• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What's the 80's version of "Steampunk?"

Okay, forget what I said about cyberpunk. That was wrong, but it's not crucial to the point I'm trying to make. The specifics don't matter. The point is that if the term X is coined in a certain culture and era, then it refers to something that arises from the cultural precedents, values, and assumptions of that era, and it can be risky to apply term X to something similar from an earlier era, because you might be falsely assuming certain things about the viewpoint and goals of the people who did that earlier thing. And if you do use that anachronistic label as a convenience, okay, that can be useful, but it should be done advisedly, with the awareness that it might be more an analogy than a strictly accurate characterization.
 
Christopher said:
^I still don't think you get my point at all. It's not that simplistic.
Click to expand...


It is that simplistic. All words are labels that imply certain meanings in their use. Language is the attempt to label things but depending on the observer those meanings change no matter how careful you are in your description. Perception is colored by experience and everyone's experiences are different.

If I said the single word "green" it triggers entirely different images/memories/knowledge in you than it does me. Some of them may be very similar such as color wheels and dictionary entries, but it still will not be the same. So the best we can do is strive to use the best words we can think of to describe something and use enough from different tangents in the hopes that we narrow down perceptions to the point we are under the same general consensus. Which is why I might say something is "steampunk-ish" with the intent to portray that it is not properly "steampunk".

Edit: Besides, lots of things are named in hindsight.
 
Christopher said:
The point is that if the term X is coined in a certain culture and era, then it refers to something that arises from the cultural precedents, values, and assumptions of that era, and it can be risky to apply term X to something similar from an earlier era, because you might be falsely assuming certain things about the viewpoint and goals of the people who did that earlier thing.
Click to expand...
Depends. Sure, it's risky to use the word 'virtue' when referring to the Greek concept of arete, as they mean rather different things, and modern translations of Paul to the Corinthians translate caritas as love (as the word charity - which evolved by reference to this work - is altogether too misleading at this point.)

But if the shoe fits, wear it. I don't see how the original Wild Wild West doesn't fall under steampunk as broadly defined. The reverse problem, of course, is privileging context over common sense, wherein The Last Man is not a post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel because such novels didn't exist at the time.
 
Sojourner, you're wrong, it's not simplistic at all, precisely because all words carry certain implied meanings. My whole point is that the implied meanings and values that one generation or culture reads into a word may be totally different from the beliefs and values of an earlier culture, and that's why it can be misleading and wrong to apply a modern term to something from the past, something whose underlying meanings are totally different from what that term implies. The point is that it's misguided and ethnocentric to assume that your perceptions and experiences can correctly and without modification describe the intentions and goals of people decades or centuries in the past. I'm not talking about universals like "green," but about culture- and period-specific designators like the name of a political, social, ideological, or literary movement. These terms do not exist in a vacuum, but come with a lot of unspoken baggage attached, and so the user must be aware that one's own assumptions are not necessarily the same as those of the historical figures one is speaking about.


And Kegg, yes, you have a point. As I've acknowledged repeatedly, such labels can be useful conveniences, as long as you use them advisedly and be aware that they may be approximations or oversimplifications. They can work, but there's also the risk that they can be hugely misleading, so care should be taken.

I guess it depends on whether you're using the word "steampunk" to refer to a specific literary movement or more broadly as a particular type of story. My critique was based in the fact that the term was coined to refer to a specific movement of the '90s and '00s, so it would be a mistake to say that earlier works are part of that same movement; at most, they are antecedents or ancestors of it. However, I grant that the term has acquired a broader meaning through association, in reference to a particular style or subject matter.
 
Even if they didn't identify as part of the movement, that doesn't mean they weren't part of it. None of the poets we now identify as Romantic identified themselves in such a way (the term is a Victorian coinage), but we still find it a useful and accurate coinage for describing the artistic movement they were part of.
 
But was there a "movement" at the time The Wild, Wild West was made? I don't think so. It was pretty much unique. It came from a different set of inspirations and goals than modern steampunk; it was basically a fusion of the Western and the spy show in the post-Bond era when spy shows (except for those that were deconstructing Bond) were characterized by sci-fi gadgetry.
 
Just because it did not overtly originate with someone using steam based technology to protray an alternate history but instead used spy fiction translated to the old west doesn't mean that the result still cannot be classified as steampunk or at least a precedent to steampunk.

And in reply, if you think "green" is universal, I would suggest you get crossection of different people and have them pick what they consider to be (in their opinion) the best definition of "green" from a selection of different shades of green swatches. In the end we are both saying the same thing. You used "current" and "past" generations and I used "you" and "I", but our arguments are basically the same.
 
^You're not listening at all. "Steam based technology" hasn't got a damn thing to do with what I'm saying, nor am I debating the point of whether "steampunk" is a valid label anymore. I've moved past that. I'm questioning Steve's implication that there was a continuous literary movement connecting this 1960s show to superficially similar works that arose decades later. I don't think such a movement existed at the time, not the same movement, anyway.
 
Honestly, I don't know enough about steampunk to say.

But the first Romantic poet (whoever that was; this is something else I don't know much about) wasn't part of a movement yet either.
 
Christopher said:
^You're not listening at all. "Steam based technology" hasn't got a damn thing to do with what I'm saying, nor am I debating the point of whether "steampunk" is a valid label anymore. I've moved past that. I'm questioning Steve's implication that there was a continuous literary movement connecting this 1960s show to superficially similar works that arose decades later. I don't think such a movement existed at the time, not the same movement, anyway.
Click to expand...

So your whole point then is someone had to sit down and say "I am going to invent a new movement" to be included in the movement? It isn't possible for someone to create something that then later influences others to create a "movement" from being included in that movement?
 
^You're not even trying to approach this discussion with an open mind. You're just looking for excuses to twist my words into something ridiculous that you can put down out of hand. I'm not going to bother trying to discuss this with you anymore if you're not going to bother to engage in a fair discussion.
 
^:wtf: What did I say? I have tried to come at your reasoning from multiple angles and to a point I do see the logic behind it. I just think you have carried the idea of "labeling past works is pigeon holing them" to an extreme.

You obviously don't get my whole line of reasoning in that labeling something (in this case using "steampunk") carries a different weight than use the same term to describe something (my old example of "it is like steampunk"). I agree with you that labeling can be bad. I have just been trying to say that a description can use the same words as a label in order to get the idea across as long as one is careful in that using those words is not in defacto labeling.

And no, I am not trying to "put you down out of hand". I am merely trying to narrow down and examine where our point of views differ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top