Stross Doesn't Like Steampunk

So, today the science fiction author Charles Stross writes eloquently that he doesn't like steampunk. Now, Stross makes some good points, largely by noting that:

1) Steampunk science and technology doesn't work (materials science is not just for breakfast, kids).

2) Ditto zombies.

3) Politically, the "steampunk era" sucked mightily unless you happened to be a rich white male of the correct religious persuasion for your country. Sucked so badly, in fact, that Marxism was born.

These are valid points, and I agree with them. Then Stross dumps on Cherie Priest's Boneshaker. Now, considering that I nominated the book for a Hugo, I have, respectfully, an issue with Mr. Stross.

My issue is this - that the best steampunk looks at the Victorian Age warts and all. In Boneshaker, the protagonists are a single mother / outcast and her 15-year-old son who is friends with various criminal elements. Priest's Seattle is libertarian in nature, and a violent, nasty place (as all libertarian societies are), loosely ruled by exactly the sort of rich prick that so exercised Marx. In short, Priest shows the bad parts of Victorian society while playing with zombies and zeppelins.

Other "steampunk" novels (see Tim Akers' timakers steampunk / nanotech book Heart of Veridon, another book I liked), take an unvarnished look at their societies. Hell, even the much-derided Julian Comstock takes accurate and none-too-veiled shots at the libertarian way of thinking.

Good steampunk, like any other fiction, can be a way to take a look at society and social constructs, warts and all.