But isn't that a strict definition?
That's what happens with sub-genres, they're a little more strict. This is different from what you're talking about though, because the elements you're talking about are specific things for
your story.
While it is true that some Punk genres are based on the tech and the idealogies that form as a result of that but that vastness of the tech isn't universal even within their own universe (e.g. Arcanepunk has us moogles using normal tech in one category, other times its the normal world with some magitech or, in Desertpunk, technology is stunted by the lack of resources). Others are based on just setting (Oceanpunk, Skypunk, Desertpunk). Hell, Mythpunk is just taking old fairy tales and redesigning them... and retelling their stories in modern ways and... pretty much tearing my Disney childhood apart. Even the name "Punk" doesn't necessarily reference any conflict or reaction to society, its just part of their name (the only genre that seems to take the Punk name seriously in a consistent manner is Cyberpunk).
I have heard of none of those types of "punk" being used ever, and it sounds like people just tried to make up something by appending punk to the end of a story element because "cyberpunk" and "steampunk" are buzzwords these days. The fact that most of these don't adhere to what the entire sub-genre is should be your hint that people who don't really understand what the punk genre is just bullshitted a term out of their ass to make their work sound cool.
"Punk" is a sub-genre of Science Fiction, and the entire point is that the technology being used in the story is extremely important (cyberpunk, steampunk, dungeonpunk, dieselpunk). The (sometimes) anachronistic technology that helps the world along is one of the most important parts, just as without the fictional spaceship technology, Star Trek wouldn't be Science Fiction. Then there's the varying degrees of social and political aspects present in punk, as well.
Sure, I'll agree to that but isn't that the essence of some of the Punk genres (especially Cyber and Steam)?
It's one part of it, as I said above, but it can be of varying degrees. However, your story isn't motivated by the things that a punk story is, it's motivated by the societal structure. You're entire linchpin is that the governmental and societal structures are a certain way - at least that's how you've been selling it so far.
But I didn't exclude anything outside of magic. Magic isn't always an aspect of the Punk genres.
No, it's not, but
something sci-fi or fantasy
is. Punk is a sub-genre of science fiction and
needs some form of technology or fantasy element that is a large part of everyday life in that (usually gritty) world.
Furthermore, I never stated that some aspects of sci- fi or fantasy are neglected from Knightpunk, I'm just making the distinction that magic is never used because that easily makes it fall into the dungeonpunk arena. You can have mechs, weird animals, etc., etc., just no magic.
Wait, by modern world, you're not talking about our world, right? Because you do realize that in my story there are going to be dragons, superhumans, giant mechs... Yeah...
Then...it's just a light fantasy/sci-fi >.> Pretty much as soon as you have things that don't exist naturally in the world, you've got yourself a sci-fi/fantasy.
Reign of Fire had dragons, but no magic, and it's a post-apocalyptic sci-fi/fantasy. Mechs are vaguely becoming science fact, but they're still very much science fiction in the way we like to see them (Gundam, EVA, etc).
Hunger Games had hologram tech and zombie-dog people, so it has a sprinkling of the sci-fi in its dystopian/utopian concept (as most dystopian/utopian do >.<). That's pretty much what you've got going on with yours from what you're telling me.
-------------
I'm sorry to sound like such a d!ck about this, but I'm
really tired of watching the English language and definitions be butchered by misinformation. It's bad enough that contradicting definitions of things like "nonplussed" and "moot" exist, and people
use the incorrect definitions...
Trust me, I'm pretty sure the audience's disbelief will be well suspended. I mean, a exposition describing the brutal process of how
spoilers would be enough to inspire a person to not question the logic of the story.
I hate to burst your bubble, but in this day and age you
really don't ever want to bank on that. Like, ever. Everyone is critical of everything these days, and
will look for flaws in a story or world. "Rule of cool" is one of the few tropes that
is often looked at with derision, sometimes because it can be seen as a cheap entertainment device. If this is going to be any sort of book, you're going to have a lot of very intelligent readers looking at your work with a heavily-scrutinizing eye.
Do as much as you can to justify your content; suspension of disbelief isn't something you can just invest in,
you have to build it up and retain it
for the reader. It's your job to create it, not the reader's.[/quote]