Hi guys,
Having just sent my first draft of The Wolves Of War down to my editor earlier this week I had a little time to do some online browsing etc and I found myself intrigued by some of what I read. In particular one forum poster
asked me a question the other day that stuck with me, and I thought I'd share
my answer with you. He asked me what the boundaries of steam-punk are? When
something is steam-punk and when it isn't.
That stuck with
me because while I have written some books that I consider as containing
elements of steam-punk in them – most notably of course The Arcanist and the
upcoming Wolves of War {which I've posted a mock up of the possible cover to
above}, I don't consider that I'm a true steam-punk writer. I'm a fantasy and
science fiction writer and both of the books I've mentioned are epic fantasy.
So what's the
difference? Is steam-punk a sub-genre of fantasy? Or of science fiction? Or is
it a genre in its own right?
For me it's a
genre simply because steam-punk can't really be fantasy if it's portrayed as
possible. And it can't be science fiction if the science is essentially
impossible. {I know, there are many science fiction books where you know the
science can't possibly be possible – ever. Most of them are that simply because
they are dated and science has now told us the truth. But all science fiction
books hold out as their basis that single question – what if?} Steam-punk straddles this divide between science fiction and
fantasy that makes it quite distinct. On the one hand it doesn't allow for the
fantastical and mythical. There are no elves and dwarves. It tries hard to say
to the reader – this is real science. But on the other hand the science it uses
is completely mythical and can't be anything else.
As a genre
steam-punk has two chief features that separate it from others. The first is of
course the amazing, improbable if not impossible technology. And the second is
of course the era. Traditionally steam-punk would slip somewhere into the
Victorian era and the underlying basis of the technology would stem from them.
So you would have of course steam power, the beginnings of electricity and
magnetism, herbalism rebranded as alchemy or the art of the apothecary and so
forth. This is in essence a romanticised vision of the outlook of a Victorian
gentleman or woman, discovering these new technologies all around him and
thinking the secrets of the universe are just around the corner.
To explain this
perhaps a little more clearly, think of the classic Frankenstein. You can just
imagine Shelley and Byron and the others sitting around in their parlours after
dinner discussing the wonders of this new technological age, and in particular
the experiments of Galvani as he made a frog's leg twitch with the application
of electricity. And you can see the logical extension of this in their minds as
they considered that he'd discovered the essence of life. And in fact there is a story {probably just a story} that Percey Shelley tried to reanimate the body of his first wife this way. From there it was a
short step to the age old riddles of resurrection which was suddenly possible
through electricity and alchemy. Only now it was reanimation via science, and
then of course there were the inevitable consequences of playing God.
So from today's
perspective, knowing that this sort of reanimation is impossible, that life and
electricity aren't the same thing, that alchemy doesn't work, we can see this
as an early example of steam-punk. Though of course when it was written it
wasn't. It was a straight up science fiction / horror novel. Taking the
knowledge of the time and extending it and then saying – what if? Which in
itself raises an interesting question. In a hundred years time will the science
fiction we write become the steam-punk of their age? Will our descendants laugh
at our simplistic and unrealistic ideas and yet write books based on the dreams
we have given our technology?
But getting back
to the topic, this then is the heart of steam-punk. Putting ourselves back in
the past, to an age that we can romanticise, and then taking the technological
dreams and wonders of those times and fashioning them into a story. It is more
complicated and confused than that of course, as there are a thousand different
variations on the theme. And of course there are derivatives like diesel-punk,
gunpowder-punk and maybe cyberpunk {I'm really in two minds about this genre as
it's been around for so long and speaks less about the technology in my view
and more about the nature of the human condition.}
The next
question is when does a story go from being one in which there are steam-punk
elements to a true steam-punk story? To me that's when the steam-punk
technology goes from being mostly part of the world build to an actual plot
element. This is why Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is not a full blown steam-punk
novel in my view but rather a fantasy with steam-punk elements. Because while
the story contains the elements of steam-punk – specifically the impossible
technology, the mad inventor Professor Caractacus Potts {i.e. Crackpot} and
indeed the car itself is practically a character in the work, it's not the
basis of the plot. And in truth it's accepted in the story that what the car
can do is not actually possible.
By contrast Wild
Wild West for those who've seen the movie, is steam-punk in my view. The
technology, though we know from sitting in our twenty first century homes that
it's complete balderdash, is not just set out as completely feasible and
justified by various ludicrous theories, it is part of the plot. It's what
allows the villain to dream of taking over the country, and what makes the hero
capable of catching him. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for all its wonder, is just a
vehicle {pun intended!}
So this leads us
to the other half of the question. When does a steam-punk story, leave the
realm of steam-punk? Because there are plenty of stories out there where
steam-punk is not just part of the world build but also a key plot element, but
which are still not steam-punk.
To me there are
two main reasons why a steam-punk work leaves the realm. The first is magic.
And by this I don't just mean the existence of magic in the world build as a
legitimate force of nature though this is part of it. I mean the acceptance
either tacitly accepted or specifically mentioned, that the technology is
itself magic. This is why for example The Arcanist is not a steam-punk novel.
To explain this
consider Herbie – the spiritual successor I would guess to Chitty Chitty Bang
Bang. The technological wonder of a car that does impossible things. Herbie
could never be steam-punk, because it's accepted that what the car does is
impossible. And the explanations given are that the car was simply built better
or has a big heart. In doing so the story immediately gives away any pretence
that Herbie is possible based on the technology of the time.
Then contrast
Herbie with the Nautilus from Verne's Twenty Thousand leagues. The submarine
even though we know it could not be built from our twenty first century
knowledge, is based on the extension of what was believed to be known of
science at the time. Even though the author did not have the knowledge to
explain it exactly, its conception is completely in keeping with the beliefs in
technology of the time. Thus Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is either tacitly accepted
as living or magical in some way, Herbie is “alive” and the Nautilus is a
technological wonder rooted in the imagined science of the age. It is only a
wonder in that it is so advanced.
The other thing
that ironically enough may take a story out of the genre of steam-punk is
industrialisation. Mass production. Now here I'm not saying that the story
can't take place in a world where the industrial revolution has happened.
Obviously it can and in fact in Wolves it does. But the key feature is that
that industrialisation cannot apply to the chief inventions themselves.
Consider the
Nautilus again. It is a technological wonder because it's so advanced and
nothing like it has ever been built before. But if mass production applies to
it and there are suddenly others like it – it's no longer a wonder. It's just a
sub and Twenty Thousand Leagues is just an adventure story set on a submarine.
Think of Frankenstein. If the exact nature of reanimation is known and there
are others around who have been reanimated through technology, then Adam is no
longer a one of the kind tortured soul / monster looking for the acceptance of
a father. He's just a reanimated man and it's a simple family drama.
The fact is that
these technological wonders must be wonders even if they are rooted in the
science of the world build. They must be one of a kind, extraordinary things –
usually created by mad scientists in private labs or workshops – that go far
beyond anything the rest of their fictional world can conceive of. They cannot
be mundane.
So for example
in The Wolves of War my villain who is the technologist of the piece, has a
pistol that fires bombs, a bracelet that shoots lightning, and a miniature
steam wagon that can drive through a forest. Things that make him a formidable
and deadly enemy. And things which the rest of the characters have never before
encountered and have to deal with.
Anyway guys,
that's my take on steam-punk. You will all no doubt have your own thoughts.
Cheers, Greg.
