Phillip Reeve Calls for Greater Scientific Plausibility in Steampunk Fiction!

[Lia Keyes]

In a new interview, Phillip Reeve (author of the Mortal Engines quartet, and the Larklight series) made this statement in relation to his waning interest in Steampunk:

"As for the current Steampunk fad for faux-Victorian Science Fiction, that's actually the opposite of Science Fiction. Its fans often try to link it to Wells and Verne, but there's no real connection; those writers understood the science of their time, and extrapolated stories from possibilities which it suggested; Steampunk is all about ignoring science and pretending the Victorians could have built robots, or whatever. Its look appeals to me as a setting for cartoons, or lightweight comedies like Larklight, but it's really just a sort of literary dressing up box, and I'm afraid it's not a very deep one and the costumes and props are starting to look rather threadbare..."

I think he has a point, personally. While I hope there will always be room for lighthearted romps within the genre, there's not enough satisfying, thought-provoking, muscular writing out there.

What are your thoughts? Do you disagree? Can you think of any recent Steampunk novels that adhere to old guard science fiction requirements for technical accuracy, believability, and depth of theme?

If Steampunk reveres the writing of Jules Verne (who kept copious notes of scientific fact and theory), then shouldn't it at least try to make its science believable? Wouldn't it be easier to believe in the story world, too?

Are you writing a novel you hope will give new life to the genre, and how are you going about it?

 

Read the rest of the interview at Tall Tales and Short Stories

 

 

[Erin Latimer]

I'm going to be coming from the opposite side of this, just because my stories are always packed to the hilt with magic. If there are long, drawn out explanations of how something works, I'll skim the pages or I'll put it down. I'm far more interested in the fantastical. That and character development and solid plot. The machines are there, but I don't need to hear what's inside them, or long detailed descriptions of how they run. 

Since I write YA, I don't do the long drawn out descriptions, because a lot of teens aren't interested in that.

I can agree though, that if the airship wouldn't possibly be able to fly because of the laws of physics, there had better be a good explanation as to why.

[dvsduncan]

I am not certain that long and drawn out technical explanations are a good fit in any story. We do not usually encounter them in real life.

In real life we take a great many things for granted. No one has ever explained to me how a cel phone works, except in the broadest terms. If someone were to tell me that my words were carried through the aether by tiny invisible demons,  I would have no technical basis upon which to dispute this. I do understand that there are electricity and microchips involved but the exact way in which these things function is a mystery to me. The demon theory is easier to understand. What I do know is that the technology of the cel phone is consistent with the other technologies I use daily. The simple fact is, I do not need a lengthy explanation of how the cel phone works. It does. And it follows the rules of the world I understand.

Most things in a story should be like that. They should simply work. At the same time, I agree with those who have said that consistency and plausibility are key. Establish the rules of a world and then follow them. If the physics of that world deviates substantially from that we know in reality then explain that deviation, even if the explanation is magic. Once that has been explained, stand by the explanation. And think carefully before adding too many disparate exotic elements. A touch of the exotic goes a long way.

[Gary Alan Ruse]

I doubt that Phillip Reeve ever meant that writers should jam long drawn out technical explanations of everything into their stories, he just was annoyed by the fact that some writers, more fandom than pros, have in their unbridled enthusiasm thrown in things that show a careless disregard for the known laws of physical science, such as armor-plated dirigibles too heavy to get off the ground or steam powered prosthetic limbs that would require more equipment to power them than anyone could wear and still manage to move (equipment which is sometimes not even shown or mentioned). There are alternatives that an imaginative writer can come up with if they put some thought into it.  And since Steampunk is by definition "Victorian Science Fiction" we do seem obligated to follow science somewhat at least instead of merely wanting to throw something into a story and saying "physics be damned! I'll do it anyway!" ;)  If any backgrounding is needed, most skillful writers can work it in bit by bit in dialogue and narrative description without having to resort to huge chunks of plot-stopping exposition.  I think stories should be entertaining and fun to read, but that said, a story that seems really implausible in a bothersome way makes me lose interest fast.  It's a balancing act, and it takes some work to do it right, but that's our job after all.