[yummyfajitas]

Ok, I really need to take issue with one piece of this essay: "But there's a dark side as well. We know about the real world of the era steampunk is riffing off. And the picture is not good.[...] It's the world that bequeathed us the adjective "Dickensian", that gave us a fully worked example of the evils of a libertarian minarchist state, and that provoked Marx to write his great consolatory fantasy epic, The Communist Manifesto. [...]The romanticization of totalitarianism is nothing new (and if you don't recognize the totalitarian urge embedded in the steampunk nostalgia trip..."

Steampunk romanticizes totalitarianism? Huh?

Near as I can tell, steampunk is about a certain aesthetic, one where machines are intuitively understandable. Most people can understand, at least in principle, how a device made of gears and pistons works. On the other hand, genetics and semiconductors are simply magic.

Steampunk celebrates the visible, and the particular era being described simply happens to coincide with that stage of technological development.

[kiba → yummyfajitas]

As far as I can tell, the industrial revolution was a time of economic and social progress.

If I remember correctly, child labors wasn't outlawed until the great depression in the states. It was mainly about keeping out the competition than helping children.

What people read in their history textbook are brief and history is not what they're really are. Is there really the evil of a libertarian miniarchist state? I supposed the textbook that I am taught in school seem that way.

However, I learned that Standard Oil gave up trying to control the market, but it was sued anyway. Years later, I heard that antitrust laws were used to bully small corporations, not actually break up big corporate enterprise. Big corporations have better lawyers and better resources to defend themselves so they were left alone.

American writers once used natural laws and natural laws to keep out British competition in the 19th century, when they advocated copyright supposedly for the benefit of British writers.

If there's anything I learned, history is often sanitized by the winners. So it is better to read lot of history and learn for yourself the sinister activities of groups, no matter if they're corporations, states, and individuals.

Even so, I am confused by today Americans' love of democracy and why the French celebrate the French Revolution? Collective madness is pretty evil yet everybody ignored that.

[icegreentea → yummyfajitas]

I don't really agree with the article as well.

But it romanticizes it in so much as it celebrates elements from a (relatively) totalitarian era. It's pretty hard to argue that enormous parts of the Steampunk aesthetic and appeal comes from at least some level the fondness of the era of the industrial revolution, an era that in real history relied on non-trivial degrees of human suffering.

Of course, the author is really trying to make a much stronger connection. That Steampunk (and many future Sci Fi) fans and authors are on some level supporting a degree of totalitarianism by enjoying/writing works where totalitarianism "works".

While I can see the connection, I really don't think it's something you can legitimately hold against Steampunk or any genre the realities of their historical basis. While the 19th century certainly sucked for a lot of people, the preceding 40 odd centuries also sucked a lot.

[kiba]

I thought he was going to make fun of people who dressed in steampunk fashion and their non-functional items before I click on and read the article.

For me, I like steampunk gadgets that actually work, with gears, steams, and all.

As for everything else, I'll stick to my idea of a self-replicating lego logistic network, complete with a train network and a thing-o-matic made out of lego.