Nounpunk - A discussion of a metagenre

Elemental_Elf · August 23, 2011, 05:12:50 AM

Quote from: limetomOne of the main issues in comparing these other genres is that cyberpunk is, and has been, dead for quite some time.

Blade Runner was the climax and really the end of cyberpunk. Ghost in the Shell heralded a new era: post-cyberpunk.

If cyberpunk is rebellion, then what is post-cyberpunk? A calm, rational acceptance?

Can you really call Ghost in the Shell post-Cyberpunk if it was created in the 80's (i.e the heyday for Cyberpunk)?

EDIT:

From Wikipedia: "Classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society in generally dystopic futures where daily life was impacted by rapid technological change, an ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, and invasive modification of the human body." '" Lawrence Person

If this is the metric by which we measure Cyberpunk, then Ghost in the Shell fails to truely integrate into the dynamic because the protagonist is accepting of, and relies upon, a highly skilled team. Every member of that team (especially the two main male compatriots) are highly individualistic yet they are forced to rely on one another because individually, each is too specialized to work effectively as loner. At the same time, the team as a whole, is outside most normal jurisdictions, often relying on quasi-illegal methods to accomplish their goals. One could argue then that the single individual is subverted into a group who are collectively as individualistic as a traditional Cyberpunk protagonist.

If this is true, then the hallmark of Post-Cyberpunk would be Collective Individualism.

LoA · October 19, 2011, 07:36:17 AM

Somebody probably already covered this, but hey, i haven't been on here for a long time, so i thought i'd post something.

For me the term "punk" means to rebel against the mainstream. The fact that steampunk and dieselpunk glorify anachronism instead of modernism probably make them punk in there own right. But still... I'm huge into dieselpunk. Part of it is because i just have a soul engraved love of jazz, three piece suits and classic cars, but i also think there may be a feeling of rebellion against all the steampunk junkies out there. I like steampunk but you have to admit it has gotten a little mainstreamed over the years...

My take on this that will probably earn me the hatred of several people.

Superfluous Crow · October 19, 2011, 09:15:09 AM

I essentially do like steampunk, but I feel like most of the things that get labelled as such aren't really deserving of the title.
Throw a blimp into your D&D campaign and you get D&D with a blimp, not steampunk.

Xathan · October 19, 2011, 09:37:32 PM

QuoteFor me the term "punk" means to rebel against the mainstream.

And that is maybe the best definition I've heard of why so many settings get the -punk suffix. Granted, what is and isn't mainstream is hard to classify these days, but the idea of punk representing a rebellion against the mainstream kind of gives the nounpunk genre a unifying element that I like to see.

Polycarp · October 20, 2011, 04:56:52 AM

To me, the punk suffix was originally meant to mean a dystopia; that's what separated cyberpunk from more "traditional" science fiction in which people had Better Living Through Technology. If it's not dystopian, it's not punk. You can have all the giant gears you want, but unless humanity is being crushed beneath metaphorical giant gears, it ain't punk.

The problem is that the meaning of "punk" has become "fantasy." There's steampunk and dieselpunk and electropunk and cyberpunk, and will probably one day be biopunk, alchemypunk, magnetpunk, nuclearpunk, and so on. We've even had dinosaurpunk - it was called The Flintstones. All of these could be replaced with "fantasy" with no loss of meaning: Steam fantasy. Diesel fantasy. Cyber fantasy (though I admit that sounds a bit like a porn site). "Punk" serves no purpose here.

Positing punk as meaning something "outside the mainstream" doesn't resolve the issue for me. Does that mean the characters of the fantasy are outside the mainstream, or that the fantasy realm itself is outside the mainstream? In the former case, what differentiates that from "traditional" historical fiction, sci-fi, or fantasy story that follows down-and-out heroes - is a book about a dirty street urchin in 14th century London "medievalpunk?" In the latter case, what's the mainstream? When does popular punk become mainstream? Here we are moving perilously close to the precipice of hipsterdom, my friends, and from the great chasm below few have emerged with the entirety of their souls.

There's nothing wrong with the genres as such, and I accept that "punk" may simply be too ingrained into our collective psyche to change. A meaningless word is always a travesty, however, and while it might not be quite as admirable as speaking truth to power, speaking truth to banality isn't half bad.

Kindling · October 20, 2011, 08:49:09 AM

I think genre-names, especially the more specific and esoteric ones, are always going to be a bit weird, inaccurate and possibly misleading.
Let's take an example, mathcore. A few years ago I listened to a lot of music classed as mathcore. Mathcore is a weird, somewhat niche genre. As you can see from the wiki entry, it's a form of "metalcore" which is itself a genre name derived from the fusion of heavy metal and hardcore punk (but a different kind of fusion from the genre known as crossover thrash, which was a historically earlier blend of the same two genres)
The "math" part is a reference to the complex song structures, syncopated rhythm patterns, polymetrics and uneven time signatures often used in the genre - as in, it's so complex that it's mathematical.
But... it doesn't sound like maths, they don't sing about maths... and as for the -core bit, well, how much music of any genre with a -core suffix from this century really sounds that much like original 1980s hardcore punk? (Answer; not a lot, at least not insofar as any genre within the broad category of "rock music" can sound dissimilar to any other due to similar instrumentation, etc.)
The point is mathcore as a name is about as literal as steampunk. There is a clear derivation of where the name comes from in both cases, which kind of mirrors the development and origins of the genre, but really, the name and the genre both ended up in a place where all the name really does is describe that genre - no, not describe, simply be-the-name-of. Sure, "steam-tech fantasy" might be a more accurate name for steampunk, just as "progressive dissonant metalcore" might be a more accurate name for mathcore, but the thing is there already are names for the genres, and those words now exist and have one simple meaning - that specific genre. They might be imperfect names, but they are now the names, and we can't change that. EDIT: Nor should we need to!

CoyoteCamouflage · October 20, 2011, 01:52:12 PM

You had me, Kind, until the very, very end.

QuoteThey might be imperfect names, but they are now the names, and we can't change that.

I disagree with this vehemently. These -punk names exist on some ideas and concepts that are still evolving, especially in the public eye, which is where it really matters. Take Steampunk, for example. I don't care what arguments you have (because I'm stubborn like that), but to me, Steampunk started back with Verne and Wells and crew. It was what is was back then, but a specific term for the genre wasn't formed until a group of writers wanted to distinguish themselves in the cyberpunk-era. In other words, they wanted more attention and marketing potential, so they made up a new genre for themselves.

In other words, they chose a name for themselves, for a genre that, to most, was something completely unknown. Because it was unknown, many of the elements and key points of the genre were still not set, meaning that the genre itself was still advancing, evolving, and adapting to critical and commercial responses. The name given to this resurgent genre is just a name-- at the time, it lacked the full definition of what Steampunk is, since it was claimed by a small pool of writers to identify their own works, not attributed to them at a later time. Anything self-named should be treated with skepticism.

Now, as far as I know, Steampunk is hitting another major resurgence here in the US, and it does not seem that most people really know much about the genre, despite this. They see goggles, and cool outfits, and airships, but they lack an understanding of what Steampunk is; this is no different with the current trend in literature, most of which is nothing like the originally coined 'steampunk' of the 80's or the original proto-steampunk authors back in the 19th c. This sort of resurgence is, to me, the same kind of distinction between 1st wave Ska and 3rd wave Ska. Sure, they share the same basic name, but they are not the same-- they are different enough that they SHOULD have distinctly different names. The problem is that most people are too bleeding stupid to understand the difference.

Now, I'm not saying you need to change "Mathcore" to "Progressive Dissonant Metalcore"-- mostly because the latter sounds a little too intellectual for the masses, and too much fun for Hipsters to listen to. But I do challenge you to say why the names of the -punks should not be changed when we can witness changes in the genre as a whole, when the original is no longer the same as the current. Is that not the same reason that your 'Mathcore' differentiates itself? Why should the -punks not seek to proceed along that same path?

Kindling · October 20, 2011, 04:47:37 PM

So, are you saying that modern steampunk is the same as 19th century scifi or not? Cause I found that post pretty confusing - no offence meant.

If they are the same, (which I don't think they are, I think one has descended from the other after absorbing other influences - much as, in my parallel, mathcore has descended rather circuitously from hardcore punk) then I can see how you might take issue with the older stuff being called steampunk when the name itself is comparatively recent. Again, I'd disagree with you, but I can at least see where you're coming from :P

In either case, whether you're saying they're the same or not, I fail to see how the name "needs" changing. Imperfect as it may be, surely it would be impractical not to simply accept it, as it enables communication about the subject. Imagine, for example, how confusing this thread would be if all of us that have posted in it refused to actually use the term steampunk, and were trying to put forward our own names for the genre? Now, I know ideally, of course, everyone would like the name for it that I came up with, so that issue wouldn't really arise.... Except we'd all know that.

.... erm.... I think I've lost where I was going with this. In short, though, I just don't see a need to change the name, or even seriously question it - simply to acknowledge that it is imperfect, shrug, and move on.

EDIT: Re-read your post and I think I have a slightly better understanding of what you meant now. Sorry if I was a bit slow getting it to start with. I don't think the genre has changed enough to warrant a change of name. Think of other fantasy fiction subgenres... looking at the big, "epic fantasies".... there's a huge difference in a lot of ways between Tolkein and Martin, but both still write what is very much epic fantasy. I'll admit I don't consume a huge amount of steampunk literature (in fact, I consume a very small amount), so feel free to correct me on this, but as far as I'm aware there is no gulf of style within that genre that is significantly huger than that.

Polycarp · October 20, 2011, 05:17:17 PM

QuoteIn short, though, I just don't see a need to change the name, or even seriously question it - simply to acknowledge that it is imperfect, shrug, and move on.

This is fine, and something probably everyone here could agree with. The purpose of the thread, however, was to ask:

QuoteIn short, what I ask the CBG - what makes a setting deserve the suffix -punk?

Defining - and along with it, questioning - is sort of what we're being asked to do. I agree that a name change in the near future is neither practical nor particularly important. As long as we're having the discussion, though, I would point out that comparing "punk" with something like "mathcore" misses the point - while "math" in the case of mathcore may not mean that the music is literally formed from quadratic equations or something, math in this context does mean something relevant - complex structures and patterns. Anybody who complains that "math" is a poor choice because the music isn't literally about math is being purposefully obtuse, just like someone who complains that rock music should be about geology. "Punk," on the other hand, already has a meaning, and that meaning is being ignored; there is a reason cyberpunk was called cyberpunk, and it wasn't because people felt that "fantasy" and "sci-fi" were too overused and that "punk" was a good synonym.

If your main objection is simply that complaining about the word's misuse is futile, I would hasten to remind you that we are debating on the internet, one of the most futile endeavors known to mankind. :)

Kindling · October 21, 2011, 05:55:55 AM

I suppose what I was trying to get at, in a roundabout way, is that although the -punk suffix doesn't seem to have much to do with actual punk anymore, it has developed a new meaning, and I'm totally cool with that.

LoA · November 17, 2011, 03:27:50 AM

Quote from: Kindling
I suppose what I was trying to get at, in a roundabout way, is that although the -punk suffix doesn't seem to have much to do with actual punk anymore, it has developed a new meaning, and I'm totally cool with that.

Fair enough, but doesn't that open a whole new barrel of monkeys?

How do we define (insert)punk? I mean let's say i were to make a Victorian-esque setting and instead of using steam driven technology, replaced everything with wizards and and floating magic ships. Will what separates it from a typical dnd setting? It has castles, it has a slightly feudal feel to it's politics, there are kings, and there are magic users. It certainly isn't steampunk anymore.

And as for my world, Dynama is a world run on magic (my new version that i'm working on, the old one in my sig is outdated, but feel free to look), but the magic is applied the same way we apply science, and is constructed in a manner to resemble technology from the early half of the twentieth century. There's jazz, art deco, fashion from the twenties, and the political and social struggles are reminiscent of political philosophies from the twentieth century as well. But if we define dieselpunk by it's technology, then how can we call it "Dieselpunk" when there is no diesel?

I mean look at the Dragonriders of Pern for a moment. It's a science fiction novel about a faraway planet colonized by humans in the future who have retrogressed into a medieval society and use genetically enhanced native alens that resemble dragons that breathe phosphorous gas when they consume sulfur, and have telekinetic powers that they use to fight off an alien scourge that threatens there planet every so often. Will ok, get rid of the basic scientific knowledge that the Pernese grasp, make them have no idea where the dragons came from, or that there powers are non-magical in origin, and make it so there's no whereabouts or clues to the humans origins on this world, then what would seperate it from regular fantasy?

Superfluous Crow · November 17, 2011, 03:47:21 AM

[ic=Punk from dictionary.com]Punk n.
...
3.
a style or movement characterized by the adoption of aggressively unconventional and often bizarre or shocking clothing, hairstyles, makeup, etc., and the defiance of social norms of behavior, usually associated with punk rock musicians and fans.[/ic]
Based on the above I still stand by my original definition:

Quote from: Me, on the first page[nounpunk is] the emulation of a real-world paradigm taken to its limits

The prefix indicates a paradigm, period, tone and/or theme (be it stone-, steam-, manner-, or cyber-) and the punk denotes that, while it will use the paradigm as its foundation, it will be more "... unconvential and often bizarre or shocking..." than the actual paradigm is.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at NCS, but I do like the implications of your last argument on Pern!

LoA · November 17, 2011, 04:39:58 AM

Quote from: Superfluous Crow
[ic=Punk from dictionary.com]Punk n.
...
3.
a style or movement characterized by the adoption of aggressively unconventional and often bizarre or shocking clothing, hairstyles, makeup, etc., and the defiance of social norms of behavior, usually associated with punk rock musicians and fans.[/ic]
Based on the above I still stand by my original definition:
Quote from: Me, on the first page[nounpunk is] the emulation of a real-world paradigm taken to its limits

The prefix indicates a paradigm, period, tone and/or theme (be it stone-, steam-, manner-, or cyber-) and the punk denotes that, while it will use the paradigm as its foundation, it will be more "... unconvential and often bizarre or shocking..." than the actual paradigm is.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at NCS, but I do like the implications of your last argument on Pern!

I guess what i'm trying to get at is is that (insert)punk has become a term so undefinable. I mean it's so subjective... Look at Eberron for a minute. Half of the people will tell you it's steampunkish, and the other half (including me) will tell you it's more dieselpunk in nature. And neither sides would be right or wrong depending on how you define the terms.

For instance when i made my victorian fantasy example, there are people who say that steampunk is Victorian in nature and anything Victorian is steampunk.

Superfluous Crow · November 17, 2011, 04:59:05 AM

I am not sure Steampunk has to be Victorian per se, but it is definitely related to the paradigm of industrialism. The Steam Age (which is really what people are modelling settings on when they do steampunk) is not rigidly confined to the Victorian age and region, but this region was definitely the center of the Steam Age and is what most people can easily relate to and identify as "the quintessential Steam Age".

LoA · November 17, 2011, 05:13:54 AM

Quote from: Superfluous Crow
I am not sure Steampunk has to be Victorian per se, but it is definitely related to the paradigm of industrialism. The Steam Age (which is really what people are modelling settings on when they do steampunk) is not rigidly confined to the Victorian age and region, but this region was definitely the center of the Steam Age.

There are only a few other (real-life) places I could see easily realized using a steampunk aesthetic format. Prussia and Germany in general saw their fair share of industrialization and they are fondly remembered for building the zeppelins. A U.S. steampunk setting could work if one focused primarily on the railways. A maritime setting based on steamships might work too.

I'm not saying you can't do steampunk in an original setting (of course you can!), but -punk is invariably tied to the reader's perception of the period, so it has to build on something the reader can relate to. I believe that is why so many base their "steampunk" on the Victorian Age (that, and because it is fashionable).

And i keep thinking back to anybody who says that Bioshock is steampunk... What? It's about exploring a ruined underwater, Art deco city built in the thirties, and has 40's and 50's pop music playing in the background all the time! But the steampunk sayers arguments are based on the notion that "the city is powered by steam, and you have steampowered robots", Will no, it wouldn't make sense to power it by steam when you have a geothermal vent right next to you, and secondly will ok, fair enough there are steam powered robots, but then again alot of stuff from this period was powered by steam!
This locomotive is from the twenties for crying outloud!
[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

And look at that steam engine! hardly anybody would tell you it's steampunk because that is such an iconic image of it's period which is in the middle of the twentieth century.

And there i think we find the true root of it all. It's not the technology, its the style in which the technology is presented.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Nounpunk - A discussion of a metagenre

Elemental_Elf

LoA

Superfluous Crow

Xathan

Polycarp

Kindling

CoyoteCamouflage

Kindling

Polycarp

Kindling

LoA

Superfluous Crow

LoA

Superfluous Crow

LoA