Does Weird World War I equal VSF?

[the fallen scholar]

Hi group;

I have a question:  Does Weird World War I equal VSF?  The time periods are close.  What would be in Weird World War I?  Walkers?  Gas masks?  Zombies?  Views or ideas? 

Regards

The Fallen Scholar

[answer_is_42]

I suppose it depends on what you consider the difference between 'weird' and Sci Fi is (if there is one). I fyou want WW1 SF, then go look at turn of the century science fiction and future fiction. If you want to do 'weird' then it's up to you!

For the former I would suggest H.G. Wells' The War in the Air and The Land Ironclads to start you off.

[Westfalia Chris]

Without getting too fixated on "periods", I would consider "The Great Weird War" a different kettle of fish than VSF.

On second thought, though, one might reasonably argue that this is mainly fuelled by changing design aesthetics. I would associate WW1 with a drab, more functional style rather than the more "whimsical", elaborate design flair commonly thought to be "Victorian" or "Steam Punk".

From a purely technical point of view, the main difference would probably be the (compared to the 19th century) widespread availability of the combustion engine and electricity, so 3W1 tech could represent that - your combat walkers would run on gas engines rather than steam. For larger stuff, oil-fired steam engines (especially as a turbine variety) would still be more efficient, I guess, although large diesel engines could be justified, too.

As for truly "weird" components, I guess the usual suspects would be zombies born of chemical warfare, and for the Eastern front some transylvanian werewolves and stuff. There are some threads over on the Weird Wars board which cover the concept, and coincidentally, a Weird War 1 thread should rather be put there, unless the good Mr. Malamute is happy to keep it in his bailiwick (now that sounds somewhat dirty, doesn't it... ).

[wargamer1972]

Yes, the end of the VSF era.

[aggro84]

I disagree.

Queen Victoria (the Victoria in Victorian Science Fiction) died in 1901.

Unless of course her life was prolonged with Martian bath salts of course. 

[DoctorPete]

So maybe "Edwardian" or "post-Edwardian" SciFi?   

[Froggy the Great]

I'd say Edwardian - it's a whole different aesthetic IMNERHO.

Then again - I VSFify Mancha's Edwardian Hinterlanders - so really, do what you like and you'll be just as Right as the rest of us.

[Gary Mitchell]

The term 'dieselpunk' is increasingly being used for the period 1900-1950, if that helps?

[tnjrp]

"Xpunk" (enter a suitable defining term in place of the "X") genres are a bit disparage from the "Y science fiction" (substitute a period, a decade or whatyouneed for the "Y"), even if they happen to overlap in their time period - or rather they are supposed to be. Form the marketing department perspective, "Xpunk" sells better than "Y science fiction" and so they stamp a label with the p-word on anything fairly willynilly.

I would say that a WWWI setting could be anything from "Edwardian science fiction" to "industrial fantasy set in the time of historical WWI" (now there's a definition no marketing department will touch ), and could even be dieselpunk but it's very unlikely that it (really) is if you find one on the shelf with the said word printed on the cover. I wouldn't say it's Victorian science fiction although there could be a historical component to the setting that arises from a VSF world.

[Malamute]

 There are some threads over on the Weird Wars board which cover the concept, and coincidentally, a Weird War 1 thread should rather be put there, unless the good Mr. Malamute is happy to keep it in his bailiwick (now that sounds somewhat dirty, doesn't it... ).

I am happy for it to stay here, unless fallen scholar would like it to be moved to the Weird Wars board.

[SBRPearce]

GaryMitchell -  "Dieselpunk" is a narrower 'period' than the 5 decades you suggest. I think the aesthetic is a closer to 1920s-1930s - streamlining, pinstripes, more "Dusenberg SJ" than "Stutz Bearcat" (more "1933 Ford 3-window coupe*" than "Ford Model T") if you'll permit a couple of automobile analogies.

"Crimson Skies" is, technologically, pretty "dieselpunk". "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is definitely dieselpunk. Classic Buck Rogers could almost be "ether/diesel"punk ("rocketpunk" perhaps?)

[the fallen scholar]

Agreed "Dieselpunk" is in the 1920's-1940's.  I would like to keep the thread here in VSF if you don't mind.

Regards

The Fallen Scholar

[Plynkes]

I always find it quite amusing given how the Alternative History bods tend to like to characterise themselves as a breed apart from us historicos; untrammelled by the pedantic preoccupations of historicity and detail, and liberated from the tyranny of the button‐counter; just how much they love to engage in prolonged debate about the numbers of angels dancing on the pinheads of their imagined worlds. 

[answer_is_42]

I always find it quite amusing given how the Alternative History bods tend to like to characterise themselves as a breed apart from us historicos; untrammelled by the pedantic preoccupations of historicity and detail, and liberated from the tyranny of the button‐counter; just how much they love to engage in prolonged debate about the numbers of angels dancing on the pinheads of their imagined worlds. 

Yup. Thing is, even Alternative History* 'exists' within its own time period, especially if you're deriving it from period fiction.


*The historian E.P. Thompson, viewing debates such as this, described it as 'Unhistorical Shit'. 

[Plynkes]

Yup. Thing is, even Alternative History* 'exists' within its own time period, especially if you're deriving it from period fiction.

True, but consider the endless (this is far from the first time I've read a thread like this, and I'd willingly lay money down that it won't be the last) discussions, debates and arguments over the definitions of, and even what one should call the genres. For a niche that seems to pride itself on its relaxed, carefree attitude (in stark contrast to that other lot, the historicos), doesn't it seem to you a little, well... anal, this apparent need to relentlessly pigeon-hole everything?


This is not meant to be taken as a criticism, more an observation of the "We're not so different, you and I" variety.