Retrofuturism: Sandalpunk and Candlepunk

Celebrim · Feb 24, 2017

Igwilly said:
About Formicapunk; I saw only some people criticizing the term. It appears to be its own thing. It's even in TV Tropes.

I looked at the entry on 'TV Tropes', and it appears to be a genera created by accidental anachronisms rather than intentional creation. That is to say, it's a genera created by extrapolating into the future and not understanding the near term implications of digital technology rather than by any attempt to consciously eschew digital invention or imagine a world without it.

An example that comes to mind for me is Alexi Panshin's 'Rite of Passage' where they travel between the stars in an extrapolated 1970's spaceship powered by nuclear explosions, but they still do math on a slide rule. That is, the author can imagine a star ship, but can't imagine a digital calculator.

The marker of this trope appears to be a future setting where cathrode ray tubes or cassette tapes exist. But while that might be a thing, I'm not sure it's a genera, and certainly I wouldn't agree that 'Babylon 5' is 'Formicapunk' despite being cited as an example (solely because budget constraints with the props!).

'Cassette Futurism' doesn't seem to be a deliberate genera creation, so much as the writer not understanding the immediate impact of the digital revolution going on at the time, or an accidental result of a prop artist trying to create a mock up of a futuristic set using only modern technology. 'Back to the Future' imagining the world of today filled with fax machines and not email, which is cited by the TV trope page as an example, is simply an example of a faulty future extrapolation rather than a conscious attempt to imagine a future without digital technology where analog technology replaces it.

One of the few examples I can think of that is intentional is the pre-cataclysm 'Fallout' universe, where the pre-cataclysm USA is parodied as people wanting bigger cars and analog devices because using the more expensive, bigger, less efficient technology is a status symbol and a form of social signaling. The transistor appears to exist in the Fallout universe (because it is denigrated as foreign un-American technology), but people preferred vacuum tubes and mechanical computers culturally. However, even that verges on being 'Diesel Punk', in that the vacuum tube dates to 1904 and was in wide use by the 1940's, and the culture being parodied in 'Fallout' is the 1950's, not the 1970's or 1980's.

The Trope Namer appears to be a single French comic, and I guess you'd have to add me to the list of people that think that the comic doesn't actually understand the fundamental assumptions of the genera. Instead, it seems to wrongly think that it's futurism simply with a certain retro-aesthetic.

And that's not even to get into the use of "Punk" as a generic genera suffix completely divorced from feelings of social alienation, anti-authortarianism, acting out, and fears about the future.

Igwilly · Feb 24, 2017

Well, I'll cut out the discussion about Formicapunk. This isn't what this thread is about.
I think, if I want to contribute with the genre (which I would do), it will be in another thread, with people a little more enthusiastic about it. No offense: I won't say what you should like or not.
It's just not in my interest to start a 20-pages long discussion about this - only to end with no gain.

doctorbadwolf · Feb 25, 2017

Castlepunk is super fun! Anyone got thoughts about castlepunk?

Celebrim · Feb 26, 2017

Igwilly said:
Well, I'll cut out the discussion about Formicapunk. This isn't what this thread is about.

Ok sure. I don't have to discuss Formica punk. Although, I always find it a little strange when people tell me that a thread isn't about something, when typically, no one else is paying much attention to it. Before I also stop paying attention to it, I want to address a few misunderstandings you have.

I think, if I want to contribute with the genre (which I would do), it will be in another thread, with people a little more enthusiastic about it. No offense: I won't say what you should like or not.

No offense taken at all. However, you have the opposite of a true understanding here. My passion is not because I dislike this stuff, but quite the contrary, because I do. I've read Rudy Rucker's 'Software', William Gibson's 'Neuromancer', Neil Stephenson's 'Snow Crash', John Brunner's 'Stand on Zanzibar', and pretty much every foundational work in Cyberpunk with the exception of the Illuminatus! Triology - because I just can't abide conspiracy theories, and besides what I have read of it feels like... well, let's just say its not my cup of tea. And I've read lots of Clockpunk, Steampunk and so forth, from serious stuff like I mentioned earlier to whimsical young adult comedies like Gail Carriger's 'Finishing School' series. I have a nerd's passion, and that includes a nerd's passionate dislike when I think they are getting something wrong.

It's just not in my interest to start a 20-pages long discussion about this - only to end with no gain.

So what are you hoping to gain? You say you want to contribute to the genre? How?

doctorbadwolf · Feb 26, 2017

Igwilly said:
Well, I'll cut out the discussion about Formicapunk. This isn't what this thread is about.
I think, if I want to contribute with the genre (which I would do), it will be in another thread, with people a little more enthusiastic about it. No offense: I won't say what you should like or not.
It's just not in my interest to start a 20-pages long discussion about this - only to end with no gain.

So, some things I'd look into for Castlepunk would be the work in optics done by Muslim scientists during the medieval era, plus the Jewish Golem and some of the Kabala stuff, along with the works of folks like Paracelsus, and of course Al Jebir, known to Europeans as Geber. The classic medieval alchemist feeds into this subgenre, as does the actual science being done in Baghdad and Al Andulus (Andelusian Spain).

IIRC, Gnomes appear in Paracelsus as Earth elementals, so some fun could be had there. As well as djinn alchemists, etc.

As for specific advancements, optics, algebra, windmills, waterclocks and even spring powered clocks, but also aqua regia, etc. i would even include Di Vinci here, and the flair of 15th century Italia. Anachronise all you want to connect those times into a setting.

For further afield anachronisms, check those same sources, but "believe" them. Mercury with magical properties, exotic animals, elementals, ghules, universal solvent, magic circles of stunning variety of layout and purpose.

Igwilly · Feb 26, 2017

Celebrim said:
Ok sure. I don't have to discuss Formica punk. Although, I always find it a little strange when people tell me that a thread isn't about something, when typically, no one else is paying much attention to it. Before I also stop paying attention to it, I want to address a few misunderstandings you have.

No offense taken at all. However, you have the opposite of a true understanding here. My passion is not because I dislike this stuff, but quite the contrary, because I do. I've read Rudy Rucker's 'Software', William Gibson's 'Neuromancer', Neil Stephenson's 'Snow Crash', John Brunner's 'Stand on Zanzibar', and pretty much every foundational work in Cyberpunk with the exception of the Illuminatus! Triology - because I just can't abide conspiracy theories, and besides what I have read of it feels like... well, let's just say its not my cup of tea. And I've read lots of Clockpunk, Steampunk and so forth, from serious stuff like I mentioned earlier to whimsical young adult comedies like Gail Carriger's 'Finishing School' series. I have a nerd's passion, and that includes a nerd's passionate dislike when I think they are getting something wrong.

So what are you hoping to gain? You say you want to contribute to the genre? How?

1: I was specifically talking about Formicapunk/Cassette Futurism when I talked about what you like or don’t like. Perhaps I was not clear.
2: Hahahahahahahahahaha Well, I guess what I wanted to say is: I don’t want to get into an internet fight. My main objective here is finding information I didn’t found myself: about sandalpunk and candlepunk/castlepunk. However, if you have anything to say about the next point, I’m here to listen.
3: Let’s assume I want to contribute to Formicapunk. If some/many/most people think the genre is ill-defined as a retrofuturistic genre, perhaps the best thing is trying to better define it. Maintaining the aesthetics, thinking out more about what would be a 80s-retro-future, which technologies won’t exist, and so on, is perhaps a great thing to contribute! But that is just a passing thought for now.

Speaking of main objective…
With some additional research, and what you all said here, I think I got sandalpunk right. What was nebulous is now much clearer in my mind.
Candlepunk/Castlepunk is still foggy.

doctorbadwolf said:
So, some things I'd look into for Castlepunk would be the work in optics done by Muslim scientists during the medieval era, plus the Jewish Golem and some of the Kabala stuff, along with the works of folks like Paracelsus, and of course Al Jebir, known to Europeans as Geber. The classic medieval alchemist feeds into this subgenre, as does the actual science being done in Baghdad and Al Andulus (Andelusian Spain).

IIRC, Gnomes appear in Paracelsus as Earth elementals, so some fun could be had there. As well as djinn alchemists, etc.

As for specific advancements, optics, algebra, windmills, waterclocks and even spring powered clocks, but also aqua regia, etc. i would even include Di Vinci here, and the flair of 15th century Italia. Anachronise all you want to connect those times into a setting.

For further afield anachronisms, check those same sources, but "believe" them. Mercury with magical properties, exotic animals, elementals, ghules, universal solvent, magic circles of stunning variety of layout and purpose.

This is becoming a little clearer now. I’ll research more about those things.
Between candlepunk and castlepunk, I don’t know which one is correct, but for now I’ll use the same terminology as you.
What would be the main difference between a castlepunk setting and a regular fantasy setting?

doctorbadwolf · Feb 26, 2017

[MENTION=6801225]Igwilly[/MENTION] in my experience, most regular fantasy settings ignore things outside of Western Europe, for a start.

So, here you have actual chemistry, medicine, architecture, optical science, all sorts of other stuff.

Basically, a lot of fantasy settings are castlepunk, sort of. But we can extrapolate a bit, surely.

You could argue that gas lamp fantasy and castlepunk are basically the same, too. Essentially fantasy that achieves advanced technology breakthroughs via magic, and treats magic as a science, like Eberron. Or, a setting like Harry Potter.

Enchanted brooms clean your floors, enchanted toy birds carry your messages, ritually bound elementals and enchanted clockwork toys run your clock tower and help the alchemist in his lab. Magic is used to achieve better than modern plumbing and sewage solutions, while da Vinci-esque devices transport people and goods, and do all manner of other stuff.
They key is to approach magic, if you do use magic, as science.

If you don't want magic, because castlepunk doesn't, I think, require it, you instead focus on the Di Vinci stuff, alchemy, etc and just push it forward. Real things invented during the inspirational timeframe include, optics, aqua regia, lots of boring medical stuff, algebra, some architecture stuff, mechanical clocks. So, to build a setting, I'd dig into medicine in the Abbasid caliphate, optics, early clockworks, etc and build a world where technology is crazy, but through the very hand cranked means of da vinci devices and some clockwork, and the alchemical notions of the medieval alchemists.

Lots of things powered by pedaling, lots of going to the alchemist or apothecary for medicine that actually works, etc. and mid to late medieval dress, architecture, morals, etc. could stick with that huge difference in advancement between east and west and south in the early Middle Ages, but I prefer the later Middle Ages, early renaissance, with a mix of gothic, Arabian, and Mediterranean architecture, and some flair of Errol Flyn.

Celebrim · Feb 26, 2017

Igwilly said:
1: I was specifically talking about Formicapunk/Cassette Futurism when I talked about what you like or don’t like. Perhaps I was not clear.

What I was trying to say that because I like this stuff, and care about Sci-Fi generally, and think it matters how labels are used, I want to apply the labels correctly. For example, in researching to answer your question, I came across a website that proposed to define "Castlepunk" by example. And this website sited Connie Willis' "The Doomsday Book" as an example of "Castlepunk". Now, that's just wrong: "-punk" is not a generic suffix that simply indicates "historical fiction about". Connie Willis's "The Doomsday" book is not a book about hypothetical medieval technology, and it's not a book about alienation, ennui, acting out, nonconformity and rebellion. It has none of the tropes you'd associate with the Punk movement or punk genre. It is in fact a straight forward time travel story about living amongst medieval villagers, and it's about the middle ages as it actually was and not how it might have been. To call it "Castlepunk" is to obfuscate rather than clarify.

Now, I might sort of accept as an example, Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Author's Court" as being closer to being "Castlepunk" than Connie Willis's "The Doomsday Book", but the very fact that I'm applying a term from the 1970's to a book written in 1889 ought to again tell you that the term is here so loosely applied as to be disinformative rather than informative. But at least Twain's story is an angst filled story of rebellion set in an alternative past where a time traveler brings all the technology of the late 19th century back to the court of King Author, and what happens as a result. But again, I think it's better to think of this as a time travel story rather than being "punk", as there was really no chance of revolvers, torpedoes, Gatling guns, electricity and telegraph service being invented in the 6th century AD because there were no precursors to such technology and no one even imagining them at the time.

2: Hahahahahahahahahaha Well, I guess what I wanted to say is: I don’t want to get into an internet fight. My main objective here is finding information I didn’t found myself: about sandalpunk and candlepunk/castlepunk. However, if you have anything to say about the next point, I’m here to listen.

I don't want to fight either, but likewise I want us to discover true and useful answers. As I said before, I can I think imagine a "Sandalpunk" story, but "Castlepunk" and what it would mean is far vaguer and I don't think I've ever encountered an example. Possible near misses are things like the aforementioned "Connecticut Yankee in King Author's Court" (wrong sort of technological speculation), Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" (no obvious science fiction elements), and the first "Assassin's Creed" video game (more of a fantasy, no real technological focus). But not only can I not think of a good example to point you at, I'm not convinced I can imagine an example that is fully distinct from other genre's such as the neighboring Renaissance era "Clockpunk".

Let’s assume I want to contribute to Formicapunk. If some/many/most people think the genre is ill-defined as a retrofuturistic genre, perhaps the best thing is trying to better define it.

And that's just precisely what I'm trying to do. If we can define it well, then it is as thing. But if we can't define it, then perhaps it is simply a sort of Cyberpunk with a certain aesthetic. I don't like defining things by incidentals though, and in particular I don't want to define "Formicapunk" as Cyberpunk where as an incidental trope of the setting, the writer was unable to imagine the CD or email or ecommerce, and so had high tech data tapes or fax machines in the role of data storage or document communication.

With some additional research, and what you all said here, I think I got sandalpunk right. What was nebulous is now much clearer in my mind.
Candlepunk/Castlepunk is still foggy.

Me too.

What would be the main difference between a castlepunk setting and a regular fantasy setting?

Well, for one, a castlepunk setting would not have magic, as it would seem ridiculous to suggest that in the middle ages magic was actually real. I've heard "Dungeonpunk" used to describe settings where advances in the knowledge of magic is leading to some sort of industrial revolution. For "Dungeonpunk" I can provide many references, from the parody of Cyberpunk in Pratchett's "Going Postal" to the Firefly inspired "Tales of the Ketty Jay" by Chris Wooding. But, for example, "Tales of the Ketty Jay" is definitely not "Castlepunk", since the setting is more Edwardian. But it's not actually Steampunk either, since magic replaces technology to the point of producing elements (like antigravity) that are far advanced of what is possible now, making the setting a mixture of 19th century and far future technology. For that matter, see also D&D's Eberron setting which features electrical trains that run on magically conjured lightning.

Igwilly · Feb 27, 2017

[MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] that was insightful. I perhaps will look further with this information. Thanks!
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] here we go…

First, remember that genre definitions aren’t as clear as someone (like me) may want. Especially in speculative fiction. Science fiction itself is vague. So is fantasy. And don’t make me start about science fantasy (one of my preferred genres). We just live with it.
Second: Retrofuturism itself is punk. A retrofuturistic work doesn’t need to be a dystopia or be about class struggle or anything like that. It can actually be a perfect utopia in which people shoot rainbows out of their bows. It still is punk, because of the very meaning of this movement.
Third: you are right about historical fiction not being retrofuturism. Actually, the first thing I did before posting the initial post here was to make sure that “sandalpunk” and “candlepunk/castlepunk” weren’t just another name for “Antiquity and Middle Ages”. Apparently, they are not. That’s why I started the thread.
Forth: you may have misunderstood my intentions about Formicapunk. I’m not talking about “is this genre or that one?” sort of thing. Rather, perhaps better developing it.
The intention about Cassette Futurism seems to be “retrofuturism based around 1970-2000”. It’s a pretty clear one for me; I think it’s valid. But what kind of consequences appear? If we’re talking about being mainly analogical computing instead of digital one, that’s a route. Apparently common elements are the small-but-underpowered cellphones, no CDs and derivatives – no optical storage perhaps – even computers aren’t quite like ours. Of course, we still have flying cars (even flying skates), and we are much better at storing data even in the old ways. No internet, of course, but advanced video-phones could bring people closer. And so on.
There’s one strong picture I’ve found: someone with a peculiar wristwatch; it has a small TV screen on it; and that someone is inserting a very small cassette tape, apparently to watch it. I imagine TV devices are still tube televisions, but much better – that is, have a much better definition.
I could talk stuff like that all day, but that’s another topic.
Fifth: unifying points 2 and 4, I think you’re thinking about this too logically. Retrofuturism isn’t an intellectual exercise about extrapolating a past technology to fantastic ways. There’s a whole group of ideas, believes, feelings, fears, history and all such things that shapes the movement. No matter if it’s science fiction, fantasy, science fantasy or anything else: it’s ultimately literature; that is, art.
Sixth: I’m just learning about Castlepunk or Candlepunk – I prefer the latter but both are acceptable, it seems. I’m not the one who’ll answer you about what it is; that’s outside my area for now

Celebrim · Feb 27, 2017

doctorbadwolf said:
[MENTION=6801225]If you don't want magic, because castlepunk doesn't, I think, require it, you instead focus on the Di Vinci stuff, alchemy, etc and just push it forward.

I don't think you can reference DiVinci without moving the setting out of the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. DiVinci's stuff is the basis of clockpunk, and if castlepunk is a thing it can't (ought not?) be just more clockpunk. The man you would be looking for is a guy named Guido da Vigevano, and with him and maybe some dramatic realization of the cause of disease, perhaps you can avert the Black Death and begin a Renaissance at the beginning of the 14th century. Or you might be able to find some other earlier figure unknown to me. And that's reasonable, because really, the seeds of the Renaissance are planted back in the 13th century High Middle Ages, and the only reason (arguably) the 'European Miracle' is so late in coming, is that the promise of the 13th century is crushed by the horrors of the plagues of the 14th.

Then you could start asking how this version of Europe is different than the real one. It's cleaner - without the Black Death, the Europeans don't stop bathing. It's more religious - without the Black Death, the Catholic Church is a stronger institution. It's less Pagan. Without the collapse of Medieval culture, people are less eager to look back to Rome and Greece for answers, and feeling that they've surpassed the ancients occurs sooner. Perhaps technologies we expect to arrive in the 15th or 16th centuries start arriving in the early 14th - the printing press, the crankshaft, perspective drawing, etc.

But I really think that to a large extent, this is barking up the wrong tree. We can roll back to an earlier moment when this could have happened, by shifting our perspective a little as you suggested.

We can go back to the 11th century if we start looking further afield for answers - to the Abbasid's for example that you mention. Taken as a whole, Islamic world was this amazing engine of compilation and literacy the like of which the world had never seen. The Islamic scholars were compilers. They made encyclopedias of things. They wrote down oral knowledge and the translated disparate technological traditions into a common language. And all the world's separate inventions are brought together for the first time - math from India, paper and gunpowder from China, arches, crankshafts and waterwheels from Europe. By the 11th century, all the tools were in place to produce all the great leaps of technology that we associate with the European High Middle Ages and Renaissance. Baghdad is so technologically sophisticated at the time, that it seems a place of magic and wonder to the rest of the world.

Only, as with the scholars of Rhodes back in the 3rd to 2nd century BC - nothing comes of it. There is a great political crisis and purge, the Jewish, Christian and progressive Moslem scholars are thrown into ill repute and often just killed, and Islam by and large turns its back on that era. The area descends into sectarian fighting, so that when the newly economically powerful Western Europe counterattacks in the 1st Crusade, it's caught completely off guard - it's armies away fighting other Islamic armies at a critical juncture. The Crusader in turn, take this collected knowledge back to Western Europe and it contributes to the explosive growth of knowledge the previously dark world of North Europe is experiences. You could have an alternative history where the Renaissance occurs in a Mesopotamia - the logical expected place for it to happen given human history to that point - rather in the "unexpected" backward West and North of Europe. Islam doesn't fracture, comes down philosophically in favor of rationality, brushes aside the pathetically small and disorganized armies of Western Europe, and everything we associate with the "European Miracle" happens 300 years earlier in the heartland of human civilization. Islamic scholars of little note to (Western) history, are now positioned to be the heirs of this revolution. That's a world that really can have "punk" sensibilities, because in the real world, it really did have a tension between the conservatives (who in the real world won) and the progressives (who in the real world lost), you have a real industrial revolution, and you can have rebels on the fringes of this great revolution being left behind or exploited.

Heck, I think I can even write the plot of the novel.