Talk:Jack McDevitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.


I am working on a new page on McDevitt's "A Talent for War" and linking it here, as was done for "Ancient Shores" and "Standard Candles". I plan a reasonably full article. I'll have it ready in about two weeks. Any comments or suggestions?

--Simmaren 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on A Talent for War is underway. I added a link to it.

Simmaren 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] teeming?

"With The Engines of God (1994), McDevitt introduced the idea of a universe which was once teeming with intelligent species, but only contains abandoned artifacts by the time humans arrive on the scene. Although it was initially written as a standalone novel"

I have just finished reading this book. Key to it is that the universe is seen as NOT teeming with intelligent species. There are the monument-makers, Nok, Q..., humans and that's about it. I haven't changed the statement (yet) since it's possible that the teeming comes up in later novels. If this is the case, please so indicate. Other-wise, the statemetn should be changed. Another problem with the statement is that it can be understood as meaning that McDevitt was the first author to picture a universe teeming with smart species - He was not. Kdammers 10:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, and I have changed the statement to "once teeming with intelligent life ". Cheers, Pete Tillman 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

I went through the article and did minor cleanup and copyediting.

Here's a sentence that needs work:

"McDevitt's novels frequently raise questions which he does not attempt to answer, and drop them in favor of other plotlines which are of more interest to the author." [last line, header para]

I think it's more accurate to say that he deliberately leaves ambiguities for dramatic and literary effect. See, forex, http://www.sfwa.org/members/McDevitt/Omega-Comment.html

Thoughts? Cheers, Pete Tillman 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I edited this, and added a source and quote. Pete Tillman 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)