Hopepunk?

[rachelmanija]

I pulled this comment of mine from a locked entry on my f-list on "hopepunk," which linked to some articles on it. After reading the articles, I wrote:

Apart from the impossible-to-pronounce name, hopepunk is a weird movement because it seems so utterly undefined as anything but "not grimdark," which is also a useless term as nobody agrees on what that even is either. One of the articles says The Handmaid's Tale (novel) is hopepunk because Offred is resisting inside her mind, but lots of others would say the book defines grimdark.

You can't have a movement without a set of media that everyone agrees exemplify it, but there doesn't seem to be a single example of something everyone can point at and say "it's hopepunk." If you take steampunk, there's tons of things that everyone can point at and say, "Those are steampunk." I think "punk" should be limited to things with a clear aesthetic that includes visuals - which was also the case for originalpunk.

The most interesting possible definition of hopepunk, IMO, would be this:

- Stories involve communities rather than lone individuals.

- Great change requires communal effort.

- Communities are not inherently bad, though some may be.

- People are not inherently selfish and cruel, though some may be.

- Compassion, kindness, and idealism is more likely to lead to good rather than bad consequences.

- Protecting only yourself or only your own loved ones at the expense of the Other or strangers is wrong.

- Meeting strangers is more likely to lead to interesting conversations, trade, or relationships than fights to the death.

- Even if the society contains prejudice, from the point of view of the story, all people are equal. Even if a story takes place in a racist and sexist society, the story itself will not marginalize those characters.

- Non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic (etc) societies are common in these stories.

- The visual aesthetic is pretty/beautiful/intricate/fun, with multiple cultures represented. There is an effort to make even ordinary items fun to use and pleasant to look at. Clothing is colorful and individual. The aesthetic is that things are both for use and for pleasure, showing that life is not only for survival.

Black Panther would be a good example of this, I think. Everything ever written by Diane Duane and Sherwood Smith.

Comments

[scioscribe]

I have an inherent recoil from the term "grimdark" because I so often see it used to belittle works of art that I firstly love and secondly don't find horrifically depressing or devoid of all hope/textured human emotions/etc. So I'm probably unfairly wary of anything deliberately set up in opposition.

But at the same time, I really like this set of criteria, and I think it could actually reasonably used to select a core set of hopepunk texts that would make for interesting discussion. (I feel like eglantiere had something calling this kind of setting a clair universe? I like that phrasing a lot.) And I like all these factors, which seem like they'd produce a story that's warm and nuanced without being unrealistically one-note sunny or devoid of conflict.

Other possible works I'd say are good examples of this, sticking to SFF: Big Hero 6 and pretty much all of Susan Palwick.

[rachelmanija]

Same. I also like clair a lot because its counterpoint is noir, which is a clear genre with an aesthetic and examples but which isn't used as a term of disdain.

[melannen]

As I've been seeing more and more about hopepunk the last few months (most of it pretty vague) I've been wondering what the difference is between hopepunk and solarpunk, other than that hopepunk *doesn't* have a specific aesthetic, or any other specifics, really. And that solarpunk is specifically sfnal. Maybe people feel like the association with solar power is too limiting? But it's not like steampunk was ever really about steam engines.

Anyway I'm on to kudzupunk now, myself.

[rachelmanija]

I thought solarpunk was closely connected with Afrofuturism?

[rosefox]

This reminds me of David Moles's infernokrusher manifesto, except vegetal. I feel that "prizes the sudden, violent dismemberment of the Reader" is the axis of commonality.

[rachelmanija]

I love the idea of kudzupunk but unfortunately don't like any of the examples which I've read, except for Day of the Triffids which doesn't really fit the concept other than "plantpocalypse."

[staranise]

I'd say the seminal hopepunk work would be Fern Gully.

[pameladean]

At least some of Sharon Shinn's work would fit this category very well, I think.

P.

[larryhammer]

Except for the visual aesthetic part, which they rarely have, most ecotopias I've read fit the genre. The prime example that comes to mind is Pacific Edge by Kim Stanley Robinson.

A few other possibilities: Eye of the Heron by Le Guin, Dazzle of Day by Molly Gloss.

ETA: A Door into Ocean and sequels by Joan Slonczewski

[forestofglory]

I was on a panel about Hopepunk last weekend at WisCon. (The hashtag was #hopepunkgenre) We didn't all agree on what Hopepunk was either! But someone put the list of works we generated before the panel that at least one of us thought where Hopepunk online

I think the key reading for what Hopepunk is supposed to be is "One Atom of Justice, One Molecule of Mercy, and the Empire of Unsheathed Knives" by Alexandra Rowland. (That's probably in the f-locked post you mentioned)

[cofax7]

That is a fascinating list. I'm not sure I see a lot of similarities between all the works; I certainly didn't find Trail of Lightning to be particularly hopeful. Huh.

I think I like the "clair" definition a bit more, although it does appear to be more character-centered than world-building centered.

[kass]

Based on your list here, I would like to live in a more hopepunk world, and this is also definitely a sort of media I would want to consume.

[swan_tower]

This is kind of implicit in your points, but I'd add to the list of characteristics: a general narrative arc toward improvement and a brighter future. Not that bad things can't happen along the way, but it's the opposite of "things fall apart; the center cannot hold."

[sartorias]

I'd love to see "punk" go away. I didn't like it in the nineties, when it seemed to imply hipness, but really seemed like elitism, and it hasn't worn well, as far as I'm concerned.

Manner punk seems an especially egregious oxymoron.

I do like clair/noir.

[ironed_orchid]

Interesting. As someone who was a punk in the 80s, I have have big complicated feelings about when punk is appropriate.

One of the things punk implies to me is DIY - people doing things themselves and making or adapting things to suit themselves. Where those things are physical, social, or intellectual.

In my head, any version of punk with elements of elitism is doing it wrong. Which isn't to say that there aren't elitist punks, but that they are probably in it for the fashion and not for the politics.

I feel that solarpunk works for me because it's about imagining ways to change how we interact with the natural world, using sustainable energy and building livable cities, because it is something people can actually start incorporating into their own homes with window gardens and repurposing already existing technologies.

Early steampunk had a very big maker component, although the aesthetic was not for me, and I was more interested in stories that challenged European colonialism, like Everfair than those who just seemed to want the trappings of the steam age without questioning the politics of empire.

Even with cyberpunk, there's stuff about people taking technologies and fucking with them in ways that the corporations hadn't intended or envisioned.

I can absolutely see how manner punk is an oxymoron, and also immediately start imagining ways in which the DIYness of punk could be applied to rigid manners and etiquette to subvert them and make something new.

[jesuswasbatman]

For me, "grimdark" means one or both of "utterly vile villains torture, maim and kill helpless people and get away with it because nobody cares or is strong enough to fight them" or "attempts to increase justice will always fail because the good people have morals but the villains will do anything to crush them"

I once got into an argument with people who I usually agree with over whether Aliette de Bodard's "The House of Shattered Wings" was grimdark or not, because I didn't think "everyone is flawed and selfish but nobody is cartoon-evil" qualified.

[rachelmanija]

For me the thing that distinguishes grimdark is that kindness and compassion to strangers or to anyone not a close loved one is always a bad decision and leads to bad consequences.

[kore]

I am sort of baffled at the idea of seeing Handmaid's Tale (the book) as either hopepunk or grimdark. (The series is quite grimdark.) Atwood goes out of her way to make it extremely ambiguous -- we never even know whether or not Offred escapes. (Well, we do know because we're reading her narrative based on the tapes discovered in the epilogue, but that's very fourth-wall breaking.) And at least half the book is flashbacks to her "past" life (our present) which is pretty normal.

Altho apparently Atwood was so dissatisfied with S2 of the series she wrote a sequel and it's going to be published this fall! Hi ho.

[wpadmirer]

Huh. Well, you know if these are the requirements, then Dean Koontz is hopepunk. (Generally, anyway.) The common theme in his books is that love and community will save you.

[sholio]

FWIW, I think he would be, going off the above. Also some of the more utopian-hippie-ideal-influenced writers of the 70s - Spider Robinson is a good example of that.

[vass]

I don't think of hopepunk as the opposite of grimdark, but rather the opposite of... I forget if it's called honorbright or valorbright, something like that? (I can't remember where I read the term or who coined it, sorry.) The opposite of grimdark is the spectrum from hopepunk to valorbright.

And the difference between valorbright and hopepunk is to what extent the clair characters believe in chivalry/nobility/honour/fealty/modesty/humility/duty/filial piety/knightliness/kingliness/jus ad bellum/city on a hill/etc, and that if you just eradicate the bad apples that are ruining those good ideals, good will prevail again (valorbright) vs to what extent they think that those ideals never were as noble/great as all that and deserved to be criticised and greeted with cynicism, and nobody is all good or all bad, but we can strive for good and the system can be overthrown or at least resisted or at least we can snatch good moments from the oncoming grim (hopepunk).

So, vastly oversimplified:

Valorbright: knights in shining armour doing valiant deeds to protect the helpless from the forces of evil.
Grimdark: actually knights were all brutish rapists treading everyone they met through the mud.
Valorbright: ONLY SOME OF THEM. That's exactly why the code of chivalry existed! Because they recognised that with great power comes great responsibility and some people misuse that and need to be stopped!
Hopepunk: actually knights were not the only people who mattered in the middle ages. Ordinary people's lives have always mattered, and there have always been people resisting oppression, the forces of which including but not limited to the knights and the whole system that supports knights and allows them to have the power they have.

I hope this doesn't come out like I think valorbright is bad. It's not bad, it's just a particular genre. I think of a lot of grimdark (especially in the vein of Game of Thrones) as written in reaction to the perceived unrealistic nature of valorbright. (Which is true but missing the point. Musicals are also unrealistic in that in real life people do not stop the action and burst into song. It's a narrative convention, not a sworn deposition. Part of the aesthetic of valorbright is its elevated register. There are other criticisms one can make about the goals and underpinning assumptions of that genre, but, yeah, realism isn't the point.)

[swan_tower]

"Noblebright," which is a term I've never liked. It feels too much like it was constructed as an explicit antithesis to "grimdark," and . . . I dunno. I just can't take it seriously. Not that I'm a fan of "hopepunk" either -- as I said above, it annoys me that everything has the -punk suffix tacked onto it regardless of whether there's anything punk about the mode -- I have yet to see a term I actually like for stories that say "this may be a shitty world, but people can work together to make it better."

[illariy]

Really love these story characteristics. I wouldn't mind more recs - self-recs also very welcome. ;-)

[asakiyume]

I really love your list of characteristics of hopepunk, especially the one on compassion and meeting strangers.

[indywind]

The Fifth Sacred Thing might be an interesting anchor for a corner of the Hopepunk canopy.
ETA and some of N.K. Jemisin's work, especially The Broken Kingdoms and The Awakened Kingdom.

[kitewithfish]

So, the term was coined by Alex Rowland, who goes into their thoughts about it in some detail on this episode of their podcast, Be the Serpent - https://betheserpent.podbean.com/2018/01/ There's a full transcript as well as the audio.

Sorry if someone else has mentioned this, I didn't have a chance to read thru all the threads carefully yet!

EDIT: I'm back, and I have more to say!

Basically, I think the read I have on hopepunk is not that is just "opposite of grimdark" but it's a particular *kind* of opposition to grimdark.

Another, Noblebright, has been talked about above and some of the Be the Serpent episode talked about noblebright as being characterized by a conception of purity and simplicity. Simplicity, here, meaning not a pastoral ideal, but rather than people are one thing or another, and never a mixture or complicated or screwed up. Noblebright and grimdark both have elements of "people are all bad or all good, no mix" - people are simple.

Hopepunk makes a point of being about complexity (as opposed to simplicity) and forgiveness (as opposed to purity.) You can do a bad thing, and that bad thing is still a thing you have done, but it is not the whole of you and it is not the end of you - change and forgiveness are open possibilities in hopepunk, and having made a mistake does not soil the whole world.

[rachelmanija]

That doesn't sound like how the people doing noblebright are defining it, though. This noblebright anthology specifically says that forgiveness is possible, people with principles are still flawed, the world isn't perfect, villains can be redeemed, etc.

https://sartorias.livejournal.com/695246.html

Author C.J. Brightley, who curated this project, defines Noblebright this way:

Noblebright fantasy has at least one important character with noble, idealistic motives who does the right thing out of principle. The character is flawed, but his or her actions are generally defined by honesty, integrity, sacrifice, love, and kindness. The story upholds the goodness of the character; the character’s good qualities are not held up as naiveté, cluelessness, or stupidity, but rather shown to be worthwhile. Good characters can make a difference. Noblebright characters can learn and grow.

They can deliberately choose to be kind when tempted to be unkind, they can choose generosity when it hurts, and they can influence their world and other characters for the better. In a noblebright story, even villains are not without hope; their stories may have a redemptive ending, or they may have some kind of conversion experience (religious or not). It’s not guaranteed, of course, but in a noblebright story, it’s a possibility.

Noblebright fantasy is not utopian fiction. The world of a noblebright story is not perfect, and indeed can sometimes be quite dark. Actions have consequences, and even good characters can make terrible mistakes. But a noblebright story is generally hopeful in tone, even if there are plenty of bad, grim, dark things going on in the world.

[carbonel]

I may have said this earlier, but I recommend Becky Chambers's three Wayfarers books (A Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, A Closed and Common Orbit, and Record of a Spaceborn Few) for cheerful books based on found family, and even a certain amount of visual aesthetics. People I respect have said that not enough happens in the first book, so I provide that as a warning, but I love all three of them.

[nenya_kanadka]

That list of characteristics sums up what I tend to look for in fiction. Not exclusively, I suppose, but it's the kind of thing I like most of the time.

It reminded me instantly of your Stranger series, btw, and also of Martha Wells's Raksura books.

[redrikki]

Diane Duane is an excellent example of hopepunk. May I also recommend Connie Willis? Her Oxford time traveling historians series is my go-to when I need my faith in humanity restored and to cry about the staying and saving power of (largely platonic) love.

[juushika]

By coincidence, the podcast I was listening to had an episode about hopepunk and I encountered it at the same time as this post: Our Opinions Are Correct: Episode 22: Can science fiction still give us hope for the future?. I particularly appreciate the distinctions they make between genre and trope, and the general argument that -punk is overplayed and a default term, and therefore may not be the best one here, when what we're really talking about isn't a stylistic trapping plus ethos (a la solarpunk, steampunk...) so much as a narrative style/trope. That said, they also emphasize the conflict/anxiety (intended to be) native to -punk movements: that hopepunk isn't intended to be a feel good counterpoint to grimdark so much as it is an insistence on continuing to fight for something better--positive but unremitting conflict.