Comments on: The dark side of dieselpunk

By: Steve Weintz

Steve Weintz — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:21 +0000

Superior discussion!

There’s also the whole question of “Mid-Century Modern,” a term coined at least about, if not in Palm Springs, CA, where atomic- jet- space- retropunk hit some stylistic heights. If anyone remembers the wonderful old Disneyland attraction, the “Carousel of Progress”, it’s as if the boxed set of “*-punks” capture the eras of the 20th Century as they might have been.

By: Atari

Atari — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:08:36 +0000

As a pilot, I like to make the Steam-, Diesel-, Atomic- punk designations by looking at aeronautical technology especially in addition to other cultural aesthetics.

For example, steampunk is fairly simple in its portrayal of aeronautical tech: mainly by aerostatic devices (balloons, simple airships, steam-driven “zeppelins”, gliders, etc.)

For me, aerotech is the main divide between dieselpunk and atomic punk. Dieselpunk incorporates the early, fledgling powered flight technologies. I make the timeline distinction sometime around 1917 when biplanes have all-but been perfected as war machines, vertical flight (prototype helicopters) has been achieved, and the technology drive is to reach the edge of the power envelope for the piston engine. Howard Hughes would be the championing hero of the scene through his pervasive influence on the air races and materials development.

This is the era of what we know as Zeppelins–with their potential as luxury liners, EXTREMELY efficient cargo ships, and Airborne aircraft carriers–light sport aircraft, DIY kit aircraft, autogyros, and “crewed” aircraft (large bombers, Zeps, and even the airborne platforms of “Sky Captain”). I love this aesthetic because it gives rise to one of my favourite plot devices: air piracy (think Microsoft/FASA’s “Crimson Skies” or, one of my favourite shows as a kid, Disney’s “Tale Spin”)

The transition to atomicpunk begins sometime around 1944-1945, when jet engines begin to make their appearance in the skies. Rudimentary jets could be used as “experimental tech” plot devices, but the “Jet Age” really belongs to atomicpunk. Also, decisively, the use of nuclear weapons on Japan effectively ends the “gilded age” of art deco and jazz–ushering in the jet set, rock and roll, nukes, and–most notably for me–real helicopters.

To me, there’s a transition period from 1945-1950ish, but dieselpunk effectively ENDS when jets and nukes enter the scene full-scale (about the time the Korean conflict would start)

By: Piechur

Piechur — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:51:49 +0000

Steam- and dieselpunk are very specific genres of science fiction – more “visual” than others, identified through their aesthetics rather than by theme.
The difference between pre- and post-WWI aesthetics (respectively reflected in steampunk and dieselpunk) mostly comes from the influence of war industry and its economy. During the Great War the equipment had to be cheap, efficient and mass-produced. The elegance of belle-epoque was definitely set aside.
I have to agree with flyingfortress on not mixing up dieselpunk and post-apocalyptic sci-fi, which is completely different animal. There’s no post-apocalyptic aesthetics at all – well, nothing comparable to dieselpunk, nothing that would imitate 1920-40s style. There are exceptions of course like “Kerberos” saga or “Fallout”, but calling “Mad Max” and “Waterworld” dieselpunk is an abuse or funny misunderstanding.

By: flyingfortress

flyingfortress — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:14:02 +0000

Well, I’d be careful to note the difference between dark, dystopian postwar and post-apocalyptic scenarios. I think dystopias fit into a dieselpunk setting easily (and cyberpunk and [other]punk just as well), but post-apocalyptic scenarios should be given their full credit as a universe unto themselves, rather than shoehorned into dieselpunk.

And yes, we definitely owe a thankyou to Piecraft for one of the first and largest contributions to online dieselpunk. I am, however, more of an Ottensian .

By: Ottens

Ottens — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:22:09 +0000

Great post! I’d never really considered the two different flavors of dieselpunk, though I’m honored indeed that I might name one of them! I’m quite sure Mr Piecraft was one of the first people to define the characteristics of dieselpunk, or at least those characteristics he saw defining of the genre. I’m not entirely sure whether Piecraft saw, or sees, pulp as great importance to the genre’s origins, but either way, he was one of the first people who attempted to get dieselpunk accepted on wikipedia–a struggle we maintain to wage!

In the meantime, I think especially the latter, Piecraftian, dieselpunk required further scrutiny, for it rather lacks works of fiction which adhere to this category. Mad Max and Fallout in particular are fine installments, but other than there don’t appear to be many high-profile works of fiction in this field. Not that this ought to discredit the Piecraftian dieselpunk at all! Indeed, I wish there were many more dieselpunk works of fiction set in a post-WW2 world with somewhat more darker, dystopian overtones, but it would seem that the retro-futuristic and pulp-like pre-WW2 dieselpunk in the vein of Sky Captain and Indiana Jones, is more popular.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:25:19 +0000

I’ve actually seen a number of people who go for the Victorian-styled post-apocalyptic settings – check out “Unhallowed Metropolis” for something along that line. Post-apocalyptic settings generally have the same feel as the era they share the name with even if they don’t share the same numbers on the calendar.

I do think your timeline distinction is a valuable one. Atomicpunk feels as different from dieselpunk as steampunk does, so if we think one distinction is valuable, we should make both.