I realise this area is about discussion of women as magicians so I hope it won't be considered patronising to raise a question here about a magician's assistant. (For the record I very much support the recognition of women and men as equals in the world of magic). Anyway, my point is that there seems to be a woman who has a significant place in the history of magic but whose name is apparently unpublicised. I'm referring to whoever !@#isted PT Selbit in the first performance of his sawing illusion in 1921.

The reason I describe her as having a significant place in history is that this event and the reaction it provoked had a big impact on public expectations of stage magic for decades. I don't think I need to spell out how "sawing" illusions became a staple of magic repertoires. Indeed I think you could argue that Selbit's success helped to ensure the prominence of a whole genre of "box-n-blade" type illusions right up to the present.

So it strikes me as sad that while we still hear Selbit mentioned frequently, we don't seem to hear the name of the !@#istant who first stepped into that box in London in January 1921. I don't know her name. I've come across one suggestion but having looked into it I'm not at all convinced. I'm posting this message here in the hope that someone with a better library than me has some reliable source which can provide an answer.

I know there are differing views about women featuring in magic as "boxjumpers" who get sawn in two, but, even among those who object to that role, I think there is probably a great deal of agreement that !@#istants deserve credit for what they do. Many acts depend greatly on a skilled and professional !@#istant. The !@#istant in Selbit's sawing definitely played an active part in making the illusion work. When it was re-created on British television by Paul Daniels it was clear that his wife Debbie McGee got some credit as !@#istant. Having some experience of archival research and the frustrating way that original records seem to get mislaid I'm hoping the name of Selbit's !@#istant hasn't been lost in the vagaries of time.

PS. I have the date and of Selbit's first performance as 17 January 1921. Anyone care to contradict that? And can anyone confirm the venue?

For some reason, when I type "assistant" the Café's system seems to convert it to !@#istant (unless I put it in BBcode). Is there some feature that does this to discourage discussion of such subjects here?

It's a rather unsophisticated profanity filter that will do that with any word where the letter a the letter s and the letter s all appear at the beginning, observe:

!@#ociate
!@#istant
!@#embly
!@#uredly

This forum isn't restricted to discussions only about female magicians. An !@#istant who made a significant contribution to magic history is a worthy discussion. I don't think anyone here would stop a discussion about Nani Darnell Wilson or Virginia Williams (for those of you who don't know, Virginia was the wife of Dick Williams who holds the record for the longest running magic show on television).

Margarette

Glad to hear that. Hopefully (if I can get an answer to my original post) we can give some long overdue recognition to the woman who performed with Selbit.

PS. Thanks for mentioning Virginia Williams. Because I'm a Brit I wasn't really aware of her or Dick Williams - his record for the "Magicland" show is quite an achievement.

A bit of topic but still it seems relevant here.

You make an interesting point Mark. Your concern that someone might find a discussion about an "!@#istant" patronizing in a forum for female "magicians" points out a great injustice in the field of magic. The belief that an !@#istant is not a magician. Think about this...in magic there are many types of magicians... Dove workers, close-up, card workers, illusionist to name a few but they all fall under the umbrella of "Magicians" yet "!@#istant" does not. Is not the very nature of what an !@#istant does the same as what a magician does?

An illusionist, through very speical, trained skills makes it appear that he can saw a woman in half and put her back together again.

An !@#istant, through very speical, trained skills makes it appear that she can be sawn in half and put back together again.

Maybe I'm missing something but that seems pretty darn close to the same thing to me. Two differant sets of skills at work yet the same illusion. And still the person outside the box is considered a magician and the one inside the box is not?

The !@#istant, male or female, who jumps into boxes is as much a magician as anyone who pulls doves or flicks cards. There is a need to train and special skills involved just like any other form of magic.

This persistent untruth will continue, unchecked, until the people who started it put an end to it. It's great to see that magicians want to step up and praise the !@#istants and many treat them as equals. But we need to start using the term "magician" to refer to the !@#istant as well.

That said, Mark I'd like to start by rephrasing your question abit....
"Who was the magicican in the box when PT Selbit first performed his sawing illusion in 1921, what was her name?"

I know I might be picking at straws here, but, after all, it was a straw that broke the camel's back.

Now I'll return control of this thread to Mark who's post is just great by-the-way. I think is so cool your looking for that info. I'll do what I can to help you, it just might be in an older book on John's shelf.

Morgan

Interesting point, Morgan.

The most famous magician of all time, Houdini, called his magic act with his wife, "The Houdinis", not Houdini and company, etc. It was only until he moved on and emerged as an Escapist, did he drop that title.

Also in all his early publicity, if he had three pictures of himself in a poster or promotion piece, he also had the same number of his wife, Bess.

A tribute to the forward thinking of the man.

We point this out in all our tours.

Also note, all of our lives in magic, Dorothy and I have kept distinct identities.

Regards,

Dick Brooks & Dorothy Dietrich

Morgan, I absolutely agree with what you've said - and you put it very well indeed. There was no intention on my part that my original words should imply an !@#istant is any less of a magician than the person fronting the act. I was just using the words by which these people are frequently referred to and trying to cover myself in case other people thought a discussion on !@#istants didn't belong here. If anyone misinterpretted that as suggesting I think an !@#istant is a lesser figure then I'll be happy to put them straight on the matter.

On a related point, I'm eagerly awaiting the film "Women In Boxes", which is all about recognising the skills and contributions of !@#istants and which features interviews with the female partners in many of the top magic acts over recent decades. I understand that, after a long post-production gestation, it finally has a premier coming up in June at a film festival in Vegas. Perhaps it will contribute to the proper recognition of !@#istants as magicians. I just hope it will get some sort of European release.

Having read Morgan's post I'm very happy that the question for this thread should be...

Mark I'd never question your use of the term assitant and fully understand you didn't mean to imply anything...not you, ever. Your a real stand-up guy when it comes to women in magic.
But far be it from me to pass up a chance to make a point...your post just seemed a good jumping off point, if you know what I mean.

Now about the woman in question...We have looked around some and come up with zip. John reminds me that Mr. Selbit was going through a very nasty divorce when he came up with his sawing. A direct result of what he was feeling toward his wife and, no doubt, women in general at the time. That as it was he wasn't likely concerned that anyone knew the girl's name.

Morgan

Wow Morgan, thanks for the testimonial! However it's mostly a case of me being the sort of person who has a tendency to get into ethical arguments and just say what I believe. Sometimes it gets me into trouble.




I rather feared that might be the case. Thanks anyway for taking the trouble - it's much appreciated (and very much the sort of considerate act I've come to associate with you)

It's been suggested to me that the official historian at the Magic Circle might be able to provide information. I'll give them ago but I don't know if they answer questions from the general public.

I immediately think of Servais le Roy, TALMA nad Bosco! You can find reprints of their posters in several books.

And the most famous magic woman in history: CIRCE! Homers Odyssee tells a stunning story about her - she transforms the companions of Odysseus to pigs - but please check the very good entry at wikipedia. There are a lot of paintings with her as a prominent motive... I suppose Circe could be a very rewarding topic for a complete act.

I'm told that Jim Steinmeyer's Art & Artifice states that: "Jan Glenrose was the lady in rehearsal, Betty Barker was the magician's primary assistant".

If this is right then those two names should be much more widely celebrated.

I read that Jan Glenrose was also the partner of British magician Fred Culpitt who lived from 1877 to 1944, who was possibly the first magician to appear on TV. So perhaps Jan Glenrose was the first magician's assistant to appear on TV...watch this space.

As a general rule, the "assistant" should not be billed as a "magician," even if (or especially if) the "assistant" is sctually doing a lot of the magic. I'm sure there are exceptions. But think about this. The magician is perceived as "tricky" while the non-magician "assistant" is perceived as "innocent" or "guileless." When the magician is doing something, there is "tension," when the non-magicians is simply "assisting" there is a moment of "relaxation." This allows the non-magician assistant to advance the magic by doing the tricky things.

If a magician has an audience member pick a card, some people may suspect that the magician may be doing something tricky. But if the magician hands the deck to the non-magician "assistant" and the assistant then has somebody pick a card and replace it in the deck, that would be less suspicious simply because the "assistant" isn't a magician. So the non-magician could force a card, or control the card, etc., without anyone being the wiser. Or the non-magician "assistant" can borrow a ring from an audience member hand and it to the magician without being suspected of switching the ring for a gimmicked one. The magician can hand some silks from a top hat or box to the non-magician who then hands them back to the magician who then finds more stuff in the silks. Of course, the non-magician, being a non-magician, couldn't possibly have loaded the silks.

Tarbell relates that in a stage production, a cast member who played a character who was trying to find out how the tricks were done was the one who was actually loading the magicians hat. Even fooled the magicians.

From the audience stand point, the magician is showing his ability to cut somebody in half and make them whole again.The person in the box is not demonstrating the ability to apparently be cut in half and restored.