After reading Sara M. Harvey’s novella The Convent of the Pure this weekend (you can pre-order your very own copy here), I spent a while thinking about steampunk stories in general, and how their aesthetics, attitudes, and ideas compare to those of cyberpunk stories.
What struck me most with respect to these two genres were the differences in attitude, especially with respect to technology, society, and the individual. Below are some sweeping generalizations made about the genres with respect to these areas. Don’t take these as my last word on the genres; after all, these summaries are written to encourage debate!
Steampunk
Stories and novels in the steampunk genre seem to be more optimistic, with society riding a wave of technological wonders toward a brighter future, much like the scientific romances of yore. Of course, there may be rumblings of trade-offs and potential misuses of the new science and technology that underscore the optimism–and the novel’s antagonist may well be building a clockwork doomsday device–but a new era is dawning, and it is full of possibilities. Secret societies (composed of individuals in power) or conspiracies are often the source of problems rather than society in general. Individuals have the potential to accomplish great things, no matter how humble their beginnings.
Cyberpunk
Cyberpunk stories and novels, on the other hand, seem to wallow in dystopian futures where the world is overrun by megacorporations and the individual is just one more cog, or circuit, in the machine. Technology–specifically, plugging into a virtual network via computer or neural jack–can be both an escape and an addiction. Things have gone wrong with the world, or perhaps just a localized portion of it, and it’s up to individuals working outside of the mainstream culture to set it right. In general, however, there’s only so much that can be done, since society is sick to its core. Society is Darwinian with respect to individuals: the weak are swallowed whole and only the strong, the rich, and the clever survive.
What’s your perspective on these two genres? Can you think of any novels or short stories that contradict the generalizations I’ve made? Sound off!
Related posts:
- Monday Debates: Half Empty vs. Half Full
- Monday Debates: Sound vs. Silence
- Monday Debates: See You in the Funny Pages
APEXOLOGY: Horror
I think steampunk appeals more to me than cyberpunk. I was always turned off by the dark, dystopian nightmare that most cyberpunk stories seemed to be centered around. Steampunk, conversely, seems to capture an idealized (and probably historically inaccurate) and perhaps more humane world where the better aspects of Victorian values are coupled with the traditional tropes of science fiction.
It also doesn’t hurt that in essence, science fiction was probably steampunk before it became anything else. One need look no further than H.G. Wells and Jules Verne to see all of the tools one needs to write what we would call a steampunk story today.
I also like the sense in steampunk that a tinkering type in a barn or garage can build/invent something with science fictional aspects to it. That isn’t a sense many of us have now in the 21st Century, especially given the lack of flying cars.
Respects,
S. F. Murphy
Something else to consider about the two is that cyberpunk is usually set in the future and seems to be more about “what could happen” whereas steampunk is often in the past or in an alternate present, and has more of a “what could have been” sense to it.
Plus, steampunk has zepplins.
Now that I think about it, Doctor Who did a really good job merging the two in The Age of Steel/Rise of the Cybermen. You got zepplins and the steampunk problem of secret corporations/societies taking control along with robots/computers high tech and the issues of society being dependent upon technology.
When I think of Steampunk I think of the incredible video game serie Thief, of course on the other side there’s system shock / deus ex. Both has element of fiction and even though cyberpunk as the added element of possiblity.
Thinking back on how we saw the future in the past, it’s always more bleak when the time comes, there’s a constant that drive reality more than anything else : economy. One year you hear from George W. Bush that the US is going to mars and a couple years later you hear from very credible source that the US is going down, not necessarily fail but can’t keep up it’s goals.
With that in mind, both are just as fantastic, even more cyberpunk because unless you’re over 60, 5 years is a *long* time so it’s hard to imagine 100 ! Also I prefer the fantasy because philosophically, life is all about circumstance and random events so it’s easier to imagine a few different events could have brought those things into reality, just think of dictatorial regime and how those can force unnatural things upon humanity.
To me future is long hard work, alternate reality is just a few events that would have been different, just like you mom wouldn’t have met your dad and poof ! I guess it boils down to perspective.
It’s so out of date nowadays, it’s like Cyberpunk is yesterday’s Steampunk, if you know what I mean. Personally anything to do with Victorian Endland-like settings tends to bore me slightly. Hmmm. If Cyberpunk (1.0) is now ‘retro-futuristic’, does that mean that Steampunk is ‘futuristic-retro’? The aspect of Steampunk which does interest me is the ‘alternate time line’ angle. Cyberpunk – at least in it’s cool oldskool 80′s configuration – always seemed too close to the techno-present. Iron gears and slow steam vs. bioquantum chips and dark energy. An optimistic past and a bleak future – hang on, something’s wrong here; time is not an arrow but more like a turbulent superfluid. It’s all in the mixed up flux..
L8ers, Henry Swanson