Boulder Book Club discussion

Having made it beyond the midpoint, I must admit that the writing isn't terrible most of the time. It's not great most of the time either, but it's not terrible.

I posit, however, that among us, any or all of us could write a better steampunk novel. To prove this, I've devised a challenge:

1) Each of us writes a scene from their steampunk story. This could be an action scene that lasts ten pages or a short bit of description that lasts two paragraphs, though I recommend that we don't over do it in length. If your scene needs context, a paragraph at the beginning or end should do it.

2) We submit these passages under pseudonyms. We can either use an anonymous emailer or designate a collector who can remain impartial.

3) A couple days before the meeting, we get a document with all the collected passages to read. At the meeting, we'll compare which our favorites (or least favorites) are and why. The pseudonyms are there to prevent embarrassment and encourage participation, but feel free to deny or take credit after the fact.

I'm not really one to call someone a "bad" writer, per se, and while I'm not enamored with Cherie Priest's writing, I do think there's st least some good things to be taken away. And besides, this will give us some excellent fodder to discussing steampunk and Boneshaker. After all, it's more respectful than the erotica contest some of you had.

So who's in?

I SO win! Wooooo!
Oh, what, I didn't win yet? Well I WILL.
Holy holy smokes whatagreatidea. I should've had it mySELF! Ok, ok doesssn't matter the important thing is I Love It!

But, wait?
Does that mean NO erotic steampunk?
...wtf?

Mark wrote: "But, wait?
Does that mean NO erotic steampunk?
...wtf?"

yeah, mine'll be erotic for sure. Sexy, erotic steamy punk.

Hey, I hope everybody will do this, or at least a few of us. BS-er still offers lots for discussion, I think, not least because much of the value of the book club comes from the group itself.
I suggest a dramatic reading of one or two of the offerings.
I'm done, so fair warning: the meeting's gotta be soon, or it's only gonna get Loooooonger! (sneak peek: mine's got a locomotive in it! Beat THAT, punks!)

I'll volunteer to collect those and begin posting them up once I have three or more.

Perhaps we should start discussing a meeting date?

Foreshadowing: Steampunk meets real punk (tank girl!) here. Also, the movie for BoneShaker needs to be Sky Captain. (It matches the book in era, sepia tone, plumped lips, and insipid tone. What to make of the astonishing lack of zombies, I dunno.)

I don't think it spoils to offer my present musings on chapter order. (I've left out the good bits.) In final incarnation, I imagine a glossy graphic novel bursting onto the NYT Best Seller list, wrangling for movie rights, then Cannes, contracting to play a cameo in the unrated French version, paparazzi, and a fiery crash in my Mazerati on some pastoral Swiss mountainside, Lady Gaga's body found also in the driver's seat; the usual author stuff.

Meanwhile, the PG rated version of the NYT best seller will go like this.

Fukushima, 2012
Quixote dismembered
Journey through Life:
She is Thrown Into the Inferno
He Finds a Museum
The Curator (display of steam)
Trying to Rebuild
Her Further Adventures aboard Inferno
Chickenfight
Dreadnoughts

I'm not sure anonymity will matter with you involved, Mark.

Brilliant idea Ben!

Also, I was (semi) jokingly saying that I could resuscitate my former life aa a smut peddler and make a killing off a steamy suicide girlsesque steampunk site.

Ben, exactly.
So, after receiving instruction from several sources, I've tried to assemble a bare-bones recipe for steampunk & suggest the following:
1) Setting. I think basically this has to be someplace where they have railroads and apothecaries.
2) Steam: well, duh. It's got to have clanky machines.
3) Bizarre hook. This is the tricky bit. Should be self deprecatory & humorous, but maybe not so "over the top" that, if your tastes are juvenile enough, you can't choose to take it seriously.

Hey, maybe we should give prizes for excellence in those categories!

A little more about the "hook" ...is it some kind or imaginative jumping off point like the drilling machine in Pellucidar or Boneshaker?

I think it's interesting that in both of those books, the meat of the novel centered on the society enabled by this invention. I had some trouble finding the right word for that, it's hardly a causal relationship in either case! Rather, we've just got a plot artifice that allows us to take an otherwise impossible leap of faith.

I would have said the zombies are just an irritating distraction but one of you (Ben? Gina?) professed that the whacky bit's needed to fulfill the punk part of the genre: with only steam, maybe it's just fantasy / sci-fi. That's pretty interesting.

Isn't the Golden compass series supposed to be steampunk? What with the dirigibles and airships and some clockwork?

Can the 'punk' part be subversive as opposed to whacky?

I don't see why not. I don't think there's anything definitive, and clearly, from the argument in the other thread, there's some argument about what steampunk is and what sort of steampunk Boneshaker is.

Steampunk: yes or no?
Chronicles of Riddick.
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Sky Captain & World of Tomorrow.
Golden Compass (What, am I stuck on movies?)
Mainspring & Escapement
Pellucidar
The fabulous Riverboat
John Carter/Mars
SnowCrash (surely cyber)
20k Leagues & etc...
and my surprise mega entry from 70's TELEVISON...
Wild Wild West.
It's got cyborgs and steam and silliness. There was always lots of surprise victorian technology.

Eh? Yeah baby.

No (Sci Fi), Yes, Yes, Maybe but probably No (Mark: The Golden Compass was a book first), I haven't read/seen the next four, No (Cyberpunk), Yes to Movie No to Book (Titanic had a big boat too, but it's not Steampunk), and "surprise" Yes.

It's hard for me to call things with magic, such as The Golden Compass, steampunk. I know that the steam technologies explored are often unrealistic and fanciful, but, as with sci fi, there's a fine line between suspending disbelief and creating completely alternate existence. As much as I love Full Metal Alchemist and it's steampunk style, the magic involved makes it hard for me not to call it fantasy instead.

It's hard not to give it to Riddick just because of the necro-lensor, check out this helmet!

On Verne, it's hard to see how you disallow those unless by your earlier injunction that "it can't be, 'cause the word wasn't yet invented."

As far as sci-fi vs fantasy, I think when the science is laughable (and it usually is) then it's just providing cover under which you can sweep your disbelief, a whitewash. So there's no real difference. Now, that DOESN'T apply to all sci-fi, but, jaded, I think it's not as easy nowadays to credibly project a scientific advance of world altering proportion as it once was. Ringworld seems more fantastic than "sci-fi" for instance. So, I'd like to explore your fine line. Aren't Zombies magic? Is the difference just a matter of pretending?

Last, wow I'm surprised about those 4 unread and jealous you've got some fun books ahead of you.

For some reason my desktop just doesn't want to comment successfully, so here's attempt #3.

For me, Fantasy is a broad genre involving anything that is impossible or unprovable. Science Fiction is a subgenre of Fantasy in which the unprovable premises are based closely enough on science that it's more believable and grounded. Steampunk should be Science Fiction that uses steam-based science instead of modern knowledge and digital science. You get camp off-shoots when they deviate from the rules and play with tropes in such a way that they're emphasizing the most basic elements without much depth.

On to zombies:
Zombies are two things to me, and neither of them are magic.

Firstly, zombies are predicated on science fact. Parasites that control their hosts, albeit in much smaller ways than zombiedom, exist in nature. Given that we are biology programmed to follow our DNA, it's not a big stretch that viral genetic changes could create a zombie-like disease. Most authors don't really explore these things. George Romero, as with Cherie Priest's volcanic gas, offers up a very cursory explanation (object from space) and let's it fall by the wayside. Max Brooks doesn't even touch on a reason really, instead focusing on the aftermath, in his seminal zombie book World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. I guess that's what makes the CDC's zombie preparedness plan so awesome: it treats the subject as true science fiction worth thinking about.

Secondly, zombies are really a MacGuffin of sorts used to explore humanity in relation to an end of society as we know it. Zombies, in this way, can equally be replaced by isolation (see Lord of the Flies and The Beach, notably directed by 28 Days Later director Danny Boyle).

Zombies are a means to an end, and it's better for the audience to gloss over the difficult science once a basic believable premise is provided. If, however, the suspension of disbelief is too difficult to overcome, the zombies fail as sci fi as easily as anything else.

Well, it's good to know there's a credible scientific foundation for zombies. For a minute there, I wasn't sure.

Ok, "Kaigun" the backstory to my steampunk chapter is up, here. A small part of the idea is a "landship" which I've fantasized about for some time. It's a fun idea mixing oceangoing sailboats with wheels. Now, looking for a picture, I discover the idea's long since been had by the original Buddha of steampunk himself, Verne, who used the idea of big ice boats in around the world in 80 days (which I've not read). I wonder if the idea came to me that way, through some back door in my mind.

There have only been two submissions so far, but they're here for your reading pleasure:

BBC: The Steampunk Challenge

Ben wrote: "There have only been two submissions so far, but they're here for your reading pleasure:

BBC: The Steampunk Challenge"

...whoever used "ichor" in the first paragraph gets an automatic 10 extra credit points for "atmosphere." That's better'n coal dust: all the steam, & none of the gloom, eh? It's excellent fun and I also wish I'd managed anonymity 'cause I like that too, trying to figure out who wrote it. I sort of think I'm down to three, but I'm keeping my suspicions to m'self.

I missed most of this thread while I was on vacation. For those who still have some interest in steampunk, however, I just read a short article that advances the theory that Mervyn Peake wrote the first steampunk "novel," namely, the Gormenghast series. I read 100 pages of Titus Groan in a single sitting when I was about 13 years old. I think that was the first time I ever read that much at one go. Sadly, I never finished the book! Anyway, the article is here.