Today I read a blog post about somebody claiming to have invented the Sci-Fi sub-genre of "heliumpunk".  Now, seriously.  Why?  Do we really need more sci-fi anthologies that include the world "punk" in the title? To be honest, the whole post pretty much drips of conceit, and that is possibly the most off-putting thing about it, but it's not the only one.



Listen to this:

Since I "invented" Heliumpunk, I feel authoritative enough to define it: "A future or near-future setting where anachronistic and obsolete technology is given a new lease on life, not just because it is cool, but for plausible reasons within the setting."

Honestly, the only thing that seems to differ between "heliumpunk" and (sci-fi's flavor of the year) steampunk seems to be the fact that "heliumpunk" is set in the future, while steampunk is set in an alternative past.



Don't believe me?



Listen to this:

This setting begs to have air pirates who are after your helium, flying around on crude gliders with harpoon guns and futuristic goggles.

Or this:

BSG uses technology that is old from its own perspective, not from the perspective of the viewer. Heliumpunk uses tech that is outmoded even by today's standards and gives it new life.

And this:

A novel with polearm-wielding Zeppelin pilots flying over the Arctic whilst being pursued by multinational Helium conglomerates.

The air-goggles thing really got me.  I mean, yes, air-goggles are cool.  I would even go so far as to describe them as sexy.  But what your discussing - the fashion, the fight scenes, the setting, the involved conversations about the pros and cons of fighting with polearms - this is all window dressing.  Is it possible to define an entire genre, or even sub-genre for that matter, with peripheries?



I understand, when it comes to speculative fiction, it's the speculation part of it that can be the most fun, and while that may work really really great for you and all yr D&D playmates, it doesn't write the goddamn story.  A story is more than plot and setting (which seems to be the only thing steampunk fans care to talk about these days). 



Think about it. 



Think about the great sci-fi novels that made you wet your pants with glee & imagination.  Think about what really gets you when you watch Firefly.  Is it the cheap visual tricks, or is it the characters?  What year was Concrete Island set in?  What was the dominant fashion of Farenheit 451?  Where were the sexy air-goggles in Time Out of Joint?



Even the direct predecessor of steampunk, my beloved cyberpunk, showed some interest in concepts beyond what weapons were used and what people wore.  It was used as window dressing mostly.  A way to make the ideas and concepts come alive as people, rather than notes on a piece of paper.  Granted, the whole concept of cyberspace was pure speculation (the fun part!) on the part of Gibson, but we have it now.  It's real life, it's in front of us, and it turned out to be a fucking waste of time. 



Bruce Sterling gives blogs 4 - 5 more years before they die off as all cultural fads do.  And he should know about fads - he was one of the "founders" of cyberpunk.



Doctor Who enthusiast and zinester Tat Wood describes steampunk, in his essay Disraeli Gears* describes the genre as a marketing category.  With good reason too.  The term "cyberpunk" was coined by Bruce Bethke as a marketing ploy to make his books more noticeable.  And honestly, that's all the term "steampunk" or any other derivative (concept + "punk" = subgenre) can make me think of.



Marketing.



Attempts to make money.



Now, I will never write off a piece of work simply because it is associated with a particular "movement" or genre, but please give it a rest.  I've already admitted that air-goggles are sexy...



...





...



...but not as sexy as vision-enhancing mirrored lenses surgically attached to your face.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I know I said I wouldn't bore the comic-book exclusive folks who read this blog with any of my meanderings on science fiction but...



I finally caved and picked up the first two seasons of the new Doctor Who series.  I'm pretty damn excited.  Up until now I've pretty much settled for catching whatever loose episodes I can on the Sci-Fi Channel or watching flash videos of clips on the internet.  But after having done that, I'm really glad I saved up the money and actually spent it on the DVD sets because, well, they're really nice looking DVD sets.  The box for the second season is even better looking than the first, with a nice holographic cover and some sweet illustrations and pictures on the insert (I like to refer to them as "liner notes"). 



One of the other reasons I'm particularly psyched about the second season is that, in the beginning, Christopher Eccleston was somewhat unconvincing as the Doctor for me.  He seemed to hard all the time.  Sure the Doctor could be an asshole a lot of the time, but I always saw him as a somewhat playful character and Eccleston failed in that department for me.  To be fair, the level of "play" he adds to the cast of Heroes has made him one of my new favorite characters on that show.



The fact that an actor like Eccleston can find success on two perofmances steeped so high in the Science Fiction genre is somewhat astonishing to me.  Hardcore Sci-Fi nerds, similar to comic book nerds, still hold a bit of resentment towards the mainstream public in spite of recent success in the genre.  I mean, comics and sci-fi never went away.  There was always Star Trek and there were of course the Justice League and X-Men cartoons, but on some level the prime-time viewing audience was not quite ready for a show like Battlestar Galactica or Heroes until now. The fact that both shows are doing so well is a boon for fans, but I feel that it creates a strange riff between supposed new-comers and those of us who have remained faithful.



I mean, at this point it really comes down to whether you mutter "frakkin' bitch" under your breath at work or "fraggin' bastich". It's a moot point, but still one still large enough to draw a thin line in the sand.



I honestly believe that if shows like Doctor Who and BSG had originally premiered on major networks like NBC or CBS, they would have done just as well as Heroes and Lost (yes, I choose to include Lost as part of the science fiction genre's oeuvre). I mean, at this point, BSG has probably done a better job of attracting new viewers than Lost has of keeping old viewers interested. And most West Wing fans I am friends with have already given up on Studio 60, while finding solace in the socio-political drama of BSG .



So, all that being said, I'm off to watch some TARDIS action. I will undoubtedly scare off any social interaction with my roommate or his little brother for the evening with my loud cries of "EXTERMINATE!", muffled only by my bedroom door. Oh, and if any of you are on the fence about purchasing the DVDs instead of just downloading episodes or watching them on Youtube, I give you three words:



SIMON MOTHERFUCKING PEGG

Powered by ScribeFire.