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

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)

How about classifying the genre of thebook as "creative non-fiction"? That is, the general plot is non-fiction although some artistic liberties may have been taken in writing the book.Andrewlynch88 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Or we can classify as claimed non-fiction and add a section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.199.54 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2009 (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"

This refers to its bible like appearance: http://www.bookslut.com/features/2006_03_008117.php Mathmo ^Talk 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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. dissolve^talk 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

this should be nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.44.96 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is funny

Don't we think this is unintentionally hilarious: "when his girlfriend cheats on him with one of his best friends, he sinks into a bout of depression". This is a guy, remember, whose entire reason for existence has been improving techniques for picking up women. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

no, it is not his "entire reason for existence". He primarily is a writer. Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the statment is about Mystery, who makes a living teaching men how to pick up girls. And then he is upset because his girlfriend cheats on him. Either way it's still funny. And tragic, of course. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't he contemplate suicide? And people want to take lessons from this guy? Whitereflection (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mystery was often cited as somebody who can't get in a serious relationship if his life depended on it, but one who can attract and seduce almost any women he lays his eyes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.170.123 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some wrong words

1. "follow suit" means to do as the other person does. "Complies" means to do what you are told.
2. to "level accusation" is generally done speaking to the person who has done the wrong
3. "incorporated into himself" is just new-age mumbo jumbo and we shouldn't use it, unless it's a quote when it should be in quote marks.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

stylelife.com link

This link does not appear to meet our guidelines. External links aren't for links that are related (we're not a portal or directory of links) it's for links that provide further encyclopedic about the subject of the article - in this case the book The Game. There doesn't seem to be any real information on the stylelife.com page that is about this book. -- SiobhanHansa 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next day or so I will remove the link again. -- SiobhanHansa 11:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suppose it would be appropriate on the author's page rather than the book Mathmo ^Talk 06:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That would make more sense to me if the site contains much information about the author - or if the WP article on Strauss talks significantly about the website. -- SiobhanHansa 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Critical Reception" section?

Does anyone think it might be a good idea to have a "Critical Reception" section for this article? I have been looking for reviews but so far have not come up with any. Paulish (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorizable as Gonzo Journalism?

I'm wondering if anyone's seen the literature categorized as such or if anyone agrees with me that it may potentially be considered Gonzo journalism. Strauss was clearly a major part of the PUA community during what can be described as research for the book, but he claims that he didn't join the community with the intention of writing about it. Thanks for any clarifications Aznph8playa2 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Other sub-titles of that book

I have Finnish translation of that book (“Pelimies. Alaston totuus pokaajien veljeskunnasta” Literally: “The Gameman. The Naked Truth about Brotherhood of Pick-up Artists.”). In its first pages name of that original book is like this: The game. Undercover in the Secret Society of Pickup Artists.

juhtolv (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that it's a little crazy that within hours of the comic being posted, there have already been several edits made about xkcd mentioning this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.168.64 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Added a reception section, with three reviews from WP:RS.Autarch (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge and redirect, as there wasn't any other viewpoints against or for this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that Owen Cook be merged into The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, with his name serving as a redirect. While Cook has gotten attention, it's all been within the scope of this book and he hasn't received any attention beyond that point. Other than a few articles that discuss him within the scope of The Game, the rest of the sources can't be used to back up any notability. If no one has any arguments against this, I'd like to see if anything is mergable and most importantly- to redirect Cook's article to this one. I'm looking and I don't really see much to merge that isn't already here, but I wanted to post this here just in case. Since I posted this today (5/25/12), if nobody minds then I'm going to redirect Cook's article here on 7/1/12. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I merged the content. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should have been merged. Tyler and Real Social Dynamics are a large company completely independent from Strauss. He got some attention from the book, but he has written his own books, has achieved notability independent from his association with this book. If this logic were to hold, you would have to merge Mystery's article with this one as well. This makes no sense, was poorly thought out and I think it should be reversed. Chantoke (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is pretty much the only thing he's really known for on Wikipedia and considering that the only other option would've been to delete the page due to a lack of depth of coverage, this seemed to be a good compromise. Mystery's far more well known than Durden is, yet his page still got deleted. (I redirected his name to the TV show he hosted.) Durden does not have the notability needed for his own article and his company Real Social Dynamics has been repeatedly deleted for the same reasons. Since you're contesting the merger, I'm taking it to AfD where there will be a larger audience to debate the merits of the article, whether it should be kept, and whether it should be a redirect to this book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• The point isn't actually who should or shouldn't be a redirect. The point of the merger/redirect was that Cook/Durden lacks the notability needed for an article dedicated to himself. This means that there's two options: you either delete the article via AfD (or another method) or you use the name as a redirect to what Cook/Durden is best known for, which is this book. All of his notability ultimately leads back to the fact that he was mentioned by Strauss in his book, which is why I redirected his name here. Considering that someone might potentially type his name in here on Wikipedia, it'll lead them here. It's not about whether he's more deserving or less deserving about someone else. It's about salvaging what we can from an article rather than outright deleting it. As far as Mystery goes, he's also well known for his TV series, so I redirected him to that. (Previously his article was deleted, so the name could still be useful as a redirect to his show.) Even if a person is independent of a person, place, or thing, if that's what they're best known for then that's what they'd redirect to. For example, let's say that Will Smith only ever did the Fresh Prince of Bel Aire. That's the only achievement in his career that he'd be notable for and he never got enough coverage outside of that show to merit his own article. Rather than just delete his article outright, it'd redirect to the show and be useful in that way. Otherwise the other option would be to delete everything and not have an article, a redirect, or anything on Wikipedia about that person.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chantoke. Tyler has a secundary role, while Mystery and Style are the main characters. --AeroPsico (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Image of people on street

Is this image of people in the book or not? If not, perhaps it should be removed as irrelevant as the topic of the article is the book. Autarch (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)