does not necessarily exist in a time of clockwork? And yes, I'm rather inclined to agree with you on the second notion. It seems to be made of all sorts of things; I personally came to be steampunk from a variety of causes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:49 am
An interesting question.
I think that the 'clockpunk'/ steampunk genres are close enough together that segregating them seems a little silly and overly anylitical. To each his own I suppose.
Steampunk is a continuance of retropunk culture, which has its roots ideologically in both punk culture and fantasy literature. Steampunk is very much in its formative stage right now. Ie. Its still fairly underground/is yet to be corrupted by the mainstream capitalism. I hope it stays underground too. Call me selfish but I dont want consumerism to get its greasy tentacles on our collective imaginations anymore than it already has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
