Talk:The Last of the Masters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Last of the Masters has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels / Short story / Sci-fi (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Short story task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Science fiction task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Protection Agency"[edit]

This alternate title checks out: [1]. Skomorokh 19:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. --Cast (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unused references[edit]

There are two unused references available on Google Books, from SF writer Thomas Disch, and from scholar Christopher Palmer. Oddly, I couldn't find any trace of a comprehensive analysis of Dick's work that might put the story in context. Skomorokh 03:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me to use the Thomas M. Disch review, which I've now added. However, the Palmer book is already referenced and cited in the thematic analysis section. --Cast (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries. There's two Palmer refs, at least in name: the essay "Philip K. Dick and the Nuclear Family" in Philip K. Dick: Contemporary Critical Interpretations, and his book Philip K. Dick: exhilaration and terror of the postmodern. At a casual skim they do not appear identical, and only the latter is cited in the article at present. While we're on the topic of refs, are you confident in the reliability of all the sources in the article? The Beck and Barlow in particular look a little suspect. Cheers, Skomorokh 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, from what I know of Lulu.com (Lulu Press,Inc.), there is no reason to consider them a poor outfit from which to derive verifiable publications, so I stand by the Barlow book. But I'll admit that I may be stretching with the Beck quote from the "Anarchism and science fiction" reading list. I added it to this page a few months ago, when I was throwing any commentary on the story against a wall to see what would stick. I could remove the paragraph it informs, and the structure of the article would remain in tact. Unfortunately, we would then lose the only commentary made on the story from an anarchist perspective, which I consider important for this subject. Still, I suppose there may be such a commentary in the future. I'll remove it so as to avoid future concerns. --Cast (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth[edit]

I have access to the audiobook The Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick, Vol. I., and can confirm that the story is read by a "William Hughes". Skomorokh 03:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless the audio reading receives notable coverage, it seems like the audio book is a minor footnote of little encyclopedic value beyond being in a list of publications. Certainly, we can take on a note "as read by William Hughes", but perhaps if he is a notable figure himself that would warrent mention. After a bit of searching for him on the web, he seems to have performed a number of other book readings. However, I can't find anything about him as a person or his career. --Cast (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Barlow Book[edit]

The Barlow book's subtitle suggests it is related to this pre-2001 work:

"Reality, Religion, and Politics in the Fiction of Philip K. Dick by Aaron Barlow

This project was originally a disseratation on Philip K. Dick written by Aaron Barlow. philipKdick.com is pleased to present these insightful and expertly written essays on the science fiction and philosophy of PKD. There is plenty for the new and old fan of Philip K. Dick to enjoy. If you are new to the work of PKD, then it is suggested that you start with Chapter One. Please send any comments to Aaron Barlow at barlowaa@earthlink.net. Enjoy!" [http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/articles/barlow.htm]

This has an extensive bibliography. [http //www.philipkdickfans.com/articles/bibliography.html]

Quoted text refers to "philipkdick.com" rather than "philipkdickfans.com" because that is the former domain name. Jason Koornick transferred the long established domain name to the estate of Philip K. Dick (or whatever it was called at the time) some years ago. I've not read the published book and don't know whether this work would be significant to the article editors.

I suggest avoiding the main page of philipkdickfans.com at this time as my anti-virus program is warning of HTML/Framer infection there.Moss&Fern (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Added Copyright Status section[edit]

Perhaps someone can make better links for the verification citations or think of a better way to provide verification. Direct links to the search result pages always result in "timed out" messages because the Copyright Catalog search engine has a time out feature programmed into it to conserve resourses. I've been studying formatting and technical things for a couple days but have much to learn. I think what I have now after several previewed attempts is OK but not so elegant as the overall formatting of the article. I couldn't resist taking the editing plunge until after the author's birthday anniversary. I considered including his date of death to stress how long after his death the incorrect renewal information was made but that made the sentence too awkward. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Added first three story publication references from PKD: A Philip K. Dick Bibliography because of discrepancy between copyright renewal statement of first publication and other sources of that information. I thought a definative source of first publication information should be stated. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Recreated Copyright status section. Please explain reason if deletion was good faith editing.[edit]

75.50.170.207, your sole Wickipedia contributions have been to remove references to Copyright Registration Number RE0000190631 related copyright status in Meddler (short story) and Last of the Masters. The sections are verifiably referenced with reliable sources and it is notable that the stories are in the public domain. You have not made edit summaries or discussed this on the talk pages. If you are editing in good faith please explain your reason for deleting this section. I believe the main editors of this article will have opinions about the section that would be valuable in evaluating its appropriateness, need for rewording or whatever issues you have with it. Also, Wickipedia has a feature to request opinions from disinterested editors when editors of an article cannot agree on something. If necessary we could do something of that sort to resolve this amicably. However this is a very well written article which people have recently been active editing and it is likely there are enough interested editors to reach a concensus decision. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A clarification is needed[edit]

"After the author's death, The Last Of The Masters was incorrectly included under the new renewal Registration Number RE0000190631, which has been cited in several Dick anthologies (e.g., The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick & The Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick); these publications falsely list the original publication of the story to have been in Imaginative Tales in November 1955."

I don't know about the audiobooks but the printed versions of The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick have the correct first publication information for The Last Of The Masters (and the 20+ other stories in them which have false first publication dates and sources in Registration Number RE0000190631.). Indeed, as recently as 2009 I've seen collections with relevant stories and never seen a false statement of first publication although books in general are increasingly simply not listing first publications, sources of contents or distinguishing between what is actually copyrighted and what isn't. A 400 page book compiling entirely public domain material with a copyrighted 3 page introduction may simply say something like, "Copyright 2010 by xxxxx" implying the entire contents are copyrighted by xxxxx.

BTW, I've reworded the basic statement for relevant RE0000190631 works in a way that I think is clearer. Added a See Also section too for better communication as some comments have indicated the significance of the false copyright claim in a Copyright Catalog entry is not always understood; perhaps the section should also include the Wikipedia article on the Copyright Catalog. Anyway, I just did this for Adjustment Team and believe I first did it for Breakfast At Twilight. Expect to do it for Shell Game when I replace the blanked section. There are some busy beavers continually at work removing references to renewal Registration Number RE0000190631.

I'd appreciate your opinion on whether the revised wording improves communication of the significance of the false entries. Also would appreciate any thoughts on a less clunky way to state the basic part that is unchanged. I'm not certain links to the cited entries are even necessary rather than just citing them in the same manner as a page in a book though the wording in the articles with detailed explanation rather than just something as simple as, "____ is in the public domain because its copyright was not renewed" is the more important problem. Yet I can't see how to avoid a detailed explanation and still communicate the necessary information to verify the statement. I don't even seem to be communicating here well. It's sleepy time time. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)