Steampunk That Doesn't Suck

by Alasdair Czyrnyj

Adapted the explosive article comment post.
~
So. Steampunk. That silly little kludge of a word, target of a hundred angry Playpen posts and much general grumbling. That thing everyone kinda likes, but which no one can really define, and which people who should know better will argue about until intellectual coherence is a wistful memory.

It's not that I hate steampunk. Quite the contrary; I been nosing about at the edges of the subgenre/whatever the hell it is for years now, after having been introduced to it though my interest in alternate history. I've got plenty of books that most reasonable people would describe as "steampunk," I've got a copy of Arcanum sitting in my DVD cabinet (which I'm going to play one of these days, honest!), and I've spent the past nine months on a SF criticism binge partly motivated by a desire to figure out what steampunk is. I've even been contributing for over a year now under a fairly obvious pseudonym to another ezine that specializes in steampunk matters.

And yet...sometimes I wonder what the point is. I'm a guy who's primarily interested in the literature, and some days I feel like I'm the only one out there. Everyone else seems to have more fun doing flossy DIY stuff or trying to import a boilerplate left wing/punk political message into the genre or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Then again, much of the literature isn't much to write home about. A lot of it is just bog-standard pulp adventure with gratuitous pseudo-period window dressing (which is in all honesty the sum total of my reaction to Cherie Priest's Boneshaker). To makes matters worse, some authors (and I'm pointing squarely at YOU, Stephen Hunt and George Mann!) seem to use their retro settings as springboards to launch into some good old-fashioned wog-bashing, with fictional foreigners (or mobsters) being written as totally evil untermen who deserve nothing less than a thorough curbstomping at the hands of the forces of justice. Or the hands of the notBritish.

So, in other words, when I listened to Ferretbrain's third podcast, I was in broad agreement with everyone's complaints with steampunk. Still, I am a sentimental fool at heart, and I was still convinced that there was something in the subgenre worth salvaging. To that end, I've been picking through my ziggurat of books to see if there are some titles out there that actually do something interesting with the steampunk concept.

Wait, Could You Back Up For A Second?

Of course, all this awkward book recommending-disguised-as-proselytism will be somewhat pointless if there's no workable definition of steampunk against which titles can be judged. It's certainly been a bear for me to find one, and it's required a lot of digging back into modern history, the history of SF, the cultural manifestations of nostalgia and the nature of kitsch. For what it's worth, though, a decent prehistory of the genre can be found over here here, though it focuses more on film than books.

One of my major discoveries in the course of this informal research is that, despite appearances, steampunk does have a history. Something like like steampunk first reared its head back in the 1960s, in the shadow of New Wave SF. In a sense, it was a natural fit; one of New Wave's many interests was the history of science fiction. With the sense that contemporary (i.e. Campbellian American) SF was becoming a self-referential closed shop, no longer interested in trying to figure out what the future would be like, and with SF having grown to the point where historical progressions could be mapped, several New Wave writers decided to do some research of their own. Writers began poking around in the strata, taking a look at those earliest technological adventure tales from the Edwardian period and creating stories that mimed and celebrated the spirit of those early works, though always with a constant reminder of all that had transpired between then and the 1960s. Despite this, New Wave's engagement with the old tales was more a dalliance than anything. There was a brief flurry of results from such luminaries as Michael Moorcock (in his Oswald Bastable books), Christopher Priest (with The Space Machine, and Harry Harrison, who bounced about between genres while giving us A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!), then all went quiet again.

The next stage of steampunk's evolution came in the 1980s, with the team of James Blaycock, K. W. Jeter, and Tim Powers, all three of whom wrote multiple stories set in glamorized versions of Victorian London reimagined as a sort of Dickensian fantasy. The word "steampunk" comes from those three guys; it was facetiously proposed by them in a 1987 letter to Locus magazine to describe their work. Around that time, people were starting to get interested in this neo-Victorian SF thing (possibly due to greater cultural forces), the name took off, despite not having anything at all whatsoever to do with cyberpunk, so there, and the 1990s saw a steady stream of titles that eventually led to the subcultural growth we see today.

So, in other words, there is a vague twofold point to steampunk. If you ever want to criticize pre-WWI SF, or even post-WWI pulp SF for that matter, then you're doing steampunk. If you want to exploit the early industrial world (an heuristic term I use to describe any society with a technology level falling somewhere between 1820s and 1910s Western Europe) as a fantasy setting, then you're doing steampunk. It's noting that you could hang a manifesto on (if not from...), but it opens up several avenues for writers to engage with the history of SF and create provocative new worlds.

And Now, Story Time!

It is these avenues, these old ideas ready to be decanted and mixed into new solutions, that fuels my interest in steampunk. Below are seven books that represent the high points of fantastic industrial fiction, all of which are united in a desire to create something new with the past.

The Difference Engine, by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling

This is the one book that everyone thinks of when the word "steampunk" is mentioned, though it does happen to be one of those books that lots of people have read that most people (myself included) didn't really understand. As near as I've been able to figure, the book is the story of a great mechanical AI trying to puzzle out its origins by observing the course of three people who were integral to its emergence. As a result, the book is formatted as a MacGuffin chase for a set of punchcards in a mid-19th century London dominated by the "Industrial Radical Party" of Lord Byron and Charles Babbage, which have used surprisingly hyper-effective analytical engines to kick off a Victorian Information Revolution. It's a bit of a chore to work through, but the descriptions of a London spasming into hypertrophic modernity are breathtaking, and even manage to riff on older sci-fi stories in subtle ways. (To this day I still can't believe it took me so long to realize that the glass cathedral pyramid that houses the biggest analytical engine in London was just a glamorous Victorian version of the concrete Ministries from 1984.)

Anti-Ice, by Stephen Baxter
The Time Ships, by Stephen Baxter

Back in the early 1990s, Stephen Baxter was flirting with steampunk (and some of his recent stories in Asimov's suggest that he's rekindled that romance), and the products of that liaison were these two books. Anti-Ice, the first book, is a sort of creepy reworking of Jules Verne, imagining a world where the British found an exotic form of antimatter in Antarctica that is rendered inert at zero degrees Celsius at the end of the eighteenth century, and subsequently used it to supercharge their national infrastructure. The story itself, set in 1870, is a brief exploration of the world that has resulted from this discovery. While the book maintains the outward forms of a harmless steampunk romp (the great majority of the story is a clever thought experiment of how a Victorian scientist could recreate the Apollo moon landings with period technology), there is a rather vicious undercurrent to the story, with the description of how Britain has been warped by the discovery of anti-ice and how its military applications have started a nuclear arms race during the Franco-Prussian war.

The Time Ships, by contrast, is a far more ambitious work. Set up as a direct sequel to The Time Machine, the book is essentially a modern scientific romance (i.e. a story where the protagonist drifts around and observes some great fantastic world or event in grand sweeping detail) that sees the Time Traveler introduced to the concept of parallel universes, Big Dumb Objects, nanotechnology, and all the goodies of modern hard sci-fi. Baxter's crowning achievement, though, comes in the middle sections of the book, a great riff on The Shape of Things to Come that's set in a parallel 1938 where WWI has been raging for decades, all the cities of Europe are enclosed in kilometer-wide concrete domes, and where Wellsian technologies are being exploited for the development of superweapons.

Jack Faust, by Michael Swanwick

I mentioned this before in my discussion of The Iron Dragon's Daughter, and it's still one of my favorite Swanwick books to date. It's a retelling of the legend of Docktor Faustus, though this time around Mephistopheles, now a construct crewed by a race of alien creatures from another universe that only Faust can perceive, offers him access to the complete body of human understanding. Faust being the glory hound that he is, he soon puts this knowledge towards practical invention, essentially putting Late Renaissance Europe through an amphetamine-powered industrial revolution. It's a pretty fun romp through a creepily accelerated Europe that manages to compress about three hundred years of technological development into a few decades, and it's also a nice deconstruction of the "Edisonade" type genius inventor that shows the rather nasty impulses that lurk beneath that Promethean exterior.

The Light Ages, by Ian R. MacLeod
The House of Storms, by Ian R. MacLeod

These two are actually two of my absolute favorite books of all time. The premise itself is a killer; round about the end of the seventeenth century, this odd substance dubbed "aether" is discovered in England. While we never get to understand what aether is, it becomes fairly clear that it has the capacity to make matter respond to human will when alloyed with certain materials. The books themselves are set centuries later, when aether has completely changed the fabric of English life. The end result is a world that lies somewhere between alternate history and fantasy; the books read as very English, but they lack all the trappings we'd expect from an alternate history England, with no King, no Parliament, not even any Monday or Thursday. The whole world is suffused with a faerie glamor that, beautiful as it may be, cannot hide the baleful effects aether has had on society and technology. After all, when you can just use magic to make a better steam locomotive, who needs engineering?

The first book, The Light Ages is a Dickensian tale of a young man who moves from the industrial North to London while searching for a mysterious girl he loves, almost missing out on the revolution that tries to overthrow but ultimately submits to the current order. The promises of overthrow are eventually made good in The House of Storms, set a century later, which initially appears to be a gothic romance. At least, it does until halfway through the book, when London and Bristol decide to reenact the Somme in the Midlands.

Fitzpatrick's War, by Theodore Judson

While he hasn't written much, I consider Theodore Judson the most honest man writing steampunk. Alone of almost everyone who plays in the genre, he tries to work out the implications of following too closely in the models of the past. The end result is Fitzpatrick's War, a neo-imperialist tract designed to make readers ashamed of neo-imperialism. Judson's warmongers of choice are the Yukons, a society of cranky agrarian Protestants who in the twenty-fifth century dominate the Anglosphere, a feat made possible by their decision to exterminate the Americans as a people at the end of the twenty-first. The book itself chronicles the life and times of Issac Prophet Fitzpatrick, greatest leader of the Yukons, as he decides to emulate Alexander the Great and start a world war that basically rapes the rest of the planet. The horror is deftly communicated to us through the viewpoint of Robert Mayfair Bruce, confidant to "Fitz" and quite possibly the last Yukon with a conscience. There are some weaknesses, particularly with Judson's explanation for why the world has abandoned electricity, but it's a good scary read that will leave the reader wary of ever reading military sci-fi uncritically again.

Polystom, by Adam Roberts

Adam Roberts is another fellow who occasionally likes to dabble in steampunk. Swiftly, his Gulliverian pastische, is probably his most elaborate foray into the subgenre to date, though I refrained from including it on this list simply because I couldn't understand what the heck he was trying to do. I did, however,figure out what was going on with Polystom, and enjoyed it immensely. The story itself follows the adventures of the young lord Polystom, a high-ranking noble in his vaguely Greco-British society that reads like Wodehouse without the laughs in a pocket solar system where interplanetary travel is can be done with a four-hour biplane jaunt. As Polystom tries to understand why the death of his new wife has left him feeling a curious blankness, his investigations start to suggest that something is seriously wrong with Polystom and his world. Polystom is one of the few books I have read in which the steady undermining of a constructed world is both deliberate and surprisingly effective.
~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~
Comments (go to latest)
http://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/ at 04:35 on 2010-05-19
Some of this does sound fascinating, in a grim kind of way (and, after having the misfortune of reading one of the Honor Harrington novels for a book club, I think all military SF should be read - and watched - with great suspicion.) But I've got to say my favorite steampunk auteur (if what she does can be called that) is the brilliant sydpad, of 2dgoggles.
Rami at 07:14 on 2010-05-19
Mmm, of all of these I've only read The Difference Engine and Polystom. I didn't really think of Polystom as steampunk -- the aesthetic seemed more 1920s than Victorian -- but I definitely agree that the undermining of the world is brilliant.
Arthur B at 09:32 on 2010-05-19
A query: what, precisely, is the difference between "Steampunk" and "alternate history SF which happens to have a Victorian setting"?
Niall at 09:52 on 2010-05-19
I think of Polystom more as WILL IT BLEND? with the ingredients being Bob Shaw's The Ragged Astronauts, Philip K Dick and Greg Egan. I like it, but not as much as Swiftly ...

(If you like the books listed above, a new book worth looking at -- not for my money either steam-y or punk-y, but certainly marketed as both -- is Dexter Palmer's The Dream of Perpetual Motion.)
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 22:27 on 2010-05-20
@mary-j-59: Consider yourself lucky that you've never tangled with Tom Kratman. Rehabilitating the Waffen-SS is the least of his problems.

@Arthur: I separate the two by classing any Victorian AH story that sticks close to the historical record as possible (beyond the Jonbar point and its subsequent changes, of course) and focuses primarily on the realistic development of that change as straight alternate history, while anything that happily violates the laws of biology/physics gets tossed in the steampunk bin.

@Niall: I will keep an eye out for it, assuming I don't forget.

As for Polystom, my personal weaksauce defense is to crib from George Orwell and say that, in being modeled after Wodehouse, Polystom's society is more of a fanciful version of upper-class Edwardian society rather than 1920s Britain, despite the 1920s-era technology.
Kyra-Wardog at 14:35 on 2010-06-07
All right, all right. You've thrown down the clockwork gauntlet. I'll pick it up.

If I had to read ONE of these as a teeth-gritting exercise in Giving Steampunk A Chance, which one should I shoot for?

I'm tempted to go for the Ian R. MacLeod...?
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 15:56 on 2010-06-07
@Kyra: Definitely the MacLeod books. The build is a little slow, but the prose gives the stories this sort of romantic luminous haze that is simply beautiful.

On an unrelated note, I looked over the list of titles I gave, and I've just realized that most of them seem to involve (or imply the imminent outbreak) of a WWI-style conflict. Probably personal bias on my part, though it is kinda weird that references to WWI are made primarily by the British writers rather than the American ones.
Arthur B at 16:46 on 2010-06-07
On an unrelated note, I looked over the list of titles I gave, and I've just realized that most of them seem to involve (or imply the imminent outbreak) of a WWI-style conflict.

This is quite possibly a consequence of the fact that if you take a Victorian or pseudoVictorian setting and extrapolate forwards, even if you deliberately veer away from the way our own world progressed it's still difficult to avoid the looming spectre of total war between the imperial powers.

I think it's partially because that's the way our own history went, and the World Wars were such a big deal it's kind of impossible to completely put them out of your head. But I'd also argue that the logical conclusion of colonialism is a knock-down hair-pulling generation-decimating fight between colonial powers. You can only play Risk for so long before you run out of empty areas and have to attack one of the other players in order to expand.
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 21:43 on 2010-06-08
This is quite possibly a consequence of the fact that if you take a Victorian or pseudoVictorian setting and extrapolate forwards, even if you deliberately veer away from the way our own world progressed it's still difficult to avoid the looming spectre of total war between the imperial powers.

Exactly. Of course, a lot of stuff labeled "steampunk" tries to stay within the confines of nineteenth-century London, or reworks the nationalist themes from the period pulp it emulates as so farcical that it just becomes more kitsch. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that steampunk is primarily an American creation rather than a British one. WWII has eclipsed WWI in American popular consciousness, so it's easier for an American writer to treat the whole Victorian/Edwardian period as a never-neverland than for a British writer, who's got the cultural baggage of WWI and all that came after to carry around.

I suppose this is the root of my problem with Scott Westerfeld's current YA series, Leviathan. He's got a WWI with a mech-armed Central Powers against a biotech-crazy Triple Entente, but the first book just sticks with the tropes of early 20th century youth adventure books, rather than trying to describe how fucking horrible and insane WWI was.
Guy at 05:53 on 2010-10-03
I just finished reading Leviathan, my first ever steampunk novel. I really enjoyed it! I wouldn't fault it yet for failing to depict the full horrors of WWI, given that it's set in the opening weeks of the conflict. It's a (somewhat) lighthearted YA adventure story, with age-of-steam mechs and flying whales... but if you take it for what it is, I don't think there's any reason why that should be a bad thing. Anyway, given that I know nothing about the genre, my recommendation probably shouldn't be given too much weight, but still, I recommend it. :)
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 20:43 on 2010-10-03
Reading over my last comment, my comments come off a bit harsher than I intended. I actually liked the book enough when I reviewed it a year ago for another ezine. Certainly there were plenty of areas where the setting could develop in interesting directions (particularly with the fact that the advanced tech means that both sides are essentially fighting WW2 and not realizing it, not to mention the puzzling silence on Russia). My pickyness can probably be chalked up to the fact that my two absolute favorite history books are The Great War and Modern Memory and Rites of Spring, and that I'm a massive Joseph Roth fanboy.
Michal at 03:03 on 2011-06-19
Oh, I am so glad to find that not everyone loved Boneshaker. Such a shallow, uninteresting book, with such shallow, uninteresting characters. And this is being touted as the great American steampunk hope.

Aargh.

I recently had a discussion with a friend who called steampunk a "simulacrum", as defined by one of his professors as "a copy without an original" (which isn't the actual definition, but meh) and I'm inclined to agree. The only good steampunk thing I've read is a short story that appeared in On Spec called "Ticker Hounds" by Sean Peters which, being in a small Canadian magazine, hasn't received any attention whatsoever. (Not wholly true, I read it for a comparative literature course on science fiction at the University of Alberta, but I'm thinking no one's heard of it outside of Canada)
Michal at 03:05 on 2011-06-19
Er, that should be Shawn Peters. Whoops.
Michal at 03:07 on 2011-06-19
And now I've suddenly found out this is the same guy who wrote Whitechapel Gods under the name "S.M. Peters" and it's in the same setting. Will have to read this book immediately.
Steve Stirling at 21:16 on 2011-07-12
With respect to WWI, you have to keep in mind that the powers who were serious colonial rivals (Russia, Britain, France) ended up fighting on the same side. This was a mind-bogglingly strange thing and was seen as such at the time; the Germans in particular never really believed it could happen, which accounts for (some) of the weirdness of their diplomacy in the ten years leading up to the war.

Britain had been preparing for the Big One -against- Russia for most of the 19th century, and Britain and France nearly went to war with each other over Fashoda in 1898 (which is an interesting AH in itself).

There was nothing inevitable about Britain and Germany fighting. The Germans managed to -force- Britain into the Entente, never really understanding what they were doing.

It's an illustration of how important a few influential individuals can be; the Kaiser and his I-want-cool-battleships fixation, Tirpitz, and a few others.
Steve Stirling at 03:39 on 2011-07-13
And, of course, virtually everything residing in the sludge of popular consciousness about the First World War is factually wrong -- which keeps a lot of fiction set in the period, or allohistorical versions thereof, at the level of caricature.

Eg., the belief that the British government whipped up popular feeling with false atrocity stories(*), or that "unfeeling" Chateau generals indifferently sent men to die.

The reason the Western Front was so bad was not that the generals were stupid or more callous than their profession required, but that the problems presented to them by the intersection of technology and geography were very, very hard. During most of the war they didn't -have- a solution, but the people in charge had to go on trying to find one.

And anyone who thinks the Treaty of Versailles was 'vengeful' towards Germany should take a look at the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest, which Germany imposed when it beat Russia and Romania respectively, or at the "September Program" the German government put together in 1914, listing their war aims in the West. Among Hitler's many sins is that he made the Kaiserreich look better than it should have in retrospect; the Second Reich had no conception of how to treat a beaten enemy other than taking them by the throat and squeezing until their eyeballs popped out.

The problem is that while the actual historical study of the war has gone through something of a revolution in the past thirty years, this has yet to sink into a popular culture still viewing it all through "Blackadder" episodes or "Oh, What a Lovely War".

(*) while there was a fair bit of exaggeration and rumor-mongering, basically the accusations made at the time were mostly true. The stuff that wasn't true -- the corpse-factory and babies-on-bayonets -- were derived from popular rumor, urban myths rather than inventions of some propaganda department.
Robinson L at 22:02 on 2011-07-14
Steve: And anyone who thinks the Treaty of Versailles was 'vengeful' towards Germany should take a look at the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest, which Germany imposed when it beat Russia and Romania respectively, or at the "September Program" the German government put together in 1914, listing their war aims in the West.

I don't claim to know much about World War I or the Treaty of Versailles, but I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. If we accept that the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest and the "Summer Program" were substantially worse, how does that in itself make the Treaty of Versailles not-vengeful? Saying "It could've been a lot worse," is a far cry from "It was not at all excessive."
Janne Kirjasniemi at 05:48 on 2011-07-15
Well, the atrocities associated with Germany were not propagated by any propaganda department as such didn't really exist, but they were brought to the public sphere by the media and in a big way too. It can be said, that the sort of non-regulated volunteer propaganda taken up by the newspapers was really the mode of propaganda in WWI.

As it comes to comparing treaties, it should be noted that Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest were made between a totally collapsed enemy and victor and in hindsight were perhaps a wrong move for Germany as they tied up too many resources. But I have to support Robinson here, the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was not as bad as the ones Germany made on the others, it was certainly a severe blow which at least created the mentality of the Weimar republic, where the German army never lost on the field and where the nation was betrayed by the home front.

It has to be said though, that the Treaty wasn't as bad as perhaps we have been led to believe. Hell, after the Franco-Prussian war roughly a third of France was occupied until they coughed up the reparations.
Steve Stirling at 22:53 on 2011-07-15
how does that in itself make the Treaty of Versailles not-vengeful? Saying "It
could've been a lot worse," is a far cry from "It was not at all excessive."


-- since Germany specifically did far worse when it had the upper hand, it wasn't kosher for the Germans to get all bitter and cranky about a treaty which didn't do nearly as much negative stuff to them.

Versailles took some territory from Germany; most of it was territory whose inhabitants didn't consider themselves German. It imposed a war guilt clause that was essentially accurate; the Central Powers -did- start the war; Belgium did not throw itself at Germany's throat. The reparations were much smaller than those which Germany had forced on France in 1871. And so forth and so on.

Given that Germany had engaged in a massive war of unprovoked aggression against her neighbors, the limitations on German armament were unproblematic. Germany wasn't threatened -- the Allies had Germany at their mercy in 1918, and hadn't done anything more.

Essentially Germany threw a hissy fit because they lost the war.
Steve Stirling at 22:55 on 2011-07-15
It can be said, that the sort of non-regulated volunteer propaganda taken up by
the newspapers was really the mode of propaganda in WWI.


-- yup.

However, most of the atrocities the Germans were accused of were perfectly genuine. They did burn Louvaine, they did massacre thousands of innocent civilians, they did deport hundreds of thousands for forced labor and starve more hundreds of thousands to death, and so forth and so on. They did initiate the use of gas, the air bombing of cities, unlimited U-boat warfare, and so forth and so on again.

A British propagandist whose memoires I read said that the Germans made his job easy. Whenever opinion started to shift against the Entente, "the Germans would do something Hun-like".
Arthur B at 23:09 on 2011-07-15
-- since Germany specifically did far worse when it had the upper hand, it wasn't kosher for the Germans to get all bitter and cranky about a treaty which didn't do nearly as much negative stuff to them.

Whether or not the Germans had the moral high ground has nothing to do with whether or not the treaty was excessively punitive, and was exerting a punitive effect long after the war was over.

Sure, in World War II the Allies sought the unconditional surrender of Germany rather than a negotiated peace, precisely so the Germans couldn't kid themselves that they could have won it had they kept fighting. But then the Marshall Plan came in to build Germany back up rather than keep it on its back.
Steve Stirling at 08:52 on 2011-07-19
But then the Marshall Plan
came in to build Germany back up rather than keep it on its back


-- after WWII, 11,000,000 German civilians were ethnically cleansed from areas of eastern Europe where their ancestors had lived from time out of mind (and over a million were just killed); Germany permanently lost large stretches of territory that had been German for many centuries; all of Germany was put under military occupation; Germany was partitioned for nearly 50 years, undoing the Second Reich's unification process; the eastern half was plundered down to the foundations and subjected to mass rape and other forms of extreme oppression; and Germany's leaders were put on trial and many executed.

Not to mention that almost to the end of the war, long after Germany's defeat was certain, the Western allies bombed German cities into firestorms where tens of thousands of civilians died in a single night and the gutters ran with melted human fat. There's a reason they call 1945 the "year zero".

Compared to the punishment Germany got during and after WWII, what she suffered in WWI and at Versailles was a flesh wound followed by a minor slap on the wrist at Versailles. And the Allies visibly lost the nerve and will necessary to enforce it, which compounded the error.

This illustrates the point of Machiavelli's dictum that you should never do an enemy a small injury.

WWI and the settlement after it were just severe enough to enrage Germany without permanently weakening it. WWII convinced them right down in their bones that they were whipped, and turned them from hysterical militarists into hysterical pacifists.

Afterwards (and for our own purposes) the US gave West Germany help... as long as it remained a loyal client state. Note that there are -still- American military bases in Germany, 66 years after the end of the war.
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 00:45 on 2011-07-31
And now, to abruptly change the subject back to the ostensible topic of the article!

I wanted to mention that I have discovered one more book that I would include on the list of "steampunk that doesn't suck": Dexter Palmer's 2010 debut The Dream of Perpetual Motion. I tried writing an in-depth review of it, but I found there was simply too much going on for me to put into an article that would do it justice. To summarize it briefly, it's a Pynchonesque fictional autobiography that doubles as a potted history of modernism. There's allusions to The Tempest and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, archaic high technology, people trying to conform to roles they cannot embrace as their own, meditations on the inability of words to properly capture experiences, a baleful depiction of the relationship between the creative personality and academia, as well as an impressive culinary critique of vegetarian pizza.
Michal at 06:41 on 2011-09-21
Gosh, I completely missed the fact that Fitzpatrick's War features a Yukon Confederacy. As someone who, well, actually lives in the Yukon, I'm kind of weirded out thinking our essentially nearly uninhabited territory would end up conquering most of the western world. I haven't read the book, so how does this happen, exactly? Am I going to be offended at the portrayal of my fellow sourdoughs? What's the author's rationale for picking the Yukon in the first place?

(Which, coincidentally, Cherie Priest seems to think is covered by a giant ice sheet.)
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 07:06 on 2011-09-21
According to a history lesson in the beginning of the book, it was a joke name that stuck. The Yukons started out in the early 21st century as a conservative "back to the land"-type sect called the New Agrarians. Initially they were mocked by mainstream American society, and were nicknamed "Yukons" due to the fact that, since they lived in rural areas and shunned anything invented after 1950, they might as well be living in the Yukon. The Yukons just took the name and ran with it.

Culturally, there's not really that much "Yukon" about the Yukons. Probably the best way to describe them would be as sort of primordial Americans (as in Europeans of North America before 1776) leavened with English-nobility-as-imagined-by-Americans and whatever bits and pieces of Classical culture that fancied them.
Michal at 16:30 on 2011-09-21
Initially they were mocked by mainstream American society, and were nicknamed "Yukons" due to the fact that, since they lived in rural areas and shunned anything invented after 1950, they might as well be living in the Yukon.

That makes a little more sense. Theodore Judson probably saw how tiny the population was here and went "Eh, it won't hurt sales." I happen to think Yukoners are quite modern and progressive, y'know? I mean, we stopped using steam-powered paddlewheelers in the 1960s!
http://kingwalters.livejournal.com/ at 20:51 on 2012-10-07
There's a nice appreciation of Fitzpatrick's War here:

http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2006/04/read-me-once-shame-on-you.html

Guess who turns up in the comments?
In order to post comments, you need to log in to Ferretbrain or authenticate with OpenID. Don't have an account? See the About Us page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in May 2010