A post by author/illustrator Philip Reeve caught my attention today, and I’m afraid  it’s not because I’m pleased with what he’s been saying.

In a post entitled Atompunk, Mr. Reeve takes note of a recent Guardian article about Steampunk, and pronounces his dislike for the genre. Fine, I say. You don’t like Steampunk. To each their own. Could you perhaps, tell me what it is about Steampunk that bothers you so much? Here’s the introductory paragraph to this entirely inane post:

The Guardian sat up and noticed Steampunk this week . The article itself is so cursory that it’s barely worth reading, but there are a lot of interesting comments, including one by Lyndon Ap Gwynfryn which echoes my own growing doubts: “Steampunk is the stupidest of all subgenres of speculative fiction…  To retrospectively associate contemporary Victorian science fiction, which was forward looking and progressive, with a self consciously anachronistic and frivolous genre like steampunk is deeply insulting to great writers like Wells and Verne.“

And then he leaves his opinion at that. He doesn’t bother to expound upon why Steampunk upsets him; he simply lets some person on the internet speak for him. Brilliant. Unfortunately, it appears as though Mr. Reeve has to resort to others to form his opinions for him. Fine, that quality is quite common in our society, though not a trait I hold in high esteem. It’s also not very Punk to have other people think for you.

Mr. Reeve goes on for a while qq-ing about how authors only write Steampunk before deciding that he should make his own punk genre named Atompunk (which, mind you, was around long before he conjured up the term) and that this would be a far more interesting topic to explore than the backwards Steampunk.

Never mind that the very comment he cites as being his reason for being against Steampunk, the notion of retrospection and self-conscious anachronism, could easily be used against his precious idea of Atompunk. He’s certain that his Atompunk concept is so much more worthy of your time and imagination because Atompunk is clearly the metaphor for our own times that Steampunk could never be.

People, this is just stupid. Mr. Reeve’s reasons for disliking Steampunk are ethereal and unintelligent. All “period”-punks from Steam and Diesel to Atomic and Ren are bound together by an anachronistic Retrofuturism. We all have a lot in common. Rather than tear one genre down for the promotion of another, why not stand together as Retrofuturists united by the yesterday of tomorrow that never was?

And please, if you’re going to have an opinion about Steampunk, do try to form one yourself. 😉

In the second half of my two part series on attempting to educate Steampunk’s critics, I turn this evening to an article written by designer Randy Nakamura, Steampunk’d, Or Humbug by Design.

Mr. Nakamura’s article is an attack of Steampunk and the Steampunk aesthetic. In a pedantic and verbose article, he attempts to downplay Steampunk by claiming that it is a backward and non-functional trend that fails at mimicking the Victorian influences that shape Steampunk’s aesthetic. Clearly, he needs a lesson in understanding what Steampunk is all about.

Steampunk is not about “some sort of inspired return to a prior era.” Steampunk is a subculture that blends the past and present to counter our plastic riddled modern world. It’s about taking the best from both worlds and turning it into something new. It’s about rejecting the disposable and low quality nature of today’s products and technology for something well made and built to last. Steampunk is hardly regressive. It isn’t about looking back to the Victorian era and pining for some non-existent notion of the “good old days.” Steampunk is a reaction to the corporate and mass produced products of today’s world and a return to a time when the local artisan was more than just a hobbyist at weekend craft fairs.

Which is why his comment that Steampunk is more Disney than punk really irritated me. Mr. Nakamura has clearly no idea of the incredible influence that the Disney corporation has on people’s psychologies and the products they buy, especially that of girls with the “Disney Princess” line.

Steampunk is a movement of independent artists and freethinkers connected through the internet. It cannot be compared to the corporate structure of Disney, which has it own theme parks, film studios, clothing lines, music labels… need I go on? Steampunk, however, has rightfully earned its place in the punk movement. It is anti-corporation, anti mass-production, and rebels again traditional concepts of power and gender.

And to assume that an entire subculture sprang forth from a single book, Gilliam’s Brazil, is incredibly misguided. In fact, in all my expertise of Steampunk, I can’t claim that I have read Brazil, which Mr. Nakamura seems to think is the seminal Steampunk work. Steampunk isn’t a unified or singular subculture. It’s focused on individual interpretation and exposure. Perhaps, if Mr. Nakamura wishs to rail against Steampunk, he should consider more than just one piece of Steampunk literature and a few DIY projects before coming to a conclusion on Steampunk as a whole.

Mr. Nakamura, your poor understanding of what Steampunk is and why it appeals to so many people hardly qualifies you to comment on the subculture. Your article is nothing more than a pedantic over-intellectualization of personal taste that achieves nothing more than preaching down to people who enjoy modding their own possessions. Perhaps, you would rather them buy your pre-made designs and submit to your (clearly) superior sense of art?

And, by god, it’s Steampunks, not Steampunkers! Who the hell told you we are Steampunkers?

Phew, that’s certainly enough ranting for the time being. If you have any thoughts on the topics I’ve brought up, please feel free to comment!