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)

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

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)

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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411091854/http://www.unitedkingdomescapeartists.co.uk/ to http://www.unitedkingdomescapeartists.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407095646/http://seattletimes.com/html/movies/2021005059_islafisherxml.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/movies/2021005059_islafisherxml.html

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

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

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)