Steampunk II: Steampunk Reloaded edited by Ann and Jeff VanderMeer
Steampunk II: Steampunk Reloaded is the second steampunk anthology edited by Ann and Jeff VanderMeer, following 2008’s first installment. It contains about twice as many stories as its predecessor, but unlike the first collection the quality is more uneven here, resulting in a less impressive but still fascinating anthology that should please fans of the genre. While the first anthology only contained one story I was less than happy with, there are at least four or five in Steampunk II: Steampunk Reloaded that I could have done without. There are also a few stories here that are at best marginally connected to steampunk, although that probably depends more on how you define steampunk. After all, there are probably as many definitions of steampunk as there are readers… If you’re new to the genre, I’d still recommend picking up the earlier Steampunk anthology first, but this second collection contains enough excellent stories to make it worth your time if you want to dig a little deeper. Read the rest.
it’s really too bad. I was so dissapointed with the first Steampunk anthology that I returned it to the store. I don’t know if my personal definition of steampunk is really narrow, or if anthologies just aren’t my thing, or if the Vandermeer’s just aren’t the greatest editors.
I love Vandermeer’s fiction. I love him and Ann’s “evil monkey” stuff. but their anthologies? not so much.
I did like the first anthology a lot. The second one is good too, but a handful of stories weren’t worth it for me. However, if the first one didn’t work for you, I doubt the second one will go down any better.
People sometimes refer to a recording artist’s second album as a “sophomore slump.” I wonder if anyone has ever applied this to short story collections…
Ryan
Ha :) That would have made a nice alliterative title “Steampunk’s Sophomore Slump”. Then again, the VanderMeers aren’t new to anthologies, so it’s probably not correct in the larger scheme of things. I still want to read their anthology of pirate fiction, which has been on my TBR stack for a while.
Stefan: I don’t say this with any heat, but WTF? New to anthos? Do you ever do any research before doing a review or making a comment? I’ve been editing anthologies since the late 1980s and have won a World Fantasy Award, among others, for doing so. Second, this second antho is clearly superior to the first one (which was itself a World Fantasy finalist) and has received a starred review from PW among others. Third, you for some reason decided to apply *your own* rather narrow and antequated definition of Steampunk to our antho rather than the definitions we set out after careful research and observation of the actual field–not your vague idea of it, but what it actually *is*. Try re-reading the intro sometime, and the story notes. It’s very clear why the Gibson is included, for example. I don’t have any problem with negative reviews. But counter-factual or careless reviews are corrosive.
Redhead–as I said on Tan’s thread, buy it. If you hate it, I’ll give you your money back. I don’t know how you can do any better than that.
Cheers,
JeffV
Hi Jeff,
I hardly think my review qualifies as negative. I listed, in detail, a large number of stories I consider very good or excellent. I do stand by my opinion that there are a few stories that could have been cut, but 3.5 stars overall is (for me at least) a very positive grade, and in my eyes the overall tone of the review is positive, despite some criticism.
I’m definitely not new to anthologies, no. I’ve actually reviewed your first Steampunk anthology here too – you can find the review if you scroll down a bit further on the main page, and I’d welcome your comments on that review if you want to take a look. Whether the second antho is “clearly superior to the first one” is your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. The first one contained almost uniformly excellent stories and only one I didn’t love. The second one has a lot of excellent stories (as I mentioned in great detail in the review) but a few I didn’t care for. Nothing wrong with that – there are very few antho’s I’ve read that don’t have a few stories I don’t like. I also enjoyed the non-fiction pieces in the first antho more, especially Jess Nevins’ essay. Whether the first one or the second one is better is, I think, a matter of personal taste. I feel that I gave both anthologies a fair review with enough detail to allow people to make up their own minds.
As for research – I obviously don’t claim to be an expert, but yes, I did read the intro to both anthologies as well as the story notes, and have been following the hubbub on the web lately with the posts by Catherynne Valente and Charles Stross among others. As I mentioned in the review, I think there are many definitions of the genre, some more broad than others. The stories in the first anthology are much closer to my (maybe antiquated) opinion of what’s steampunk, but I still feel that the few I singled out from the second one are further removed from that.
I’m sorry you feel the review is “counter-factual or careless” – I would definitely dispute the second claim, and as for the first one, please note that my suggestion that some stories may not be pure steampunk was qualified with “depends on your definition of steampunk”, and I don’t claim to have the final definition at all.
Addendum: I just got what you meant by “new to anthos” in your comment – I thought you were asking me if I was new to reviewing anthos, rather than quoting my earlier comment here! *face-palm* From the rest of that sentence, it should be painfully clear that it was a typo and should have read you “aren’t new to anthos” – I even mentioned an earlier anthology by you and Ann I have on the shelf, and said that “sophomore” was incorrect in this context. So, that was an unfortunate typo and now corrected. Sorry!
Mr. Vandermeer, I’m genuinely surprised by you. You say that you were speaking “without heat” but I think your actual words prove otherwise.
No matter what notes or intros you put in your books, the fact is this: You do not control the readers’ perceptions or feelings. You don’t get to dictate their tastes to them. Stefan felt that some of the stories did not work as steampunk for him and there is nothing “counter-factual” about that.
Genres are flexible. They mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people and when we (whether we are writer, reader, or both) decide what a genre is supposed to be to everyone we risk stagnating it. Stefan clearly stated YMMV in the review, more than once. So I have to wonder what you’re really taking offense to.
What I find corrosive is authors coming around to tell reviewers that they got their own opinions wrong, somehow. We might review, but we’re still readers. You don’t get to control our perceptions either.
In Jeff’s defense, I believe he short-circuited at the word “are” before it was corrected and followed by the “n’t” bit. I probably would too if I had spent the better part of 30 years working on a particular craft, then perceive to have it so casually tossed aside…but that didn’t happen, it was a typo. The Anthology is good, widely appealing, and pushes the casual definitions of steampunk. So whose buying the beer? I know who…Valente can! That Steampunk poo-pooer owes all a round or two. Another problem solved.
I’ll buy the beer. I’m a total steampunk Switzerland. :D
I would like to add that referring to Stefan’s review as “But counter-factual or careless reviews are corrosive.” made me choke on my cereal. Seriously? Is that before or after the corrected typo? If you mean that sincerely after Stefan made his correction, then you are off the cart..and you’re buying the beer.
Did I hear someone was buying a round of beer?
I’m in.
Considering that he also went after Stefan’s Amazon review, which didn’t have the unfortunate typo, I’m not quite sure your theory holds up, Justin.
Am I the only one kinda digging the whole irony of seriously calling someone’s review of something steampunk “counter-factual”?
I’m not a beer drinking gal, but I’ll take a frozen chocolate monkey. (S’drink, just FYI.)
I don’t like beer. May I have a margarita, a mojito, or a cosmo, please?
I don’t blame Mr. VanderMeer for being annoyed at a reviewer who seemed to not know his history (of the VanderMeers), but I hope that’s cleared up now. I read that comment yesterday and didn’t even notice the typo, probably because I know that Stefan’s been a long-time fan of his work. Clearly Stefan enjoyed the anthology. 3.5 stars is pretty high for STingy STefan.