(Close Window)

Topic: An Opportunity to Respond....

Message: Posted by: Curtis Kam (Aug 26, 2011 3:50pm) Welcome to the 21st century. A lot has happened here since 1902, and one would think that you would welcome the opportunity to reply to those who have commented on your book. For instance, in 1957, Jean Hugard wrote an article that was mostly complimentary of your work, however, he did seem to believe that your book was responsible for a problem in magic. He wrote, in small part: [quote] The question then arises: what influence has this book had on Magic and magicians? There is no doubt that some of the methods for performing some of the sleights used by magicians are improvements on procedures which were standard before the book appeared and these improvements have been generally adopted my magicians and may now be said to be standard. To that extent then, the book has value but there is no doubt that the book as a whole has had a bad effect on the art of Magic. There has arisen a certain school of magicians who have been led to the fallacy of thinking that in Magic the method is everything whereas in truth it is the effect which is everything and the methods for attaining that effect are purely secondary. In presenting a feat of Magic the magician has no need of the phenomenal skill essential to the card cheat; indeed, the simplest methods of doing the various sleights are always the best for he can devote his attention to the far more important requirements of entertaining his audience. [/quote] How do you feel about this? And for that matter, did you follow the magic world's reaction to your book? Are there any other commentators or reviewers you would like to address?

Message: Posted by: S.W.Erdnase (Aug 30, 2011 1:23am) Mr. Kam, We've often been puzzled by Mr. Hugard's remarks. He states, as you correctly quoted from Hugard's Magic Monthly, that "there is no doubt that the book as a whole has had a bad effect on the art of Magic." However, nowhere in the remainder of his article does he back this statement up with anything resembling facts. He states that a certain school has arisen amongst magicians that believe that "in Magic the method is everything." Are readers to infer from this that we stated such nonsense in our treatise? If so, allow us to clear this up immediately. We do not believe, nor did we state or suggest in Artifice, Ruse and Subterfuge at the Card Table that "the method is everything." We feel that clarity of effect is paramount and that methodologies can impact that clarity in both positive and negative ways. It is up the performer to determine the most suitable method for a given effect. At the end of the first paragraph on p. 128 of our book, we stated (rather clearly, we believe) that "...the slights should be employed only as a means to an end." Put another way, the method serves the effect, not the other way around. We felt this to be true over 100 years ago and we continue to do so today. Either Mr. Hugard had an agenda, or perhaps he didn't read our entire work carefully. Or perhaps, both suppositions are true. S.W.E.

Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Aug 30, 2011 3:58am) I do not think his criticisms are directed at you at all, sir, but at some who thought they were your followers. I would not want to hold Marlo responsible for some of his followers, either. None of the things that Hugard was bothered by appear in your writing at all in my opinion. I think there were a number who wanted to apply to their characters the poker-faced demeanor and invisibility of technique that they imagined from the movies. They were more like movie gunslingers than gamblers, because they wanted to advance in the magic pecking order on the basis of their knowledge and demonstrable skills, rather than on the basis of their ability to get the money. As gamblers, they would have been the ones to seek out fast company instead of looking for qualified suckers. Wyatt Earp and his friend Walter Scot would have taken a different approach, as I am sure you would have as well. Is that not so?

Message: Posted by: S.W.Erdnase (Aug 31, 2011 5:40am) Pop, Perhaps you are correct with regard to Mr. Hugard's criticisms. It's difficult to tell. With regard to Wyatt Earp and Walter Scot's arrest in 1911, we have been sent this link in a private email: http://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=230934&forum=188&26 That thread casts doubt on whether the Scot mentioned in the article is the Walter Scot of magic and gambling fame. We'll try and make a note to ask Scot the next time we see him. S.W.E.