This article is excerpted from ::Free The Princess:: blog:

"Recently, there have been some articles and blog posts floating around lambasting Steampunk for any number of failings -- real or imagined --
that the genre seems to express. Now, there are some that I agree with,
and if you've followed my Twitter back-and-forths with Paul Jessup or
read his fantastic article on "The Future of Steampunk" (posted at Doctor Fantastique's Show of Wonders and Mad Hatter's Bookshelf and Book Review), then you already know that I'd love to see more non-European Steampunk kicking about.

However, one of the primary complaints that I seem to be seeing in
regards to Steampunk is that it's not historically accurate. That people
couldn't have possibly developed the level of technology some of the
fiction evidences -- like airships, for example. Despite the fact that
Henri Giffard first flew a dirigible in the 1850s, certain commenters on
other blogs (not here) have insisted that airships were an invention of
the 20th century and not the 19th, therefore you can't possibly have
someone flying an airship on the level of the Graf Zeppelin if your timeframe
is earlier than 1900.

All right I can see that argument -- Zeppelin developed his airship in
1898 to 1899, but he didn't fly it until 1900, so the point is valid.
However, and here's the really, really big point that I want to make for
people who dislike Steampunk on basis of it not being historically
accurate enough:

Steampunk is Alternate history"  (read the rest here...)

Views: 104

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Large airships could have been developed much earlier.  The biggest problem was funding.  There were many airship designs advanced between 1845 and 1855, but none of them were built.  But certainly had any one of the inventors gotten commercial backing airships could easily have been a reality by the late 1850's.

 

People may take exception to the fact that some of the Airships in books are far too heavy.  They have sails, steel and wooden hulls, dreadnought guns, and lots of brass.  They wouldn't fly today either.

 

But this may or may not be a problem, depending on the kind of book you are writing.  The question is whether the fiction is immersive enough to make the reader forget his current reality.

When it comes to this sort of thing, I like to think of the difference between accuracy and authenticity. Not a steampunk example, but this is what the creators of HBO's Rome went for when they were designing and writing that series. The historical events weren't completely accurate. They compressed timelines, merged some historical figures together into one character, left some bits out, added some bits in... but they weren't trying to make a documentary. They were trying to make an entertaining show. And so they went for authenticity, which they talk about in a lot of the special features. They wanted their Rome to feel like ancient Rome, to have that ambiance, to have the right colours and textures, to have the right attitude. And that's how I look at steampunk. I don't mind inaccuracies -- it is, as others have pointed out, alternate history. If nothing was changed, it wouldn't be fiction. But I do mind inauthenticities, and I do mind in-world inconsistencies. Everything needs to fit within the bounds that an author sets -- but those bounds don't have to be "accurate".

I think Cass has hit the nail on the head here.   The way she explained it made me think of Mexican food, or more precisely what us non-Mexicans think of as Mexican food.  Go into most 'Authentic Mexican Restaurants' and what you're getting is what, if the propriater is doing their job right, the locals think is the food they eat in Mexico.  But if a Mexcian walked in they woudl most likely laugh or be insulted, but ultimately it doesn't matter because that's what the public wants.

 

NB - This post is purely the view of Michael Grey, and any likeness to the views of SWAG, Restauranters or Latin Americans is purely coincidental.

totally true :D

  I have friends that are hispanic and what they cook at home is 'authentic'... why? because they are hispanic so it's authentic hispanic food... but is it the ONLY hispanic food? no.. it's been filtered and enhanced through the hands and stomachs of many people in their family... so why knock the colorful additions of individuals that change the scope of food... and science... :D

I agree absolutely, if the world is intensely immersive, (authentic) then the reader will be drawn into it.  

I think that this also related to the debate within science fiction regarding its hardness vs. softness.  For those that don't know "hard" science fiction is that which adheres as stringently as possible to known scientific principles whereas "soft" science fiction is that which doesn't let science get in the way of the plot.

 

I'll give you an example from short story I worked on: Basically it was about an immigrant coming to Ellis Island, only one in which difference engines and various other mechanical computers helped to sort out and process the new immigrants to the US (this was based on what seemed like the mind blowing idea that civil servants could process thousands of immigrants in a day without the aid computer). I decided to give this a semi-realistic setting, since I was writing about real world places circa 1900. 

 

At first I wanted my character to come from Ireland aboard an airship, but on further reflection I decided that such transportation, even in a steampunk world, would have been far to expensive for an immigrant, especially one emigrating from Ireland due to a criminal background, so I put him in steerage with the other immigrants (also where's steerage on an airship?).  While I'm still revising this story I wanted to try and blend realistic with fantastic and I hope it comes out well.

 

So, as long as you can write it immersively, and can get the reader to suspend disbelief, you're doing a good job.  As for anything else, well, that can just be a fun debate.

My problem has been - and remains - that there is often little, if any, in-story justification for these changes. You can't say 'I have a steam-powered A.I.' without some major crazyness - and that's okay. But there is no way even hyper-advanced steam power could create artificial intelligence.

 

A lot of technology could have come about earlier than it did in reality, however. There was simply no need for the tank before WWI, and the major difficulty with heavier-than-air flight like the plane was not aerodynamics, but control; no one understood how to control a vehicle in three dimensions, as everything prior was all in two. The ship, the cart, the car. All they needed was left, right, forward and back. Adding up-down and tilt controls confounded people for almost fifty years. You could arguably have steam-powered tanks and planes and, given enough technological advancement, powered armour and robots, in the 1880's or earlier with only slight derivations from history. Beyond that (or things related), you start getting into hand-waving and 'just because' excuses, which must be used sparingly.

 

Most fiction fails to do so, and these stories tend to fall into mediocrity and the murk of forgotten novels. But in every other genre, this is a bad thing; bad writing kept these books down, and these mistakes are learned from. Steampunk seems to be far more accepting of these mistakes, and no one learns from them. Making crap up without justification or explanation is just plain bad writing. The farther out of reality you go, the more you a) need to explain it, or b) need to control and limit it. Things can be mysterious and unexplained - I love Boilerplate, for example, despite A.I. being my main beef with Steampunk. But these mysteries cannot solve plot points or diffuse dangerous situations, because it feels like cheating.

 

The ability to solve problems is directly related to how well the audience understands the methods being used. Usually this is used as a rule in magic systems in fantasy, but I think it applies to anything in fiction. Tolkien's Gandalf is mysterious, all powerful, completely unexplained. Solves almost nothing with magic and is still an awesome force in the Lord of the Rings. Brandon Sanderson goes the total opposite; his magic systems are frighteningly well documented and explored, and his characters solve all kinds of problems with it. If Gandalf did the same, it would feel like cheating because he has no explanations. The characters get in trouble, Gandalf swings in and everything is solved for no reason. This would not be interesting. And it's not interesting in Steampunk.

While I'm not disagreeing with the point behind your post, John, this sentence jumped out at me:

 

"Making crap up without justification or explanation is just plain bad writing."

 

(Excuse me if this sounds disjointed - I just wrote out a reply and the forum only posted the first line so I'm having to go off memory).

 

China Mieville's The City & The City and more recently Embessytown are two exmaples of spec fic where the origins of the two unique settings are not explained, and in the case of Embassytown not even hinted at.

 

I think it comes down to each individual peice of writing as to whether an explaination is required or not.

 

Now if I could just teach myself to write like Mieville I too could skim the details.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a problem if an author is relying on Deus Ex Machinas.  It is pretty lazy IMHO.
Jason... just wondering... did you mean this in the context of a 'one time' thing in a story... or that the use of random lite-science is DEM?  just trying to understand your ref.
I just think if DEMs are recurring plot devices than stories become predictable.  As a reader you lose all the tension in a story because you know they are going to get out of it.  So basically all the fun and excitement in the story is gone because the main character will magically find his or her way out of the sticky situation.
Ahh.. okay... I tend to think of the DEM in its theatrical usage... at the end of the story... I'd never really thought of them as recurring... thanks :D

RSS

SWAG Support Fund

Visit us on:

TWITTER                          TUMBLR

FACEBOOK                 

GOOGLE+                       

Latest Activity

Jesse L Mckinley and Benjamin Sheldrack are now friends
Nov 6
Jon Hartless posted photos
Oct 29
Profile IconMatt McAvoy, Michael Tefft, Jesse L Mckinley and 2 more joined S.W.A.G
Oct 26
Matt Knowles is now a member of S.W.A.G
Jul 20
Lia Keyes posted a status
"Feeling grateful to Bill Bodden, who has donated to keep https://steampunkwriters.ning.com/ online for another year! Thank you so much, Bill!"
Jun 13
Lia Keyes posted a status
"Delighted to announce that https://steampunkwriters.ning is now SSL certified. #steampunkchat"
Jun 6
Lia Keyes posted a status
"Huge thanks to Gaslamp Used Books for their donation towards keeping SWAG online! You're amazing!"
Jun 5
Lia Keyes posted a status
"Thanks to donations from angels like Shirley Hailstock, we are looking healthier this evening than we did this morning. Hugs to Shirley!"
Jun 5

Click here for SWAG badges for websites

Small Press, Indie & Anthology Covers


© 2019   Created by Lia Keyes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service