Talk:Confessions of a Crap Artist

merge crap arist with this

This page should be mereged with crap artist (72.197.178.213 00:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Trivia claims that "Isidore of Seville... wrote what he felt to be an 'exhaustive' encyclopedia on all the facts of the universe, but which was only a hundred pages long." Based on Isidore of Seville's own article, this seems to refer to his Etymologiae, but there it is described as "a huge compilation of 448 chapters in 20 volumes". Something is amiss here.

I don't think it should be merged. Crap artist is too important a concept, it needs it's own place for discussion. User:SatanicYakuza 9:58 AM PST, 24 July 2006


 * Are there any other occurances of the term crap artist (in this sense) besides in Dick's novel? If not, I'd say that it's not "notable" and doesn't need its own article.  As it is, the crap artist page is more of a dictionary entry than an encyclop&aelig;dia article, anyway.  —Eric S. Smith 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect if no other occurrences are found. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fay/Judy?
On the back of the 1992 Vintage paperback, Fay Hume is called "Judy Hume". Is this just a flat-out mistake, or is she referred to as Judy at some point in the book and Fay is a nickname? Or... ???? Boguslinks 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The 1978 Entwhistle paperback reissue doesn't contain the word "Judy". I don't have the 1992 edition, but I would assume it's a mistake. Speaking of names, the '78 edition has her husband's named spelled "Charley" but wikipedia had "Charlie". I've changed it to match the book. Professor slats (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fay and Charley are correct. Somehow covers never seem to be proofread by those who did the book, and PKD suffers from such errors more than most.Pawprintoz (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis - Ending
The current final paragraph of the article is:
 * At the novel’s end, Jack concludes that his obsessions are healthier than those of his sister and his brother-in-law. However, the novel does not argue explicitly that Jack’s illness is acceptable, or not really an illness. In the end, he does accept suggestions that he requires psychiatric assistance, and finally obtains it.

The four final words (bolded) are not actually true according to my copy of the book, which ends like this:
 * As the bus drove along I considered how I would locate the best analyst. In the end I decided to get the names of every one of them practicing in the Bay Area, and visit each of them in turn. In my mind I began putting together a questionaire for them to fill out, telling the number of patients they had had, the number of cures, the number of total failures, length of time involved in cures, number of partial cures, etc. So on the basis of that I could draw up a chart and compute which analyst would be the most likely to give me help.
 * It seemed to me that the least I could do was try to use Charley’s money wisely and not squander it on some charlatan. And on the basis of past choices, it seems pretty evident that my judgment is not of the best.

I.e., Jack sets out to find an analyst, but we're never told he actually locates one. Nitpicking, sure, but still. (Considering his success while job hunting a bit earlier, I personally doubt anything much came of this.) Idontcareanymore (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)