The best answer yet to "What Is Steampunk?"

I have had the pleasure (I am an automasochist it seems) of reading no end of academic papers trying to analyze "Steampunk" and place it on the correct shelf of genre and cultural theory. A large number of these papers fall into three distinct groupings, all of which are most marked by a lack of good research, and poor analysis:

1) I Love Steampunk, Love It Too!
The authors generally come off as over-excited children trying to describe their favorite cartoon. The impression one walks away with is that either the Author really likes gears or needs to drink decaf.

2) U Sux LOL!!1
The authors read as blowhards who dismiss anything that they themselves are not into. This category of papers follow the format of "I don't get it, hence, it is reproachable".

3) Isn't this Delightful! What is it?
Steampunk is what it wants to be, isn't that delightfully [postmodern/anarchic/cyber/whathaveyou]?

As I said, the main issue with these papers come from a lack of research, most notably limiting oneself to secondary sources.

Aevelle Galicia recently linked to a paper titled Reclaiming the Machine: An Introductory Look at Steampunk in Everyday Practice by a Ms Rebecca Onion. I very much enjoyed this paper, and feel that it is probably one of the best analysis I have read on the subject.

Most importantly, it lays out some of the key elements of what makes something Steampunk (at least, as far as I am concerned). If you have a few minutes I would recommend giving it your attention.

Doubly so if you believe Steampunk has no DIY ethic or lacks some sort of counter-culture street cred.

I particularly liked the citation of Margaret Ratt

...she believes that most steampunks “look at the modern world about us, bored to tears, and say, „no, thank you. I‟d rather have trees, birds, and monstrous mechanical contraptions than an endless sprawl that is devoid of diversity”