Talk:Escapology

Not a science

Does anybody out there think we ought mention that escapology is not a science? And that magicains hate being thought of as scientists because they have a higher calling, which is show business. This is a very nice article. Has it been conected to a sexual fetish page yet? You know straitjacket links here don't you? Two16 21:55 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Book with escapology plot

I dunno about the above, but I have a question about

The book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon (winner of the 2001 Pulitzer Prize) features escapology as an important plot point.

Did he win the prize for this book, or a different one? It's ambiguous. Tokerboy

Chabon did indeed win the prize for this book. --TonyW 22:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup 2004

I'm flagging this article for cleanup - not for a lack of information or verve, just a whole lot of sloppy grammar/punctuation and what I think is an overly conversational tone for a reference article. --Hob 06:11, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I tried indeed to shave off a bit from the chatty, conversational tone but now it has become a little menacing. These kinds of how-to's don't fit in with encyclopediae, I think...Srd2005 20:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to jump in and start copyediting but the more I looked at it, the more I thought it needed to be ruthlessly trimmed back. In fact the whole large section on techniques could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences. --LeeHunter 23:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, the Techniques section seems to be essentially a how-to in terms of keeping people bound up. Pvodenski 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19-Oct-2007: The wording now balances techniques for binding and escaping, as appropriate. -Wikid77 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview not how-to bind/escape

19-Oct-2007: The wording currently (under the Techniques section) is a balance, between techniques for binding and escaping, not just "keeping people bound" but both. I've written actual "how-to" articles (see: WikiHow), and such articles have many more details than the "Escapology" article techniques (which wouldn't qualify as "how-to" steps), so I think the perspective now is, correctly, an encyclopedic ("en-compassing") view of binding/escaping. Thanks to the other editors, who edited this article into the current balanced viewpoint. -Wikid77 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References?

A careful reading of this article reveals that it's referencing is very harem-scarem......particularly some of the "Escapology in Ficion" bits......some need to be properly referenced. Other thoughts/opinions?? Buddpaul (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Escapology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occult escapology

If you pardon my f*** french, this sections looks like bullsh*t to me. Can anyone with real illusionism / stage magic background have a check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.57.20 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]