There’s a subset of steampunk called aetherpunk, which is essentially “stampunk but with magic”. Yet steampunk is already such a niche genre, I don’t know if it needs a niche within that niche. Of course, people do love categorizing things and putting everything into its own little box, so we get these sub-sub-niches. But what do you think? Do you think steampunk and aetherpunk should be treated as two different genres or are you fine with just calling it all “steampunk”?
I’m mostly asking because I’m curious if I should avoid posting any steampunk works that involve magic. I doubt anyone here will be such a stickler for genre definitions, but I wanted this to be an explicit decision.
For example, the Netflix show Arcane is set in a steampunk world yet it relies so heavily on magic I’d consider it aetherpunk. Should posts about Arcane be allowed here?
(source image: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/qemlOe)
That’s basically what I’m saying about the mundanity of the situation. Steampunk can be loaded with magic, it’s just not mundane. Take it like Indiana Jones, every movie has a clearly magical thing at its core, but even in temple of doom where the magic is daily practice of the culture presented, it’s not mundane. It’s an aberration even in it’s own culture and needs to be stored away from society
I’m not sure I entirely agree, for me it’s just a matter of whether magic and technology are separated. I can see a world where magic is commonplace like say Harry Potter, but also having tons of cogs and steam engines and clockwork contraptions etc and that still feeling like steampunk rather than aetherpunk, so long as there is no magic powering the machinery but just mundane technology like steam engines and coal furnaces.