3 ms·

If you're asking about the quality of his writing, it's up to snuff. That said, having read his last book and excerpts from this one, it's probably not fair to

by jskopek 18y ago

If you're asking about the quality of his writing, it's up to snuff. That said, having read his last book and excerpts from this one, it's probably not fair to try and compare him to a journalist. Neil chases stories and ideas that are both a little crazy and secretly appealing to most men. Let's face it, all of us guys have wished at some point or other that they could seduce any women they wanted. In the same way, a lot of us have probably wondered what it would be like to live a spy lifestyle, or to have bank accounts in exclusive foreign countries. This is basically just the equivalent of a harlequin novel, but for guys.

marvin 18y ago
Seriously, harlequin novels? That implies that books like these are both a dime-a-dozen and uncreative in addition to being fictional - nothing could be further from the truth. Strauss' writing is interesting precisely because it's about really crazy subjects that no one else writes about, or at least where the existing literature is aimed at very narrow audiences. I don't know about the "quality of writing"; this seems to be a quality you can define to mean just about anything. I agree that some of Strauss' plot devices are pretty lame and predictable - you'd probably not want to discuss his technique in a literature program. And like all supposedly "real" novels, there's probably a decent amount of distortions and exaggerations. But his books are engaging, and very much in the direction of "satisfy intellectual curiosity" that I love. No one is supposed to be manipulating social situations like the characters of "The Game", and yet it happens. I found it eye-opening in a lot of ways, and it brings a host of new questions: what is "genuine" social interaction? How much of people's personality is learned and internalized behavior? How much of sexual attraction is? Should you try to change your personality for something that is supposedly better, and can it be done? In relation to dominance/submission in social situation (the implicit structure of command and leadership that automatically arises when a group of people meets), how much is genuine (or "natural" - what does "natural" even mean?) and to what degrees do natural leaders actively manipulate the people around them? You shouldn't read books just for some supposed literary value, the real value comes from the questions you have when you're done.

by jskopek 18y ago

marvin 18y ago

Seriously, harlequin novels? That implies that books like these are both a dime-a-dozen and uncreative in addition to being fictional - nothing could be further from the truth. Strauss' writing is interesting precisely because it's about really crazy subjects that no one else writes about, or at least where the existing literature is aimed at very narrow audiences. I don't know about the "quality of writing"; this seems to be a quality you can define to mean just about anything. I agree that some of Strauss' plot devices are pretty lame and predictable - you'd probably not want to discuss his technique in a literature program. And like all supposedly "real" novels, there's probably a decent amount of distortions and exaggerations. But his books are engaging, and very much in the direction of "satisfy intellectual curiosity" that I love. No one is supposed to be manipulating social situations like the characters of "The Game", and yet it happens. I found it eye-opening in a lot of ways, and it brings a host of new questions: what is "genuine" social interaction? How much of people's personality is learned and internalized behavior? How much of sexual attraction is? Should you try to change your personality for something that is supposedly better, and can it be done? In relation to dominance/submission in social situation (the implicit structure of command and leadership that automatically arises when a group of people meets), how much is genuine (or "natural" - what does "natural" even mean?) and to what degrees do natural leaders actively manipulate the people around them? You shouldn't read books just for some supposed literary value, the real value comes from the questions you have when you're done.