Talk:Nanopunk

Is this a real genre?
This sounds like nonsense to me. Nanotechnology easily falls within the domain of the Cyberpunk genre and many cyberpunk settings make use of it. How is this a separate genre? 118.208.149.172 (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i guess in the same way that Biopunk is· Lygophile   has   spoken  18:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Goonan as pioneer
The article's faith and reliance on statements made in the referenced io9's interview between Kathleen Ann Goonan and Annalee Newitz would appear to be misplaced. The averments that "Queen City Jazz was the first nanotech novel to be published" and "along with Linda Nagata, author of The Bohr Maker, Goonan pioneered the literary nanopunk movement" are demonstrably incorrect. It's easy to find a number of examples of earlier "prior art": Greg Bear's 1983 short story/1984 novel Blood Music, Bruce Sterling's 1988 Islands in the Net, Michael F. Flynn's 1991 collection The Nanotech Chronicles, Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, and more. Goonan's (and Nagata's) work may have more strongly featured nanotech than did earlier works, but this does not make Goonan "the genre's pioneering writer".

It would be more nearly correct to describe Goonan and Nagata as some of the earliest writers to feature nanotech as the primary element in their work. I'll make changes to the article accordingly.

As an aside, I find the the article generally muddled, and agree with an earlier editor's assessment that it could use a rewrite. --BehemothCat (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Alastair Reynolds
Would the work of Alastair Reynolds fall under this heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.29.212 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Restricted biotech a characeristic of nanopunk?!
The 2nd sentence in the article reads the following: "The genre is similar to biopunk, but describes the world where the use of biotechnologies are limited or prohibited, so only nanites and nanotechnologies are widely use (while in biopunk, bio- and nanotechnologies often coexist)" I'm really doubting the truth content of it. Basically I don't think that it's a characteristic of nanopunk that biotech is limited or prohibited even if some novels feature that. Additionally I'd rather say that this is a characteristic of biopunk with which a contrast is seeked here. Also "so only nanites and nanotechnologies are widely in use" is a non sequitur - it's not a logical conclusion that "only nanites" and nanotechnologies are widely in use because biotech is limited. Furthermore what's the "only" referring to? Only in which area of life - medical? social? every?! Also I don't think it's not impossible for biotech to coexist in nanotech even though it probably (and eventually that might be a core characteristic) plays a subordinate role. So I basically think everything about that sentence is false. I might be wrong about it (parts of it). So please post whatever you think of that here. If there are no objections I'm gonna delete that sentence and somehow get the "in nanopunk biotech plays a subordinate role to nanotechnology"-part in there (which isn't really what the quoted sentence conveys). --Fixuture (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)