Talk:The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] bible-like appearance

Is the book really non-fiction? any proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.33.71 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

People in the community, when asked about it (and it does get asked a lot) they say that the general story is true, but exact facts have been somewhat manipulated, such as the fact that from the time Neil joined the community to the time of the events at the book's close, four years had passed, not two as Strauss says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.46.120 (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


"The book is black with gold lettering on the cover, bringing to mind a bible or other sacred text."

Many many many people have came out and said the events in the book are true, not to mention the countless postings from before the books was published which back up the events in it (although having said that, the book does often bend the truth a little during a few parts of it). Mathmo Talk 08:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

??? So since when were bibles black with gold lettering? And it's not true anyway. In my edition (and I'm not aware there are others), the book is red with silver lettering. Palefire 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many different verions/printings of "The Game", however the most common version (in shops and when portrayed in the Media, i.e. a shot of the book in the news etc...) seems to be of the black covered one. However other's such as my neighbour's is a small soft covered book with a full colour and cartoony kind of look to the cover. Mathmo 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


There is a version which is black with gold lettering on the cover too (the cover being leather-like -- some kind of PVC?), but it's true that wether or not it brings to mind a bible is a bit subjective. When I saw it all I thought was "hey, that looks nice", and then I bought the "normal" one since it was cheaper. 202.156.6.54 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


It's definetly supposed to give off a Bible look to it. AMac2002 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"will be staring Jack Black and Kate Hudson" is supported by reference [4] but if you look at it, its a review of the book on bn.com. in context, its obvious the reference to the actors is tongue-in-cheek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.113.187 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 December 2006

Not so sure if done tongue in check, but it does appear to have only been a rumor going about [1], so is now removed. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure that style has the rights to the movie again, as he referenced it in several mailing list letters. More importantly, if i remember correctly, he said he didn't want to do anything with those rights (to avoid blowing the cover off the "community"

[edit] Semi protection

A while has passed, remove it now perhaps? Mathmo Talk 10:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, this article was a magnet for bad edits. Leave it protected forever. Squidfryerchef 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected permanently, there is a spammer war going on right now over the links on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.246.30 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Being left protected forever is a bad idea, even worse if it is full protection (as it is now). Mathmo Talk 08:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be semi-protected again, at least until the external link spammer is blacklisted. Feel free to contribute to the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, or add it if you're an admin. dissolvetalk 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date of the "Rules of the Game"

Is it definitely the 18th Dec?? Because I have a copy sitting right here... Nutcracker2007 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image nomination

Will this image of the recently published book will do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Game_Paperback.jpg

  1. Publisher: Canongate Books Ltd (28 Nov 2007)
  2. Language English
  3. ISBN-10: 184767237X
  4. ISBN-13: 978-1847672377

I've made some appropriate selections regarding copyright policies prior to the upload. Shin-chan01 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already has an image. Is there a need for a second image? Hmm.. perhaps, could illustrate the many different versions that have been marketed. Mathmo Talk 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-fiction & plot outline

A little worried about how the article has developed, laying out the plot outline as apparently the "gospel truth" of what happened (as this is labeled as a non-fiction book) is the wrong way to go about this. I believe the best way to balance this article out and move it towards being more NPOV would be to add another section with the differencing views of what went on. And on a unrelated point, here is a few photos from that time period: [2] Mathmo Talk 08:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reality?

Its a case of reality. Ive been on these dating sites and a lot of what Neil writes is true but I must admnit I have never encountered guys who actually correspond with each other. Usualy when that happens people get suspicious. 84.9.61.204 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

(Note - the below was originally placed on my personal talk page, but since all the comments pertain to this particular article, I thought it would be more appropriate to place it here. Rray (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Take a look at your revisions and the reason for my reversion; I promise you, there is meaning to the madness:

The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pick-up Artists is a non-fiction book which exposes the seduction community to the mainstream public. It was written by investigative reporter Neil Strauss as a chronicle of his journey from "average frustrated chump" to "master pickup artist" using techniques devised by a network of men frustrated by their incompetence in sexual seduction.

A book which exposes the community? No, the book exposed the community. It's publication let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Exposes is current tense, and the book's effect on the mainstream public was exposure for a time (Now it's more of a reference). Were we talking about an ongoing publication or series, for instance, then the word exposes would be more accurate.

In the book, he adopts the pseudonym Style and details changing encounters with women as he studies with various seduction gurus. The book's publication began an explosion of pick-up artist jargon and reveals inside events in the rapidly-growing Mystery Method company of 2004.

I like the phrase 'a slew of...' You might not, and that's your opinion. The truth is, both are correct, but by saying a slew of, I feel the sentence refers to a quantity of, not necessarily a large, wide-ranging group which is connotated by the word various. I'm not that serious about this one, and I will let it go if it brings a truce.

The book was featured on the New York Times Bestseller List for two months after its release in September 2005, reaching prominence again in 2007 during the broadcast of the hit series, VH1's The Pick-Up Artist. If you do the research, you'll see that it was an instant bestseller on the Internet, and it gathered enormous backing online. I feel the book's immediate impact is important, which is not made clear by your revision. Someone can read the statement and interpret the two months as not immediate, but at sometime after the release in Sept. 2005.

--PolskanPUA (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "a slew" is vague and unencyclopedic and probably shouldn't be used, but I don't care enough about the article to bicker about it. "I like it" is not a valid reason to use a phrase though. I see your point about the term "exposes" although I don't necessarily agree with it. Regarding doing the research, if you've included an appropriate citation (which is the responsibility of the editor adding the information to the article), I won't have to do any research other than clicking on the footnote. Rray (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I included tags requesting citations for some of the claims that you re-added, and I deleted the phrase "a slew of" again, as it doesn't *add* any meaning, but it's pretty clearly a vague and promotional phrase. Based on your detailed comments above, I'm assuming that you're familiar enough with the subject to add appropriate citations. Rray (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)