Jump to content

Rubber science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the scientific properties of rubber in the real world, seeRubber.

Rubber scienceis ascience fictionterm describing a quasi-scientific explanation for an aspect of a science fiction setting. Rubber science explanations are fictional but convincing enough to avoid upsetting thesuspension of disbelief.Rubber science is a feature of most genres of science fiction, with the exception ofhard science fiction.

Coinage[edit]

The termrubber sciencewas coined byNorman Spinradin his essay "Rubber Sciences", published inReginald Bretnor's anthologyThe Craft of Science Fiction(1976).[1]Rubber science was Spinrad's term for "pseudo-science... made up by the writer with literary care that it not be discontinuous with the reader's realm of the possible. "[2]In "Rubber Sciences," Spinrad proposed eight rules of rubber science to write plausibly about future technology:

  1. Explanations must feel scientifically correct and have internal consistency.[1]: 58 
  2. Principles used for plot purposes must be planted in the reader's mind long before they are used as plot elements.[1]: 58 
  3. Concepts shouldn't be over-explained; a theoretical basis is sufficient.[1]: 59 
  4. When creating a new science, authors should pay attention to how established sciences evolve.[1]: 59 
  5. Interfacing two or more existing sciences will create a plausible new science.[1]: 61 
  6. Plausibility can be lent by systematizing terminology and relating it to existing human knowledge by choosing words for metaphorical resonance.[1]: 61 
  7. Rubber science can be solidified with believable hardware.[1]: 62 
  8. Rubber science can "contribute to thedialecticof scientific evolution "[1]: 62 as a tool for intellectually exploring the unknown.[1]: 64 

Usage[edit]

The term and concept have been adopted by science fiction writers to describe science based on "speculation, extrapolation, fabrication or invention."[3]Vonda N. McIntyrecalls rubber science "a grand tradition" in science fiction and places it in "a hierarchy of rules for science in sf": "if you can make it right, you should; if you can't make it right, at least make it plausible; if you can't make it rightorplausible, you had better make it fun. "[4]

In their writing guideOn Writing Science Fiction,George H. Scithers,Darrell Schweitzer,andJohn M. Fordcite Spinrad's rules for rubber science as a way to "play fair with the reader," building a background logically from a minimum of assumptions, and focusing on the consequences of those assumptions rather than the assumptions themselves.[5]

Science fiction authorPoul Andersonreferences Spinrad's concept of rubber science in his article "On Imaginary Science". Anderson prefers the termimaginary scienceto avoid plagiarizing Spinrad. He divides imaginary science into three types of usage: routine use, where the concepts are taken for granted; loose use, where concepts are treated for their own sake but without rigor; and brilliant use, where the implications of concepts are deeply explored. Anderson reiterates Spinrad's requirement that authors using rubber science know real science and avoid violating it unless they are conscious of what they're doing and what it means.[6]

In other media[edit]

While rubber science was coined in reference to science fiction literature, the term has spread to discussion of science fiction in other media, including film,[7]television,[8]comic books,[9][10]and gaming.[11]Star Trek: Voyagerscript consultantAndre Bormanisused "the so-called rubber science or the very speculative, consistent with reality" when he was unable to find scientific explanations "based in fairly well-established real science".[8]Game designerSteven S. Longincluded guidance for implementing rubber science in hisHero Systemtabletop role-playing game ruleset.[11]

Criticism[edit]

Some science fiction authors have used the term disparagingly.Bill Ransomassociates rubber science with science fiction of the 1940s and 1950s, an era marked by "lots of cool gadgets," before "the genre became more character driven" under the influence of writers such asFrank HerbertandSamuel Delany,focusing on humans rather than technology solving dilemmas.[12]Lucius Shepard,responding to a negative review byGeorge Turner,decried the suggestion that he "haul a gob of rubber science out of the vat in order to justify and explain [his] physics".[13]Ann C. CrispinconsideredStar Trek's rubber science to be a forgivable flaw.[14]

John G. Cramerincluded an afterword in his hard science fiction novelTwistorto note places where he departed from accurate real science into speculative rubber science. He expressed concern that as a literary device, rubber science added drama at the expense of potentially deceiving the reader into believing the rubber science was factual; he documented his use of rubber science for readers interested in "where the boundaries are between the real and the rubber science" in his novel.[15]

Reviewers have used the term to praise deft or plausible scientific explanations,[16][17]and to criticise underdeveloped or distractingworldbuilding;[18]for instance, aWashington Postreview criticizedOrson Scott Card's novelXenocidefor its "chapter long dialogues about rubber science".[19]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^abcdefghijSpinrad, Norman(1976). "Rubber Sciences". InReginald Bretnor(ed.).The Craft of Science Fiction.New York:Harper & Row.pp. 54–69.ISBN0060104619.
  2. ^Spinrad, Norman(September 9, 2010).A Critic at Large in the Multiverse.Norman Spinrad. p. 22.ASINB0042JT3MQ.
  3. ^Benford, Gregory(1989-01-29)."Rubber Science, Real Science and Science Fiction".Los Angeles Times.Retrieved2011-05-26.
  4. ^McIntyre, Vonda N.(1981). "The Straining Your Eyes Through the Viewscreen Blue". InHerbert, Frank(ed.).Nebula Winners Fifteen.Harper & Row. p. 81.ISBN0-06-01-4830-6.
  5. ^Scithers, George H.; Schweitzer, Darrell; Ford, John M. (1981). "Science: The Art of Knowing".On Writing Science Fiction.Owlswick Press. p. 141.ISBN0913896195.
  6. ^Anderson, Poul (April–June 1979).Baen, James(ed.). "On Imaginary Science".Destinies.1(3).Ace Books:310–313.
  7. ^Henderson, C. J.(2001). "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century".The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies.Checkmark Books. p. 52.ISBN0-8160-4043-5.
  8. ^abBischoff, David(February 1995). "Star trek: Voyager".Omni.17(5): 82.
  9. ^Peter Coogan; Randy Duncan & Kate McClancy (Winter 2009)."The CAC Report".Comic-Con Magazine:22.RetrievedAugust 21,2013.
  10. ^Bliss, Pam (April 12, 2010)."Hopelessly Lost, But Making Good Time #108".Sequential Tart.RetrievedAugust 21,2013.
  11. ^abLong, Steven S.(2006). "Chapter Two: The Skills".The Ultimate Skill.Hero Games.pp. 259, 267.ISBN1-58366-098-4.
  12. ^Friedrich, Brionna (May 12, 2013).""What if?" Sci-fi and poetry natural to Grayland writer ".The Daily World.RetrievedAugust 11,2013.
  13. ^Shepard, Lucius(2010). "A Letter from Lucius Shepard". InDamien Broderick(ed.).Skiffy and Mimesis: More Best of Australian SF Review (Second Series).Borgo Press. p. 212.ISBN978-1434457875.
  14. ^Crispin, A.C.(May 5, 2011)."The Wall Comes Down in Space: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country".Tor.com.RetrievedAugust 11,2013.
  15. ^Cramer, John G.(1989). "Afterword".Twistor.Avon Books.pp. 332–333.ISBN0-380-71027-7.
  16. ^"The Uprising".Kirkus Reviews.LXXXI(12). June 15, 2013.RetrievedAugust 21,2013.
  17. ^Benford, Gregory(1996). "In the Wake of the Wave". In George Edgar Slusser; Gary Westfahl; Eric S. Rabkin (eds.).Science Fiction and Market Realities.University of Georgia Press.
  18. ^"The Bar Code Prophecy".Kirkus Reviews.LXXX(20). October 15, 2012.
  19. ^Suillivan, Tim (September 29, 1991). "Worlds Without End".The Washington Post.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubber_science&oldid=1190118980"