(Close Window)
Topic: Exposure in magic books aimed at laypeople
Message: Posted by: Rory Diamond (May 2, 2010 05:18PM)
Just picked up a copy of Magic, The Complete Course, by Joshua Jay. I am sure Josh is a nice guy, and a great magician. His book is sold at Barnes & Noble, Borders, and more (Just noticed it in "Things you never knew existed" mail order catalog.)He even does "book signings" at these mall stores. I am astounded to see that the book contains so many tricks regarded as "trade secrets" to working magicians: invisible deck, coin in the bottle exposing a folding coin, using the same for biting a coin effect, torn and restored newspaper, linking rings, many tricks exposing a thumb tip, etc. The book is not only written by Joshua Jay, but has offerings from Gregory Wilson, Gene Anderson,(who are just as guilty) and many others. Why is it that it is ok for these guys to blatantly expose magic in mall bookstores and nobody says anything about it? Where is Walter Blaney and his foaming at the mouth "WAM" when it comes to these Magic Castle types giving away well guarded magic secrets and methods? These are not simple, entry level magic tricks with paper clips and rubber bands.. these are tricks that are being used in working magician's acts. This is not a tourist magic shop where you buy a trick and they teach it to you.. this is right at the local mall of Anytown, USA. Anyone can pick the book up and casually page through it- in fact many people do, the book is often featured on display when you walk into a big box bookstore. Also picked up a book called "Mysterio's Encyclopedia of Magic and Conjuring", again aimed at laypeople and sold at contemporary bookstores. Exposes "knots off silk", Super X Suspension, etc. written by a well-known magician. How is this not exposure of magic? How is this any different than the "masked magician"? Oh, I guess it is ok if you are well-known and you are SELLING the secrets to laypeople! Talk about a double standard...
Message: Posted by: edh (May 2, 2010 05:31PM)
It all depends on who is doing the exposing as to whether or not they get hammered by their colleagues.

It is a DOUBLE standard!!!

The higher up the pecking order the magician is the less hammering they will recieve.

The lower down the pecking order the magician is the more hammering he will recieve.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (May 2, 2010 07:19PM)
I agree, Rory...
Message: Posted by: Dr. Eamon (May 2, 2010 08:34PM)
Good point!
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 2, 2010 10:06PM)
Snore.
This debate has been going on for 100+ years.
The first magic book I received under the Christmas tree as a young magic enthusiast was Henry Hay's The Amateur Magican's Handbook. I am sure there was plenty of criticism from the magic community when it was published because it disclosed too much "inside" information. I've spent countless hours lost in that book over the ensuing years as have many, many other magicians who have mentioned it as one of the most influential books in their magic development.
Joshua Jay's and Gabe Fajuri's books will help to launch a whole new generation of young magicians. I would not be too concerned about the occasional casual browser who might pick up one of their books. Who knows, it might just be the spark that ignites an interest in magic for them. Robert-Houdin claimed his own interest in magic was sparked when a bookseller accidentally wrapped up the wrong book, a magic book, rather than the book he had purchased.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (May 2, 2010 10:12PM)
Not to justify it, but this was going on long before many of us were born.

When I was in high school, I saw a small stack of copies of Ottokar Fischer's "Illustrated Magic" at a display table outside a bookstore in SF. I loved that book (borrowed it from the library many times), and seeing it right there, for sale to the masses, both ticked me off and thrilled me. So of course I bought a copy. This was around 1968-69.

More recently, I picked up a copy of "Houdini's Paper Magic" at Borders.

We tend to forget that so many of what we call the "classic books" were actually intended for the masses, not for those "in the know." And magic is still around.
Message: Posted by: Rory Diamond (May 3, 2010 10:02AM)
I'm not debating how long it has been going on. That's not the point. The tv masked magician has been going on for some time too. There was a vhs video tape in the 1980's entitled "Mystery Magician" and it exposed many large stage illusions, long before Magic's Biggest Secrets Revealed. Does that justify those tv shows, just because it was done before? Saying it was done before is a weak arguement. This type of thing does go on, and on, and on. Is it right? No. Ethical? No. It amazes me how the writers of these books are supposed to be the ones who are setting an example for the rest of us. If they want to launch a new generation of magicians, produce a book that is only sold at magic shops or on magic websites where you need to have an avid interest in magic to access it, not a casual interest.
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 3, 2010 11:15AM)
The only thing I really obect to is the choice of effects. If the old standards were good enough to inspire/interest us, why aren't they good enough for "the future generation of magicians?"

s
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 3, 2010 11:19AM)
Has magic really suffered? I don't think so. Yes, I'd be quite pleased to hear that the masked magician had choked on a chicken bone and croaked at Chick-fi-la but at the end of the day magic will survive. People forget his exposure soon enough. But then books and TV are two different things. In a country where most people spend an average of 7 hours a day sitting on their fat asses in front of the television the likelihood of their watching the Masked Magician, which is only about exposure and nothing more, is much higher than the likelihood that they'll go into a book store and pick up a magic book which was presumably written to foster an interest in performing magic (with the obvious exception of those written purely for exposing secrets). A magic book with nothing more than the "entry level" tricks you deem appropriate for the uninitiated is not likely to hold the interest of many with an IQ above room temperature in my opinion. Selling such books only in magic shops, of which there are fewer and fewer with every passing month, is unlikely to justify the cost of publication or do much to bring in young blood, or old for that matter, to the magic scene. Anybody with the most casual interest in knowing how a trick is done can find out in a matter of minutes by taking their iPhone out of their pockets and Googling the trick in question. There are no secrets for anyone who wants to know how-you-did-it badly enough. Perhaps you should direct your ire at the magic societies who allow anyone with the most casual and passing interest in conjuring to join their ranks and attend their meetings and lectures, or the many (remaining) magic shops which openly display gimmicked coins, invisible thread reels, thumb tips etc. in their glass front cases for all to see, or the countless crappy "magicians" who get in front of an audience and butcher magic because they aren't willing to put in the necessary time practicing before they inflict themselves on the public.
Magic books for the general public;
Is it right? Yes.
Is it ethical? Yes.
Is it the end of magic as we know it? I don't think so.
And 100 years from now someone will be complaining that they are providing brain chip downloads of magic's most cherished secrets to novices with no right to our secrets... :bawl:

Posted: May 3, 2010 12:28pm
P.S. Please let me know where those magic shops and websites are where "you need to have an avid interest in magic to access" their secret tomes of enlightenment! I'm not familiar with any such places.
Message: Posted by: edh (May 3, 2010 02:28PM)
Why don't we all just forget about complaining about exposure. If the top names in magic(Joshua Jay, Richard Kaufmann) can publish books for the public then let's not complain when others expose magic. What the heck these guys do it.

And it's really all about money, not educating the public on magic.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (May 3, 2010 04:31PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-03 11:02, Rory Diamond wrote:
I'm not debating how long it has been going on. That's not the point. The tv masked magician has been going on for some time too. There was a vhs video tape in the 1980's entitled "Mystery Magician" and it exposed many large stage illusions, long before Magic's Biggest Secrets Revealed. Does that justify those tv shows, just because it was done before? Saying it was done before is a weak arguement.
[/quote]
I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough... :)

Saying it's been done before wasn't an argument. It was an acceptance of a fact: a fact that has been a fact probably since Reginald Scot's book, even though we like to pretend it ain't so.

We like to think that Professor Hoffmann's books were written for the elite. Not so. I grew up on a lot of Walter Gibson's books, and Elliott's, and others that we like to think are "magic books," but were intended for the masses. I even have a copy of "Howard Thurston's Book of Magic," written by none other than himself (although he probably had it ghost-written).

My own, personal, unofficial, totally un-scientific test for whether a book was written "for magicians" or "for the public" is very simple. If the book just tells you how the trick works (most of the ones I mentioned above, along with Dunninger's Encyclopedia), it was intended for the general public; if it shows you how to actually prepare it and perform it (such as Tarbell), it was intended for those who have some degree of interest in performing magic.

These complaints have been going on for a long time. I was one of the complainers (a very loud one) myself at one time. And those complaints will continue as long as magic is around.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 3, 2010 04:43PM)
I see little in the way of valid purpose for magic "how to/how it's done" books for the public. I see such works as ways of belittling both the craft (oh that's all it was?) and its audiences (wow I feel foolish for not figuring that out) - making magic into puzzles and turning inspiring wonders into trivia.

"But what of those who find there way into the craft by way of extant books and toys?" the facile reader might ask. Those who would become refined deceivers or offer convincing illusions as part of their work will find the artisans and get the help they seek. Look, you got here ... what would you like to learn how to do?

The rest are, IMHO, better served by learning the three "r"s - reading, reasoning, rhetoric. Along that path they will likely come across that nice quote about how a trick which seems so clever becomes tiresome when one knows how it's done. Why destroy or belittle the enjoyment of others?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 3, 2010 05:07PM)
If it's that important.

Tell it to Joshua directly.

No, really.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 3, 2010 05:18PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-03 18:07, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
If it's that important.

Tell it to Joshua directly.

No, really.
[/quote]

To whom is your comment addressed?

Clearly Joshua and anyone else who's put out items directed at the public have already taken a position on the matter.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (May 3, 2010 07:00PM)
17 years ago I received Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic from an Aunt and Uncle - the book came with an assortment of props as well. It fostered my interest in magic. We all start somewhere. Should something as comprehensive as that be readily available at a low price? Maybe, maybe not. Will it expose people to some secrets? Yes. Might it give fodder for a heckler to hassle a table hopper? Possibly. Is it detrimental to magic? I doubt it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 3, 2010 07:50PM)
Before you got that course, Josh, what were you interested in?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 3, 2010 09:21PM)
This book is not about igniting an interest in magic. This book is about $$$, plain and simple.

This book is exposure, there's no two ways about it. It's professional secrets being distributed in public venues. If that is not the definition of exposure, what is? The Masked Magician exposed absurd garbage and was lambasted for it (I, personally, had to take the Fork Lift Levitation out of my act.) Somebody, somewhere (I'll pick Stan Allen since he first gave Joshua his widespread voice) decided that Joshua Jay should be an "insider." So now, he is protected and can do as he pleases with complete disregard to the consequences within the general magic community.

I personally am sick of the Big Shot Big Mouths in magic who think they can make the rules (as well as the Little Shots like epoptika who make condescending remarks about whom entry-level magic appeals to. There's a reason it's called "entry- level" my good man.)

If you think this book is appropriate, that's your opinion -- but be honest with yourself and never again voice concern over exposure, because you have just shown support for it.

Now I am going to go back to my cocktail. I thank you.
Message: Posted by: Rory Diamond (May 3, 2010 10:01PM)
I agree with Starrpower and EDH. Let's get real here.. you are not simply "sparking an interest" when you are giving away invisible deck, a folding coin, a Blaney/Super X Levitation, and a thumb tip. You are doing it for the almighty buck. With the thousands of other tricks out there, why would you include these? Because they are the tricks of most working professionals out there. They are good tricks, and by exposing them it helps sell books. People page through at the bookstore and say "oh, here is how that coin in the bottle works.. I am going to buy this". The writers of these books are not out to do anyone a "favor" by getting them interested in magic. How come Joshua Jay (and the other contributors) didn't include the methods to all of thier "pet" magic effects they would perform at magic conventions, if they were so concerned with getting people interested? And hey, where is Walter Blaney and his WAM magicians against exposure on this? That Mysterio book pretty much shows how his suspension works.
Message: Posted by: squando (May 4, 2010 08:15AM)
Magic exposure has always been around...for a price. Everyone has a different price point however...
Message: Posted by: Dr. Eamon (May 4, 2010 09:20AM)
It does not matter how long it has been going on, that does not make it right...

Many wrong things are been going on for centuries but that does not make it right...

But it does not matter anymore, all secrets are exposed already.

Magic and mentalism are dead!

If you tell someone in Holland you do magic or mentalism they smile like you are an old-fashioned fool. When a mentalist or magician is pronounced, you hear people say: “Oh, not again, I know all these stupid tricks already”

The only thing they do appreciate is a real entertainer, and it does not matter what he does, even if every trick goes wrong or does not do a trick at all. Are you able to entertain people, that´s the question…
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 4, 2010 12:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-03 22:21, Starrpower wrote:
This book is not about igniting an interest in magic. This book is about $$$, plain and simple.

This book is exposure, there's no two ways about it. It's professional secrets being distributed in public venues. If that is not the definition of exposure, what is? The Masked Magician exposed absurd garbage and was lambasted for it (I, personally, had to take the Fork Lift Levitation out of my act.) Somebody, somewhere (I'll pick Stan Allen since he first gave Joshua his widespread voice) decided that Joshua Jay should be an "insider." So now, he is protected and can do as he pleases with complete disregard to the consequences within the general magic community.

I personally am sick of the Big Shot Big Mouths in magic who think they can make the rules (as well as the Little Shots like epoptika who make condescending remarks about whom entry-level magic appeals to. There's a reason it's called "entry- level" my good man.)

If you think this book is appropriate, that's your opinion -- but be honest with yourself and never again voice concern over exposure, because you have just shown support for it.

[/quote]

"Little Shot"? Wow, you've really hurt my feelings now.

I think some of you guys are way too obsessed about your "secrets". Perhaps you ought to spend more time working on your presentation skills.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (May 4, 2010 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-03 20:50, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Before you got that course, Josh, what were you interested in?
[/quote]

It's hard to say, I was 9 or 10 at the time. I did have an interest in magic, as much as any child around that age seems to have. I received it, which was strange, because my interest was unknown to my aunt and uncle. I would have to say that my largest interests at the time were probably video games and WWF.
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 4, 2010 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-02 18:18, Rory Diamond wrote:
Just picked up a copy of Magic, The Complete Course, by Joshua Jay. I am sure Josh is a nice guy, and a great magician. His book is sold at Barnes & Noble, Borders, and more (Just noticed it in "Things you never knew existed" mail order catalog.)He even does "book signings" at these mall stores. I am astounded to see that the book contains so many tricks regarded as "trade secrets" to working magicians: invisible deck, coin in the bottle exposing a folding coin, using the same for biting a coin effect, torn and restored newspaper, linking rings, many tricks exposing a thumb tip, etc. The book is not only written by Joshua Jay, but has offerings from Gregory Wilson, Gene Anderson,(who are just as guilty) and many others. Why is it that it is ok for these guys to blatantly expose magic in mall bookstores and nobody says anything about it? Where is Walter Blaney and his foaming at the mouth "WAM" when it comes to these Magic Castle types giving away well guarded magic secrets and methods? These are not simple, entry level magic tricks with paper clips and rubber bands.. these are tricks that are being used in working magician's acts. This is not a tourist magic shop where you buy a trick and they teach it to you.. this is right at the local mall of Anytown, USA. Anyone can pick the book up and casually page through it- in fact many people do, the book is often featured on display when you walk into a big box bookstore. Also picked up a book called "Mysterio's Encyclopedia of Magic and Conjuring", again aimed at laypeople and sold at contemporary bookstores. Exposes "knots off silk", Super X Suspension, etc. written by a well-known magician. How is this not exposure of magic? How is this any different than the "masked magician"? Oh, I guess it is ok if you are well-known and you are SELLING the secrets to laypeople! Talk about a double standard...
[/quote]

I don't want to get into the "because it was always done" argument - that is not an excuse - but it does bring up an interesting question:

How do you feel about Modern Magic and the following Hoffman texts? Were these important to the growth of magic? Would we be where we are today without them? Does it matter that they were sold openly in book shops? Were they exposure then? Are they now?

What about Expert at the Card Table - arguably one of the most important books on sleight of hand ever written. It was intended for sale to the public. Was it exposure then? Is it now?

If a "mall" book store sold a copy of Hoffman or Erdnase today - would you consider that exposure? While I know many local and regional magicians who perform tricks they saw David Blaine do on TV - such as biting a coin or the invisible deck - I can think of probably more magicians (of greater artistic acclaim) that use material and techniques from Erdnase. Is selling Erdnase in a book store exposure?

Many of the illusionary principles described in Hoffman are still in use today. Is selling Hoffman exposure?

Which brings us to the simple question - where is the line? Should no magic books be sold to the public? Or just to the public at major book stores? Or should only certain TYPES of magic books be sold to the public, and the rest kept in magic shops.

Yet THIS begs the question - who do the magic shops sell to?

I know lots of teenagers that have bought great books and crummy dvds online - what set them apart from the laypeople in the mall prior to them keying in their mom's credit card number on the first magic site they came across?

Doesn't it take more work to find out that the magic books are in the games section of B and N than it does to enter in "magic shop" in your favorite web browser?

What entitles one person to the information and denies the other?

Is it the claim of being a magician?

Ok - I'm a magician. NOW can I buy the book?
[quote]
On 2010-05-03 23:01, Rory Diamond wrote:
Let's get real here.. you are not simply "sparking an interest" when you are giving away invisible deck, a folding coin, a Blaney/Super X Levitation, and a thumb tip. You are doing it for the almighty buck. With the thousands of other tricks out there, why would you include these? Because they are the tricks of most working professionals out there.
[/quote]

Sounds like "most working professionals" are hacks.

Are you saying we should only teach stupid, unusable tricks that no one does in beginners magic books?

That will REALLY spark an interest in magic!!!!
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (May 4, 2010 03:53PM)
I don't know, I'm kind of torn here...

On the one hand, I would venture to say that the vast majority of us got started with a book or magic set marketed to the general public at a library, book store, or toy store. Without any of those being on the market, very few of us would be magicians today. (Of course, after seeing my double lift, some of you might think that is a good thing!)

Those are some awfully good, professional-caliber effects in Josh's book. On the other hand, I'm not sure explanations of any of those aren't available on the Internet for free. So at least folks would be paying something for Josh's book. They would have to actually go to the store and pick it up and open it as opposed to making a few clicks of the mouse while planted on their rapidly spreading backsides.

Part of the problem with exposure is that the more we call attention to it, the more we fan the flame. Remember the hype with the second MM special? "The show ten thousand magicians don't want you to see!" The protest of magicians only caused MORE viewers to tune in.

It seems to me that if one has a problem with Josh's book, one shouldn't buy anything from Josh again. Further, one should probably write Josh and explain this to him. If another doesn't have a problem with it, I agree that he should at least be consistent about it and not howl when someone else does essentially the same thing.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 4, 2010 04:31PM)
So you're just saying that the narrator of the masked magician specials did not sound enthusiastic enough? And maybe if they gave him a bigger budget he could have explained the really good stuff like Copperfield's Statue vanish and the latest Jim Steinmeyer works?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 4, 2010 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-04 13:54, epoptika wrote:

"Little Shot"? Wow, you've really hurt my feelings now.

I think some of you guys are way too obsessed about your "secrets". Perhaps you ought to spend more time working on your presentation skills.
[/quote]

The "little shot" was in jest; I was not intending to offend you (if I did, it's an added bonus!)

All seriousness aside, I think you are missing the point. Truthteller, you absolutely miss it; you're entire post was about the selling of secrets.

The people commenting here are not "obsessed with secrets," (at least, I am not.) The way I understand it, Rory's commentary is about the hypocrisy of the magic community, not anger that tricks are being exposed. I think too many posters here are addressing the issue of exposure and missing the larger observation regarding the way the arrogant "Good Ol' Boys" view themselves vs. "the magic peons."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 4, 2010 07:02PM)
Those who respect the craft and audiences are not usually so involved in the tiny market for selling magic tricks/props/routines. What works for one person might not make sense for another. One size does not fit all. There are no easy answers to finding what works for you and magic tricks are not puzzles to figure out from ad descriptions. So until you let go of the "clever me figures it out - you can't figure it out" mentality, the "i have the latest trick" fashion addiction ... you might have to stay a "magic peon".
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 4, 2010 09:10PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-04 20:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

So until you let go of the "clever me figures it out - you can't figure it out" mentality, the "i have the latest trick" fashion addiction ... you might have to stay a "magic peon".
[/quote]

Um ... you still don't get it.

This thread is about hypocrisy. My "magic peon" term was in reference to the way the "Good Ol' Boys" see us ... anyone not in their little elitist circle. How you interpet this as being an issue of "you can't figure it out" is beyond me.
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 4, 2010 10:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-04 19:44, Starrpower wrote:
All seriousness aside, I think you are missing the point. Truthteller, you absolutely miss it; you're entire post was about the selling of secrets.

The people commenting here are not "obsessed with secrets," (at least, I am not.) The way I understand it, Rory's commentary is about the hypocrisy of the magic community, not anger that tricks are being exposed. I think too many posters here are addressing the issue of exposure and missing the larger observation regarding the way the arrogant "Good Ol' Boys" view themselves vs. "the magic peons."
[/quote]

But unless we can come to terms with what constitutes exposure (which is the context in which the caste system inequity was raised), then accusations of an old boys club are irrelevant. We can't get to that step without determining the first.

We need to look to other books which we consider valid and or having crossed the line and then compare what you are accusing as exposure today to those. That way we remove the personality of the author from the equation.

Defining "exposure" clearly is a hurdle, so I think it is wise to look specifically at the topic under consideration - what constitutes exposure in a book.

So, I asked my question about books.

If those questions can be answered and they yield a working litmus test THEN we can apply it to a magic elite like Josh Jay THEN we can decide if he got an unfair pass.

But right now no one has done any job at all of convicting these books in any sort of historical or social contexts of being any sort of actual exposure.

I think you would have to answer the questions I posed before you could hope to.

Just trying to help.

Somebody, quick. Get a rope.

(Now, if you want to address the caste system in another non-exposure context, that would be great. But again, you would have to actually establish what you are saying is happening is ACTUALLY happening - then right and wrong can be adjudicated.)
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (May 5, 2010 01:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-02 18:18, Rory Diamond wrote:
Just picked up a copy of Magic, The Complete Course, by Joshua Jay. I am sure Josh is a nice guy, and a great magician. His book is sold at Barnes & Noble, Borders, and more (Just noticed it in "Things you never knew existed" mail order catalog.)He even does "book signings" at these mall stores. I am astounded to see that the book contains so many tricks regarded as "trade secrets" to working magicians: invisible deck, coin in the bottle exposing a folding coin, using the same for biting a coin effect, torn and restored newspaper, linking rings, many tricks exposing a thumb tip, etc. The book is not only written by Joshua Jay, but has offerings from Gregory Wilson, Gene Anderson,(who are just as guilty) and many others. Why is it that it is ok for these guys to blatantly expose magic in mall bookstores and nobody says anything about it? Where is Walter Blaney and his foaming at the mouth "WAM" when it comes to these Magic Castle types giving away well guarded magic secrets and methods? These are not simple, entry level magic tricks with paper clips and rubber bands.. these are tricks that are being used in working magician's acts. This is not a tourist magic shop where you buy a trick and they teach it to you.. this is right at the local mall of Anytown, USA. Anyone can pick the book up and casually page through it- in fact many people do, the book is often featured on display when you walk into a big box bookstore. Also picked up a book called "Mysterio's Encyclopedia of Magic and Conjuring", again aimed at laypeople and sold at contemporary bookstores. Exposes "knots off silk", Super X Suspension, etc. written by a well-known magician. How is this not exposure of magic? How is this any different than the "masked magician"? Oh, I guess it is ok if you are well-known and you are SELLING the secrets to laypeople! Talk about a double standard...
[/quote]

I'll answer this in two parts. The first is the gratuitous reference to Walter Blaney and WAM. WAM ceased to exist in 1998 after the fiasco with the lawsuit against the Masked Magician. I was a charter member of WAM. WAM received so little support from the magic community at large that it was not feasible for them to continue operations. Even with attorneys who were willing to take on the cases on a pro bono basis, there were still expenses to be met and major inconveniences for people who were actually working. The case was timed incorrectly. I'm sure the attorney didn't realize that you can't sue for damages that have not occured. That's Law 101.

Regarding the "exposure of magic in a book intended for lay people." All of the magic organizations have a minimum retail price for books that teach magic secrets. I believe the current MSRP for a book of this type is $10.00.

This is basically no different from the [i]Mark Wilson Complete Course in Magic[/i] which was written by a magician whose fame is considerably more widespread than Joshua Jay's, and which teaches secrets on the same level, including a suspension quite similar to the Super X. If anyone is laboring under the misconception that Mark's course was written for magicians, then I would suggest that you actually study the book.

=========================================================

Maybe I should point out the way that some of the magic organizations view exposure vs. teaching.

Exposure is usually non-transactional. That is, you tune into a television show or you surf the internet and BINGO! there is some fool showing you how a thumb tip works.

Teaching is transactional. You pay for a lesson, the teacher teaches it. Your pay may be monetary. It may be payment in kind. But something changes hands from each side. You pay for a download. You download it. The person selling the download gets the money, you get the information. How good that information is depends on the person who wrote it for the seller.

How much damage is done to magic by a $20.00 book? To be blunt, I think it is very little. Most people don't read any more.
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 5, 2010 02:53PM)
Bill,

What if a kid's school does a magic program and they bring in a magician to teach some tricks to an entire class. would it matter if the school paid - if the teacher paid? What if the magician does it for free?

What about an after school program where the parents pay for the program per se but the magician comes in and teaches to all the kids who may or may not have an interest or would have sought it out? Does the parents fee cover the transactional element? Again, what if the magician does it for free?

(I think the transactional rule is interesting, just trying to flesh it out. thanks)
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 5, 2010 03:12PM)
I think a factor is being left out. What is being taught?
Invisible deck? folding coin? haunted key? Balducci levitation?

I think it is also about what is being taught, not just the book being sold.

s
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 5, 2010 03:50PM)
Sponge - are you saying then that only crappy tricks should be taught? What is the line?

I think, for many, it boils down to "is it a trick that I do?"

And what is the difference between teaching the trick in a magic book sold at a magic shop and teaching the trick in a magic book sold in a book store?

Should the magic shop restrict sales only to magicians?

What does more harm, an ellusionist style dvd that teaches great tricks to people with internet connections who may go out and butcher them, or a book on the shelf at barnes and noble that may be picked up by a (now) layman only to be never looked at again?

What about magic masters that sold invisible decks to thousands of lay people in malls? Was that exposure?

Where are the lines and why should THOSE be the lines?
Message: Posted by: edh (May 5, 2010 04:37PM)
In my opinion if you are selling effects to the public then you should be called on it, no matter who you are.

Brad, as for the books you mentioned that were sold to the public. I would have to say that they should have never been published and sold to the public. Perhaps then their would be far less magicians and the art would be respected and not on the same level as mimes(not that there is anything wrong with mimes. ;) )

The magic community would be far more tight knit. Entrance into the community would require one to seek out a member of the community and demonstrate to him/her an eagerness and willingness to learn about the art. Then and only then would he be allowed to enter the profession.

Perhaps less magicians would equal more talented magicians? I see less magicians as a good thing.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 5, 2010 04:46PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 14:23, Bill Palmer wrote:...Teaching is transactional....
[/quote]
Bill, that may have been true a generation ago - currently we are living in an economy of attention. And so the "exposure" transaction is one of attention. As to the "teaching" transaction - what teachers do you know who have set forth works which permit the teacher to verify each step in the student's instruction - IE to know what has been taught?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 5, 2010 04:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-04 23:53, truthteller wrote:
But unless we can come to terms with what constitutes exposure (which is the context in which the caste system inequity was raised), then accusations of an old boys club are irrelevant.[/quote]


We hold these truths to be self-evident ...

****

I may not be able to define exposure, but I know it when I see it.

****
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 5, 2010 05:08PM)
But Starrpower, that would leave us all having to ask you each time we wanted to know. And what if you are busy at that moment we need some help? Can't we have something we can use ahead of time to avoid getting into that situation of having to call you at odd hours?

[quote]
On 2010-05-04 23:53, truthteller wrote:...what constitutes exposure...
[/quote]

If a non-magician can read it or watch it and understand that guile is being used to make something which is not appear to be... then we have a strong case for potential exposure. If a non-magician can obtain such an artifact - it's exposed. If it's on ebay available to all and sundry - it's exposed.

That work for a framework and definition?

Do we need to proceed to haggle over the price in dollars?

Do we need to proceed to haggle over what we mean by "indecent exposure" when we already have lurid ads pointed at insecure children offering specious social skills?
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 5, 2010 06:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 16:50, truthteller wrote:
Sponge - are you saying then that only crappy tricks should be taught? What is the line?
[/quote]

Crappy tricks? Wow, not sure what to say there. LOL I think in some cases it is a matter of presentation.

Why not? It was good enough for us. Readers probably thought either 1. these suck, magic sucks and moved on. 2. these suck, let me do more research and find better ones.

what happened to working up to something, crawling before walking, paying dues, etc.?

I don't have the Jay book, but if those tricks (invisible deck, folding coin, and the like) are "revealed" why? It's not like they can perform it without the props. It's just a hook, a gimmick.

s
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 5, 2010 06:25PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 19:21, the Sponge wrote:...It's not like they can perform it without the props. It's just a hook, a gimmick.

s
[/quote]

A lure into the magic shop. Come hither and see what else lies waiting behind the shiny glass counters - in plastic bags labeled with names alluding to mysteries and wonders.
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 5, 2010 06:27PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 16:50, truthteller wrote:
What does more harm, an ellusionist style dvd that teaches great tricks to people with internet connections who may go out and butcher them, or a book on the shelf at Barnes and Noble that may be picked up by a (now) layman only to be never looked at again?

What about magic masters that sold invisible decks to thousands of lay people in malls? Was that exposure?

[/quote]

Come on now. stick to the argument. It's not about the mall or magic shops or terrible presentations. One thing at a time.

[quote]
On 2010-05-05 19:25, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 19:21, the Sponge wrote:...It's not like they can perform it without the props. It's just a hook, a gimmick.

s
[/quote]

A lure into the magic shop. Come hither and see what else lies waiting behind the shiny glass counters - in plastic bags labeled with names alluding to mysteries and wonders.
[/quote]
basic tricks do the same thing for those who have a real interest.

no, who cares about magic stores. only book sales. It is really, "Buy THIS book cause it contains the GOOD tricks REAL magicians use."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 5, 2010 06:36PM)
Sponge, the same is true of the Hoffmann books and the Mark Wilson course.

[quote]no, who cares about magic stores. only book sales. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose there might be a universe in which that concern makes sense.

[quote]
On 2010-05-05 14:23, Bill Palmer wrote:... All of the magic organizations have a minimum retail price for books that teach magic secrets. I believe the current MSRP for a book of this type is $10.00.... [/quote]

So it's only exposure when it gets remaindered for 3.99 or goes up for bid on ebay and goes for 1.99?

Bill, are you now or have you even been a member of a magical organization whose members did not understand the specious nature of that "rule" about price?

Charlie McCarthy asks "who's the dummy". ;)

Posted: May 5, 2010 8:15pm
Anyone here doing any of the material offered here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=learn+magic&x=0&y=0

or here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=card+magic+bannon&x=0&y=0

hmmmm?

over to you sponge.
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 5, 2010 09:43PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 20:15, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Anyone here doing any of the material offered here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=learn+magic&x=0&y=0

or here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=card+magic+bannon&x=0&y=0

hmmmm?

over to you sponge.
[/quote]

over to me? I didn't start the thread. nor have I spoken against selling books in bookstores. I only question the choice of effects. and what is the point of your links? Just more examples of the same thing.

s

[quote]
On 2010-05-05 19:49, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]no, who cares about magic stores. only book sales. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose there might be a universe in which that concern makes sense.
[/quote]

are you trying to tell me the authors/publishers don't care about book sales?!
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 5, 2010 10:29PM)
Edh, Is your position that any sales or publication of magical principles is exposure? I have no problem with that - other than the pragmatic one's presented. One, where WOULD magicians learn? (I am reminded of the Curb episode when the kid wouldn't explain his trick because Larry was not a magician. Larry then tried to establish what made the kid a magician. Was it just knowing one trick? but I digress). What would allow one person to access one book and not another? who would be that arbiter? And if that arbiter stood to make money off of supplying books, why would he want to restrict sales?

I guess what I am asking is - how would your system play out in the real world?

Sponge - Personally, I think the prop issue is a line. I have taught magic for over 20 years and I will only teach material that, given the time and resources available (and the ability/experience of the student), I can insure their empowerment and understanding of said material.

For example, I would never explain how the sawing was done because they don't have the stuff to do it. BUT if someone ever came to me with the props, I would have no issue helping them.

Likewise, I tend to avoid key card tricks because I think that is a powerful principle that many students fail to be able to grasp. Sure it's easy, and yes they can do it, but to me it is almost pornographic (in the most literal sense) - it fails to transcend the THING.

Unless I had invisible decks for everyone I would not teach it. But if I DID have invisible decks for everyone, I don't know if I would have an issue with teaching it. (Not sure yet.)

Because ultimately I see no difference between that and someone walking into a mall and buying one from magic masters or off of a rack in a fantasma kit. (I do think the issues of books and magic trick sales are part and parcel of each other.)

But I would want to know more about is why you feel we should start beginners with anything less than the best material. I have argued this with many people (many who sell dvds to magicians.) There position usually goes something like:

Just because we had to wade through the crap, why should we make others?

To come back to edh's point, does working through the crap lead to better magicians? Would magic be a better place without those books that greatly advanced the quality of material being presented either to the public or to other magicians?

If you gave people more knowledge and better tools, shouldn't THAT lead to greater advancement and not more competition with mimes?

why not?

And again, who judges when the student is ready?

According to this worldview, everything Ellusionist did was essentially exposure.

Would you agree?
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (May 5, 2010 10:48PM)
Jonathan:

I know of several people who are members of IBM and SAM who teach classes at various schools in the Houston area and the Austin area. Other than that, I can't list any. The ones I know in Houston charge fees to the individual students who attend the class. They are not large fees, but the students know how to keep stumm, and they take pride in their work. Nobody who is in the classes comes in without a genuine interest in magic. It's not just kids who download stuff from the internet or watch DVD's. Some of these kids have gone on to do professional performing.

As far as my membership in groups that set a minimum price for published work that goes out through "open" bookstores, I'm a member of IBM, SAM and the Magic Circle of London. You know that.

The Magic Circle of London has traditionally been the most assiduous in administering punishment to its members when they violate the minimum price rule, even if it is after the fact. When the [i]Bell Book of Magic[/i] came out, it was published at a price that was lower than the allowable rate. Patrick Page was the author. They booted him out of the club for a year. He didn't complain, even though he had every right to. The problem was that Bell was not the company Patrick signed the contract with. It was to be published by another company that went bankrupt. Bell purchased the manuscript and published it for a very low price over Patrick's objections.

The fact is that ANYONE can purchase ANY magic book that he wants. Do any of you remember William Poundstone's books? He exposed the Don Wayne floating ball, the Statue of Liberty vanish and a host of other proprietary magic effects. How did he do this? He bought the floating ball from a magic store. He got the info for the Statue of Liberty from someone who worked for Copperfield. How much permanent damage did he do? None.

You also know that I have a very low opinion of people who gratuitously expose magic. In fact, I was in the trenches against the Masked Magician when the rest of you guys were just whining, piffing and moaning. I was the first person who revealed exactly who the Masked Magician was on the internet. I had Valentino's picture up three days after the first Masked Magician broadcast. Right before the second one, Fox News called me to find out if I was afraid of being sued. I told them that I wasn't because I new I was right. I won't tell you how I knew. I did my due diligence, that's all.

My last "battle" was the one against the Pendragons when they were supporting the exposure that took place at the Ouatagamie County Museum. I sent an e-mail to the Magic Circle. The Circle refused to do anything about it. Ali Bongo told me later what actually happened.

Because I agreed to abide by the Circle's decision, I will not tell anyone what Bongo told me.

However, I smiled when I read about Claude Douglas Yarborough's incarceration. The Karmic wheel is just.

As far as what happens when a book is remaindered -- well, that's the breaks. You can't punish a person for that or for the sales of used copies of a book.

BTW, this book by Joshua Jay has not lowered my opinion of him in the least.
Message: Posted by: Dan Bernier (May 5, 2010 11:11PM)
Exposure? What about over exposure? :) We hear so much about what people think exposure is, but what about over exposure?

There is sooo much magic stuff being marketed these days, and 75-80% of it is crap. I know, because I pretty much buy everything that gets marketed. Not everything, but almost.(lol)

However, most of it isn't directly marketed to workers, but to hobbyist and the curious minded. I don't think the people marketing the products really care who buys it, just as long as they make money. They keep pushing new products onto the market as fast as they can. While treading the line of ethics with misleading advertisments, and deceptive demo's. When you find out you've ben duped, it's too late, they already have your money. Now, that's real magic folks. (lol)

This is especially true when a magician/creator comes out with a very good trick. It receives great reviews so they pump out more while the plate is hot. Truth is though, they end up marketing crap and hope to cash in from the popularity of their first trick. :) The magic of marketing. :)

Oh, and don't you love it when you hear, "He's contributing to the magic community by revealing one of his secrets that he has been performing for years." Sorry, but the real contributor's to the magic community are those who buy magic products, not those who sell them.

Everyone wants to be a creator now. Forget about actually working for a living, or booking shows. Just sit around, hang with other guys who know magic, and come up with lame stuff that when marketed properly can pay the rent, and have some fun money left over. :)


Who cares about exposure when over exposure is doing the real damage. Well...it's damaging to me, to my wallet anyways.(lol)

The only exposure we should worry about is the indecent kind!
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 5, 2010 11:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 23:29, truthteller wrote:

Sponge - Personally, I think the prop issue is a line...

But I would want to know more about is why you feel we should start beginners with anything less than the best material.

To come back to edh's point, does working through the crap lead to better magicians? Would magic be a better place without those books that greatly advanced the quality of material being presented either to the public or to other magicians?

If you gave people more knowledge and better tools, shouldn't THAT lead to greater advancement and not more competition with mimes?
[/quote]

Now, this is a great post! very clear, relevant, gives reasons, and asks great questions that must be addressed.

I don't disagree with any of it.

I guess I just don't buy the argument that newer effects/magician marketed effects are needed to inspire new, young magicians. Some of the "standard public domain effects in lay books and kits" are/can be amazing. Ones that aren't the best may inspire the person to try to improve it in some way. I imagine many effects were created/improved this way. If someone is really interested, in today's world it is easy to find high quality material.

I did go to the bookstore and skim through the book. I think it really is a very nice book. There are things I wish/don't think really should be in there. Just new formatting/packaging of the old chestnuts make them interesting/enticing (I think) To be fair, the book wasn't just Jay. There are several prominent magicians who contributed their effects. Therefore, they must feel that it is okay to put these tricks in a "beginner's" book.

I enjoy the mental exercise of a real discussion, but in the end, nothing will change, and these books in lay bookstores don't really hurt magic for very long/much.

s
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (May 6, 2010 12:20AM)
I used to be a member of VIPS -- Volunteers In Public Schools. My presentations were intended to explain to the kids what they would have to learn in order to be magicians. I didn't expose or teach anything. I did a few pieces and then told them where to go to learn them. They had to dig them up.

The most heartwarming of these appearances was for a class of children who had been diagnosed as having learning disabilities. I have written this up in the second through last posts in this thread:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=151715&forum=171&10

I wrote a lot about exposure vs. teaching in this thread:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=173811&forum=171&0

BTW, although we don't have a permanent "ethics committee" at any of our local (Houston) magic clubs, I'm one of the people who gets consulted when our members are planning to do a television appearance. Normally, the host will tell them that they want to be taught a trick.

I usually recommend that if they MUST teach them anything, they do the torn and restored napkin with the cod explanation. But I emphasize that they will be much better representatives of magicians if they do not teach them anything at all. In fact, the new president of our local assembly was on television last week. The hostess asked him, "So, what trick are you going to teach me?"

He answered, "I've only been the president of our assembly for a few months. If I teach you a trick on television, I am sure that I will be impeached." He smiled when he said it. The audience and the hostess laughed, and he got out completely unscathed.
Message: Posted by: Erdnase27 (May 6, 2010 03:19AM)
If you say you're a mentalist here, you're a loser who claims paranormal abilities.
If you say you're a magician around here, you're a loser doing 100 times exposed tricks.

Everything is a trick that has been debunked around here, heck now there is this guy on television exposing marketed mentalism effects.

Thanks community, for spreading the secrets of magicians across the globe. Invisible deck? a no no for me (been called 300 times on it, they've seen it on television), Doing PK touches, I got it out of my act (been exposed on national Television). Do we really need a book that lays on a shelf in every bookstore?

Mentalism and magic is indeed DEAD around here, just like Dr. Eamon said. From 16 year old kids, explaining tricks to other people, to people of every age explaining mentalism effects (marketed) because mentalists are supposed "conmen" who should be debunked...

I don't mind making magic books, but take great care to whom you might sell. I know that laymen can buy magic books in a magic shop, but at least he/she would be interested. That is not to say from the books lying in normal bookshops, exposure on national TV, etc.

Well... it's not that bad. I mostly choose for whom I perform nowadays. that's the point of magic right?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 6, 2010 08:42AM)
Michael, that's just sad what's happening there in your neck of the woods...

Just keep on keeping on I guess.

All the best...
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 6, 2010 02:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-04 19:44, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-04 13:54, epoptika wrote:

"Little Shot"? Wow, you've really hurt my feelings now.

I think some of you guys are way too obsessed about your "secrets". Perhaps you ought to spend more time working on your presentation skills.
[/quote]

The "little shot" was in jest; I was not intending to offend you (if I did, it's an added bonus!)

[/quote]

:lol:

I think Bill hit the nail on the head - very few people read anymore anyhow so there is nothing to fear! Talk to any magic dealer and they will all tell you the same thing - young people have no interest in books. So I guess only the old farts will bust you on your Super-X, invisible decks or folding coins. Stick with kid shows.

Posted: May 6, 2010 4:01pm
Hey, how come you guys keep picking on mimes? They have feelings too you know!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 6, 2010 09:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-06 00:11, Gospel Dan wrote:...
The only exposure we should worry about is the indecent kind!
[/quote]

You mean exposure that diminishes sales in magic shops, right?
Message: Posted by: edh (May 6, 2010 11:22PM)
Jonathon, right!!

I have completely given up on the idea of exposure. Heck if it's good enough for the big boys to do it's good enough for me.

I really could not care anymore as to what constitutes exposure. The names will defend it as long as it is econonicaly feasable for them. And if it's not they will rant and rave against it.

So as far as I'm concerned I don't care anymore.

Have at it!
Message: Posted by: Rory Diamond (May 7, 2010 02:44AM)
Hey Bill Palmer: if you were a member of WAM, and you knew Mark Wilson's book exposed Super X, why didn't you bring this up to WAM and do anything about it? ???????????
Message: Posted by: rklew64 (May 7, 2010 03:51AM)
You all think books are a problem.
HELLOOOO - YouTube!!, Google, Magic sets sold at Sam's. Magic "Apps" for smartphones - CMON. Laymen will not spend $20 on some fricken magic book. I'm pretty sure more layfolks buy Chilton's manuals.
Discussion is good but it won't change a thing. Take a trip to Costco and pick up that box of bicycle cards for $9 and change + tax. - have a hotdog and start wearing boxers.
Good day
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 7, 2010 04:58PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-05 18:08, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
But Starrpower, that would leave us all having to ask you each time we wanted to know. And what if you are busy at that moment we need some help? Can't we have something we can use ahead of time to avoid getting into that situation of having to call you at odd hours?
[/quote]

How about don't throw stones if you live in a glass house?

I have little concern about exposure, but I do find people who have double-standards about exposure lack credibility. Just because one can do a few tricks well doesn't mean they make sense in any other area of magic.
Message: Posted by: arizona (May 7, 2010 11:01PM)
Im totally against exposure of the TT. If it's included in a magic kit its ok because it usually is of a cheap quality and not taken seriously thinking that it's not gonna fool. Its probably also going to someone with a geniune interest in magic. Others I'm totally against for exposing is "forcing", shells and billet S*******/center t****. G******* cards as well. I can't believe someone with such a passion for the art would expose some of the more powerfull stuff especially Invisible Deck and the TT in a magic book for the public. TnR effects should not be out there as well it may seem obvious but it really is not. I was doing TnR effects I came up with on my own in elementary school using gum wrappers and napkins and still I thought there was a better different method used when I first was gonna learn it. Also you pretty much have to know the correct name of the trick first before coming across the method on youtube.


Someone also mentioned that anybodys pretty much welcome to buy stuff at magic shops and internet which is true but laypeople really don't know that and think that the magic the public have access to is usually not the "real" magic that pro's use. Theres a magic shop here in the Phoenix area that is old school in that the owner doesn't really have secrets on display like I seen at other places like shells and f****** coins labeled making it pretty much exposure on display lol. When people usually enter his shop he asks "if he can help them" and from the answer will usually know what to market. If an uninitiated person has an interest in wanting to start out he'll start them off with the basics. Don't I wish it was like that with all the shops everywhere.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 7, 2010 11:10PM)
[quote]...buy stuff at magic shops and internet which is true but laypeople really don't know that and think that...[/quote]

so you know what others think... guess you must be a magician.

Real people know how to find and download stuff for free.
From what I've been told they pile it up like trading cards and watch the videos like porn. So your local dealer puts his "good stuff" in opaque baggies with names rather than let the customer see the goods? Hmmm. Okay LOL.

Initiated? You mean like fooled by kids in class and then told by someone's older brother that there are things called magic shops?

[quote]
On 2010-05-02 18:18, Rory Diamond wrote:
... I am astounded to see that the book contains so many tricks regarded as "trade secrets" to working magicians...
[/quote]

Rory, do you know what a trade secret is?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 8, 2010 12:04PM)
I think he does. We are in a trade -- magic -- and we deal in secrets. It's not that hard to figure out.

Now if you are gonna split hairs over linguistics when we all know what he means, you are obfuscating the point and not adding to the conversation.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 8, 2010 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-02 18:31, edh wrote:
It all depends on who is doing the exposing as to whether or not they get hammered by their colleagues.[/quote]

The response of those who sell such is not the same as the response of those who create such for their own use.

[quote]
On 2010-05-08 13:04, Starrpower wrote:
I think he does. We are in a trade -- magic -- and we deal in secrets. It's not that hard to figure out.

Now if you are gonna split hairs over linguistics when we all know what...
[/quote]

That was funny. It's a legal term. Putting a legal term in scare quotes just makes the rest of the argument and ensuing discussion more "amusing".

[quote]
On 2010-05-08 13:04, Starrpower wrote:
I think he does. ...
[/quote]

I'm far from hypnotized into believing you are a competent mind reader.

IMHO if the OP had a clue what a trade secret is we'd be discussing the agreement - legal or not, binding or not - which governs the use of that data being propagated in ways which might be harming our craft.
Message: Posted by: arizona (May 8, 2010 09:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-08 00:10, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]...buy stuff at magic shops and internet which is true but laypeople really don't know that and think that...[/quote]

so you know what others think... guess you must be a magician.

Real people know how to find and download stuff for free.
From what I've been told they pile it up like trading cards and watch the videos like porn. So your local dealer puts his "good stuff" in opaque baggies with names rather than let the customer see the goods? Hmmm. Okay LOL.

Initiated? You mean like fooled by kids in class and then told by someone's older brother that there are things called magic shops?
[/quote]
I didn't say I was a mind reader. Just that I know to this day "real" people like grown ups, teenagers and also others wanting to learn magic, are askin how to become a magician and and askin where I learned the secrets from. I'm pretty sure these "real" people know about magic shops and that you can find most anything on the internet. I've had only one person get back at me who learned a finger break and cutting to the top to do a pinky card rise. I forgot what card trick it was I showed them but couldn't find the exposure to that because they didn't know the name of the trick.

I'm pretty sure most dealers have their products in some sort of packaging that hides the trick like Svengalis, stripper decks, raven, coins in packaging with card inserted to hide the gimmick, 3 cups and 3 balls, magician ropes with no instructions..


Okay you got me with the initiated/unintiated only because I really don't find a reason to respond to a comment by someone who's desperate for attention they obviously havent gotten after twenty two thousand posts.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 8, 2010 09:14PM)
[quote]...I know to this day "real" people like grown ups, teenagers and also others wanting to learn magic, are askin how to become a magician and and askin where I learned the secrets from. I'm pretty sure these "real" people know about magic shops and that you can find most anything on the internet...[/quote]

Others might infer that they are making conversation and saying indirectly that they admire and respect the craft you have demonstrated. ( That's you and the mystery of the craft they have seen in action. )
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 8, 2010 10:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-08 14:53, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-08 13:04, Starrpower wrote:
I think he does. We are in a trade -- magic -- and we deal in secrets. It's not that hard to figure out.

Now if you are gonna split hairs over linguistics when we all know what...
[/quote]

That was funny. It's a legal term. Putting a legal term in scare quotes just makes the rest of the argument and ensuing discussion more "amusing".
[/quote]

Funny? Who's laughing at whom? We are NOT talking legal terminology. Rory was referring to the generally accepted concept of magicians keeping secrets from the general lay public, and apparently everyone understood that except for you. Not everyone agreed with him, but they all could tell pretty clearly what the topic was. You, on the other hand, refuse to address the point being made, and instead try to distract with minor points and irrelevant details.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 8, 2010 10:20PM)
Yes, funny. And sad if one can't pretend that such ignorance as you and others demonstrate is anything other than performance art.

Kindly note that both Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft and Neve's Merrie Companion were written for lay audiences - as were the Hoffmann Magic books. Scot makes it clear that he was given help by at least one magician in the process. Angelo Lewis (our dear Proffessor Hoffmann) went and exposed what he saw of working conjuror's methods for his books. IMHO your argument is without merit and based upon no tradition in the history of our craft as regards the public. What you and others are describing is an artificial "wink-wink you pay for secrets" ethos that's part of the market inside magic.

The OP who used the term "trade secrets" was close to discussing a possible answer to our problem of methods going public faster than suitable working replacements can be developed, tested and put into use.

Getting back to the books for the public , IMHO it's about some who would trade money for other people's work. To some extent that may be because they are "attention needing" as you put it - having their name and face on a book in public.
Message: Posted by: Rory Diamond (May 9, 2010 03:38PM)
I think I will find out where these authors like Joshua Jay and Gabe Fujari are peforming, and then stand there and tell everyone how the tricks are done. Heck, I won't even charge people! I'll make the same case that I am getting people interested in magic by exposing it. Or, I can charge people a buck a trick or something to explain it. When they get mad at me, I will point out that it's ok for them to do it, why can't I?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 9, 2010 04:30PM)
Rory, I empathize with your desire to help them understand the consequences of their actions. Such would also undermine the enjoyment of their audiences... so not sure that's the best possible approach.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (May 9, 2010 05:07PM)
[quote]
Such would also undermine the enjoyment of their audiences...
[/quote]

Doesn't exposure by it's very nature do the same?
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 10, 2010 04:23PM)
What's the difference between exposure and education? Where would we be without education? What's the line? If we get to learn it, it's education. If they get to learn it, it's exposure?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 10, 2010 05:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-10 17:23, truthteller wrote:
What's the difference between exposure and education? Where would we be without education? What's the line? If we get to learn it, it's education. If they get to learn it, it's exposure?
[/quote]

truthteller, your post is simply nonsensical - a false dichotomy and some curious use of language.

Let's get this "exposure" term nailed down. If the unintended can get it and understand it ... it's exposed. Two factors. Their ignorance permits us to bring them bliss. ;)

What, specifically, do you you wish to believe which conflicts so greatly with the above?

Folks, that was not a PM to truthteller as our (all of us) online dialogs tend to trip over unstated presuppositions and unchallenged assertions. What specifically makes a thing always true? What is the worst that could happen if it were not true? Tools we can all use to explore the things we can put into words.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 10, 2010 05:43PM)
I think Rory is a genius! I might humbly add one suggestion to his brilliant plan.

Rory could wait until AFTER the show to share Joshua's methods. In that way, people could enjoy the shows at two levels: they could watch the show without a complete understanding of the methods (thus NOT undermining their enjoyment in an ignorant state), then afterwards avoid the frustration of not knowing how things were done by learning the secrets.

At a buck, they'll save money! Win-win-win. Rory eeks out a living, the audience is happy in it's knowledge of magic (not-so)secrets, and Joshua Jay has his passion for sharing magic methods with the general public furthered. And, those who do not want to know the secrets do not have to pay!
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 10, 2010 05:53PM)
Jonathan,

My post is meant to ask - what's the difference between a layman and a magician. There are many here on this forum who I would never share a secret with. In my mind, having an internet connection is not the prerequisite for being considered a magician. However many here constantly rationalize that we should be able to share ideas because we are all brothers. I am reminded of Kaps's quip to his "fraternal" gardener.

I see many posts (particularly on the forums reaching out to youth) where a magician who learned from sources that many might consider exposure rail against seeing the same material in the hands of their classmates.

What makes one entitled to "education" and the other a consumer of "exposure?"
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (May 10, 2010 06:16PM)
I do not mean to pick on JJ, I think he is a class act. However, he is a product of those who went before, and is certainly not traveling uncharted territory. I sincerely believe that selling magic secrets in bookshops frequented by lay people is exposure. How is it not?

However, he has not to look far to find "mentors" who have paved the way and made such exposure look acceptable. Names we all know and honor have for decades, if not centuries, sold magic secrets to whoever had the booty to buy them. Add to this that being in the know takes a back seat only to greed, perhaps. as a human motivator and you have the formula for an exposure cocktail.

Anyone who has not had to deal with the offal of that cocktail is not working in magic much.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 10, 2010 06:30PM)
To address truthteller's question - my internal narrative uses something like this:

magician: Person who's using the mechanics of guile to being delight to audiences.
That puts an operative focus on "bring" rather than "know". When someone here at the Café wants to bring an idea or vision or theme into performance I feel pretty comfortable pointing them to the oldest of known sources for workable material so they can explore from there and then bring their specific needs into the dialog. So IMHO it's about a focus on doing and audience perspective. Theater plus refined special effects. But again that's my internal frame of reference. Everyone has their own.

[quote]
On 2010-05-10 18:43, Starrpower wrote:
I think Rory is a genius! I might humbly add one suggestion to his brilliant plan.

Rory could wait until AFTER the show to share Joshua's methods. In that way, people could enjoy the shows at two levels: they could watch the show without a complete understanding of the methods (thus NOT undermining their enjoyment in an ignorant state), then afterwards avoid the frustration of not knowing how things were done by learning the secrets.

At a buck, they'll save money! Win-win-win. Rory eeks out a living, the audience is happy in it's knowledge of magic (not-so)secrets, and Joshua Jay has his passion for sharing magic methods with the general public furthered. And, those who do not want to know the secrets do not have to pay!
[/quote]

I cringe while applauding your insight. That plan's a tough one to argue against. Bravo.

Posted: May 10, 2010 9:37pm
There are people who tell stories they made up or got from books ... once upon a time.

There are people who tell stories they heard from others - I met a guy who told me that...

There are people who tell stories about things they saw or did.

What we do is become "that guy who" and in so doing - give our audiences the chance to become the storyteller.

So tell me just what is the purpose in writing a book discussing the means by which others have given the gift of story?
Message: Posted by: Rory Diamond (May 11, 2010 12:24PM)
I never saw Slydini marketing a book to the public exposing magic. I never saw FRANK GARCIA marketing a book exposing magic aimed at the public. I never saw JIMMY GRIPPO marketing a book exposing magic for the public. I never saw DAI VERNON pimping a public book exposing magic. Get the point?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (May 11, 2010 01:11PM)
Maskelyne and Devant? Harlan Tarbell? Harry Blackstone, Sr.? Henry Hays? Houdini?

Most of the great illusionists sold "How to do Magic" booklets in the lobby.
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 11, 2010 03:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-11 13:24, Rory Diamond wrote:
I never saw Slydini marketing a book to the public exposing magic. I never saw FRANK GARCIA marketing a book exposing magic aimed at the public. I never saw JIMMY GRIPPO marketing a book exposing magic for the public. I never saw DAI VERNON pimping a public book exposing magic. Get the point?
[/quote]

Slydini made money teaching magic to people who would pay the fee.

The first time I visited Las Vegas I walked into a Houdini Magic shop. It was amusing to me to see the Grippo book on the shelf - for sale - to anyone who happened to be walking through the casino's shops.

Frank Garcia and George Schindler (Dean of the SAM) released Magic with Cards through Reiss games which was sold by either Sears or JC Penny. It came with the book (soft cover) and a deck. I got it for my tenth birthday. That's where I learned Out of this World, Belchou's Aces, and the Ashes on Arm revelation. I closed my shows in 6th grade with that trick.

Schindler (DEAN of the SAM) also released Magic with Everyday Objects, a book intended for "ANYONE".

Dai Vernon shot an expose of loading the cups in the cups and balls routine which aired on a PBS segment on magic. He performed the routine, and then showed the entire loading sequence.

Want to try again?
Message: Posted by: The One (May 11, 2010 06:03PM)
I find it funny that the invisible deck, folding coin, linking rings and others are being addressed as Oh-so-important secrets in the first place...

maybe funny is not the right word.

This may come as a surprise to many, but there are a he11 of a lot more "tricks" out there!
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (May 11, 2010 06:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-11 16:30, truthteller wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-11 13:24, Rory Diamond wrote:
I never saw Slydini marketing a book to the public exposing magic. I never saw FRANK GARCIA marketing a book exposing magic aimed at the public. I never saw JIMMY GRIPPO marketing a book exposing magic for the public. I never saw DAI VERNON pimping a public book exposing magic. Get the point?
[/quote]

Slydini made money teaching magic to people who would pay the fee.

The first time I visited Las Vegas I walked into a Houdini Magic shop. It was amusing to me to see the Grippo book on the shelf - for sale - to anyone who happened to be walking through the casino's shops.

Frank Garcia and George Schindler (Dean of the SAM) released Magic with Cards through Reiss games which was sold by either Sears or JC Penny. It came with the book (soft cover) and a deck. I got it for my tenth birthday. That's where I learned Out of this World, Belchou's Aces, and the Ashes on Arm revelation. I closed my shows in 6th grade with that trick.

Schindler (DEAN of the SAM) also released Magic with Everyday Objects, a book intended for "ANYONE".

Dai Vernon shot an expose of loading the cups in the cups and balls routine which aired on a PBS segment on magic. He performed the routine, and then showed the entire loading sequence.

Want to try again?
[/quote]

Brad beat me to it. Every one of the guys listed sold books / tricks or gave lessons or both to "non magicians" willing to pay their fees.
Message: Posted by: mumford (May 11, 2010 07:03PM)
Tricks and "how to" books are available st the Magic Castle and Magicopolis where the public goes to watch shows. Some go home with a few tricks they can do themselves. Exactly how many ways are there for new people to get started and possibly become tomorrow's greats?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 11, 2010 08:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-11 20:03, mumford wrote:
.... Exactly how many ways are there for new people to get started and possibly become tomorrow's greats?
[/quote]

mumford - do you really want the sort of response your post deserves? It's trivial to prove that magicians and this craft would be fine if there were not and never were any of the books and toys made available to the public. But that's not what you are asking about nor is it what your post is designed to address.

Going back from serious and insightful to playful but still helpful response mode let's address your question as stated. Exactly? Gee - likely a countable infinity at first guess. Let's go with Aleph nul.

So what is it that you believe and what did you want to ask to address your belief?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 12, 2010 08:58AM)
I know the Tarbell course gives away the thumb tip and wand shell and it was a "correspondence course" that anyone could order.

I know that Mark Wilson's Course in Magic gave away illusions at the end. (Oddly enough, the condensed version; Mark Wilson's Encyclopedia of Magic kept the Moth Illusion which no beginner was ever going to be able to do and discarded the Witch and the Farmer illusion which was actually doable.)

I believe there was a book called "The Boy's Book Of Magic" (I could be wrong on the title) which the author himself claimed he wrote to shake magic out of its doldrums. Oddly enough, it wasn't the established magicians that broke out of their mold. They just kvetched about the exposure. It was the newcomers reading the book who came up with new presentations or techniques based on what they had read.
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 13, 2010 05:00PM)
Can somebody please tell me where to get a magic decoder ring to decipher JT's cryptic messages?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 13, 2010 05:25PM)
I want one too. :P
Message: Posted by: MattMagician (May 13, 2010 05:47PM)
I don't know if this has already been said, but my two cents are that most of the people who buy magic books end up sparking an interest in magic. Not many people buy the cheesy magic books to figure out our secrets. They wouldn't expect to find them there.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 13, 2010 08:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-13 18:47, MattMagician wrote:
I don't know if this has already been said, but my two cents are that most of the people who buy magic books end up sparking an interest in magic. Not many people buy the cheesy magic books to figure out our secrets. They wouldn't expect to find them there.
[/quote]

Really? I bet most here don't even want to start down a path of exploring magic. Really. Test yourself: Would you bring your friend a basket? Real question. You can PM if you require clarification.
Huh = I have not yet even considered starting my education.

[quote]
On 2010-05-13 18:00, epoptika wrote:
Can somebody please tell me where to get a magic decoder ring to decipher JT's cryptic messages?
[/quote]

Think of it as a depth gauge. The less you understand, and the less you look up unfamiliar phrases, the higher the reading.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 13, 2010 10:03PM)
So apparently there is no harm in exposing magic.

So many posts justifying it.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 14, 2010 06:56AM)
There is harm, no doubt about it.

It's just that we can't stop it.

So let's find away to "roll with the punches" as it may...

Make Lemonade with the Lemons thrown at you and all that Glass-Half-Full mindset... :P

It is what it is as it is now...

So I suggest we keep on keeping on.

:online:
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (May 14, 2010 08:06AM)
Actually, I prefer the Dylan Thomas take on things. As Starrpower correctly points out, there is much justifying of exposure, coupled with the "nothing we can do" school of anti-activism.

For me, exposure is wrong, an evil that at the very least should be pointed out and, yes, exposed. I really do not care that is has been around for years, that big names do it, that you can make a lot of money doing it. Not very many years ago, one could have said the same for slavery.

I try not to miss any opportunity to speak out against exposure of magic secrets- some battles are worth waging even if there is no hope of winning...
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 14, 2010 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-13 21:27, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-13 18:00, epoptika wrote:
Can somebody please tell me where to get a magic decoder ring to decipher JT's cryptic messages?
[/quote]

Think of it as a depth gauge. The less you understand, and the less you look up unfamiliar phrases, the higher the reading.
[/quote]

:kermit: :P :lol: :goof:
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 14, 2010 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-13 23:03, Starrpower wrote:
So apparently there is no harm in exposing magic.

So many posts justifying it.
[/quote]

No one has said that.

We are still waiting for a clear definition of exposure which takes into account social and historical contexts while addressing issues of practicality before we condemn people of crimes they may not even be criminal.

Jonathan is the only person I recall to offer any sort of cogent definition, though I remain unconvinced that it would be pragmatically viable.

Everyone else just seems to be screaming 'its wrong' without any consideration of the history of our art, its literary traditions, or even the changing nature of exposure.

I look at the sky.

I like red.

That's what it is right? I mean, that's what I call it.
Message: Posted by: epoptika (May 14, 2010 08:55PM)
BTW; Rory, your original post says you "just picked up" the Joshua Jay and "Mysterio" books. Does that mean you purchased them or did you just skim through them at the book store? Generally when someone says they "just picked up" something it means they just bought it. I trust that you did not support these evil-doers in their vile enterprises.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 14, 2010 09:38PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-14 15:48, truthteller wrote:

We are still waiting for a clear definition of exposure
[/quote]

Oh come on ... it is what it is. A professional who should know better is selling professional secrets -- those that MANY make a living from -- on the open market to laypeople.

You guys sound like sleazy politicians. "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

If you can't see the difference between right and wrong, the battle is already lost.

Besides, you are all lost in the minutia. Again, I yell from the mountaintop -- Rory's post is about the HYPOCRISY of the good ol' boys, not exposure itself.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 14, 2010 09:53PM)
That hypocrisy goes all the way back to Houdini and beyond. Magicians treating their community as if it were their lay audiences. Magic fans overstepping their bounds from eager audience to reading (or watching) things that diminish their own enjoyment of the performances they seek to enjoy. Not even going to get into the strange codependency between dealers, their du-jour aidoru and a market of folks looking for answers to questions they can't even put into words.
Message: Posted by: truthteller (May 15, 2010 12:02AM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-14 22:38, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-14 15:48, truthteller wrote:

We are still waiting for a clear definition of exposure
[/quote]

Oh come on ... it is what it is. A professional who should know better is selling professional secrets -- those that MANY make a living from -- on the open market to laypeople.

You guys sound like sleazy politicians. "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

If you can't see the difference between right and wrong, the battle is already lost.

Besides, you are all lost in the minutia. Again, I yell from the mountaintop -- Rory's post is about the HYPOCRISY of the good ol' boys, not exposure itself.
[/quote]

And what about the professional who is selling professional secrets on the open market to anyone who has the cash - in a magic store, on a magic website?

You have yet to define the line.

Clearly we DON'T know what exposure is, or these arguments wouldn't become so heated.

If it is so clear what exposure is, please - please - give us the definition. It it holds up to any sort of internal consistency and external evaluation in terms of what actually happens in the world, versus what is only happening in your head and heart, then we can go from there. *It would be nice if your answer allowed us to answer the following: was hoffman exposure then? Is it now? What about Erdnase? Where would we be without those texts? What's the difference in directing my web browser to amazon or hatch? Is that the difference between being a magician and not?

We're waiting. . . .

In the meantime, this hypocrisy nonsense belies a belief in the existence of some powerful, central secret cabal.

REALLY?!?


It always amuses me what I see people refer to magic dealers (um, sorry creators, um sorry "artists") in rarefied terms as if they make millions and travel in their private yacht when presenting lectures in Peoria. I remember one post when the credulous admirer mentioned his favorite creator hobnobbing with magical elites and working on high level projects.

The last time I saw said creator, he was sitting barefoot on the floor of a cheap convention hotel picking at his toenails.

They are the creators of illusion.

But back to the point: First, if there is a secret cabal, I don't think Josh Jay is going to make the cut. Second, I can recall several books sold to MAGICIANS that were filled with little more than exposure - work taken from other magician's acts. Those authors were heralded as magicians helping magicians - though those I would personally consider to be "the inside guys" universally condemned him.

Is this any better than exposing to laymen? Ever go to a magic convention? Try this test: Imagine you've fenced in any 15 guys from the middle of a room. Now, ask yourself - how many of these people could do a trick, right now, deceptively, with some modicum of presentation, and whose performance would elevate magic in the eyes of the audience, not detract from it?

My experience is, you might be lucky to get 3 or 4 IF you are willing to establish an extremely low bar for the consideration of competence.

Yet - for the price on the tag, any of these people can have access to any secret in the world - and it's NOT exposure?!?!?!

Check yourself: anyone right now getting angry? Anyone thinking, 'How dare he? who is he to say someone isn't qualified or or isn't good enough to be considered a magician and have access to the information?'

You're right.

But I must ask, "who are you to say that someone is?"

If exposure of professional grade material to the unqualified is the issue - then we need to know what separates the magician from the layman? And it's not an easy question. I might be inclined to suggest that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to be magicians, are not. And I find it distressing that they have access to real information. When Dover toyed with the idea of reprinting Greater Magic, I didn't care that a layperson might buy the book. I was worried more magicians would have access to it?

How is this attitude difference at all from the position you seem to be taking?

It's just about keeping information and access away from the class you feel is beneath you.

Or as I like to put it: When someone explains one of my secrets to someone, it's exposure. When someone explains someone else's secret to me, then it's education


So, if there is an hypocrisy, you must ask - who is determining the rules?

If you can't find the answer, just look at the top right of this very page. At this moment, you have a little over 43,000 names to convict.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 15, 2010 12:17AM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-15 01:02, truthteller wrote:...
Or as I like to put it: When someone explains one of my secrets to someone, it's exposure. When someone explains someone else's secret to me, then it's education...
[/quote]

I kinda like the word gossip in both cases.
Message: Posted by: Magic Spank (May 21, 2010 02:13PM)
I always enjoy learning how tricks are done.

Don't you guys?

If you do, they why would you deprive anyone else of that same feeling?

Sounds like something a mean person or some type of greedy jerk would do.
Message: Posted by: alpha alex (May 21, 2010 07:48PM)
I love the idea that this book is marketed for laypeople
here, must are only thinking on the hecklers they will encounter because of that book but what about the magic entusiasts that will get the bug of magic and buy your creations?, what about the CEO that will rather have a magician than a comedian in the corporate party?, what about the creations and inventions of the kids that buy this book?. hell jeff prace was what? 15 when he got his gum dvd?.

I hope there´s more people into magic,
I don't care how many know the linking rings, the magic square or a double lift..
if you are supposed to be professional you'll work your way around it
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 21, 2010 08:08PM)
You mean you hope the CEO you thought might hire you buys the book, visits a magic shop and decides to show off at the party rather than hire a magician?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 22, 2010 01:53PM)
Truthteller, you Sir, have changed my mind about the whole issue with that post above.

Interesting, disturbing and thought provoking at the same time.

Thank you.

:online:
Message: Posted by: jprace (May 25, 2010 06:25PM)
I haven't read this whole topic so I'm sorry if some of this has already been said.

I started magic when I was about seven, and I found a tourist magic store at Navy Pier in Chicago. I got a simple magic set and I was hooked. I don't really see a difference in a tourist-aimed magic store compared to a magic book aimed for the general public. Everyone has to start somewhere; no one is starting by going to a "real" magic store and picking up a book by Dai Vernon or Ed Marlo.

The books aimed towards the general public are like magic sets at Walmart. Those contain classics such as the Cups and Balls and other distinguished tricks.

Everyone has got to start somewhere, and I think these books are a great place to do so.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 25, 2010 07:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-25 19:25, jprace wrote:...
Everyone has got to start somewhere, and I think these books are a great place to do so.
[/quote]

Perhaps it was useful to you and many here. Such is not in dispute.

However, it's very difficult to say that what you found in open products when you started should stay that way and that it would be wrong for an open product to include your work given that everything in the products you found in the open were at one time somebody's work.
Message: Posted by: jprace (May 25, 2010 07:33PM)
That might be true, but he seems to be more angry that the book is sold to the general public. If the same book was sold to only magicians in magic stores, the same issue with crediting would exist.

Also, my point is not only aimed towards Josh's book. I haven't browsed the magic section at Barnes & Nobles lately, but if someone was selling a book with all their own, great material to the general public my feelings would still be the same.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (May 26, 2010 04:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-25 20:11, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-25 19:25, jprace wrote:...
Everyone has got to start somewhere, and I think these books are a great place to do so.
[/quote]

Perhaps it was useful to you and many here. Such is not in dispute.

However, it's very difficult to say that what you found in open products when you started should stay that way and that it would be wrong for an open product to include your work given that everything in the products you found in the open were at one time somebody's work.
[/quote]
"At one time somebody's work"
That "somebody" released them.
"An open product to include your work"
That open product wasn't "your work",it was "somebody's" work.You're just a replicator of "somebody's" work,that was released,by "somebody"
Ever decreasing circles!
You end up disappearing up your own jacksey.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 26, 2010 04:17PM)
One of the lines in you argument, [quote]That "somebody" released them. [/quote]
happens to be very questionable. I cite the Hoffmann books as counterexample. For those who don't know, Angelo Lewis did not get DeKolta's permission as regards the billiards nor ... well let's just say he saw what he saw at shows and wrote what he wrote because he wanted to. More recently we have the example of "Expert Card Technique".

Plenty of taken works yours for the easy acquisition via Dover and Lybrary.com - as well as works which were sold in magic shops which somehow wandered off into toystores and less specialized booksellers.

[quote]
On 2010-05-25 20:33, jprace wrote:...if someone was selling a book with all their own, great material to the general public my feelings would still be the same.
[/quote]

If someone publishes their own work, that is only their own work, and sells it in a public I can only respect their decision even though I disagree with it. The opening chapter of the erdnase text has a similar argument about that where the author claims to have learned what he teaches on his own and is selling the book because he needs the money.
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (May 26, 2010 04:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-25 19:25, jprace wrote:

I started magic when I was about seven, and I found a tourist magic store at Navy Pier in Chicago. I got a simple magic set and I was hooked. [/quote]
great, now the relevant question: what effects were in the set that got you hooked?

[quote]The books aimed towards the general public are like magic sets at Walmart. Those contain classics such as the Cups and Balls and other distinguished tricks.
[/quote]
Really? have you looked at them recently?

s
Message: Posted by: jprace (May 26, 2010 07:22PM)
The first things I learned were a simple Cups and Balls, the Hotrod, and a few other props. And yes, I have Josh's new book and I think it's a great resource for beginning magicians.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 26, 2010 09:08PM)
So it's cool with some folks if someone takes from Ralph Hull and Don Alan?
How about if they decided to put one of your tricks in there?
No asking no nothing.
Something you sell now or perhaps an item you perform but have decided not to sell. What would be different then?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 27, 2010 04:02AM)
Why make everything so difficult? Does everyone really think it is difficult to define exposure? That's easy.

Exposure is explaining how an effect is done.

That was easy.

The difficulty arises with trying to decide what is ethical or unethical with regard to exposing secrets. Some believe that there ought to be no secrets. (Remember the Pentagon Papers?) Some believe that secrets ought not be sold. Cool idea. Some believe that secrets ought only to be sold by certified dealers. Some believe, some believe, some believe....

But it's still very easy. The only thing that makes it difficult is that human beings are a fickle, egoist, greedy bunch who want to gain something by exposing secrets.

How about a truly radical idea: let secrets remain secrets, period. Or as the Brits would say, let secrets remain secrets, full stop.

Now, what does ethics have to do with any of this? What do I know? What do I know about ethics?
Message: Posted by: funsway (May 27, 2010 06:41AM)
A proper ethical postion is that you decide "before the fact" whether you will ever expose and effect to someone, and tghen be congruent with your decision. The problem comes in when one has to make a snap decision and starts making exceptions -- which leads to attempts to justify their lack of integrity.

Before a magician meets a spectator he should be clear in his mind as to his position on:

1) answering questions about "how is it done"
2) teaching magic effects
3) revealing methods as part of a performance
4) covering up a revealing mistake
5) discussing other magician's performances
etc.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (May 27, 2010 07:39AM)
Interesting point, Ken- agree totally!

Jim
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 27, 2010 04:31PM)
Losing the "ever" and being skeptical about the word "clear" - I'm with Ken on this issue of taking a position and seeking to avoid having to make snap decisions.
Message: Posted by: funsway (May 28, 2010 07:25AM)
It was a surrpise to me to learn that the oft referenced book "Our Magic" was witten for the lay public in an effort to educate them in the secrets of magic.

In the book "Hiding the Elephant," Jim Steinmeyer details the interactions, politics and economics of the magicians of the period and the temperament of the audiences. He explains how the book came into being, why the name was selected and the "astonishing premise" on which it was conceived -- "to change the perception of the art, inviting the readers to know everything about magic."

"Our Magic" meant the combined thinking of David Devant and Nevil Maskelyne to play off of their well know trademark.

From the introduction, "So far from feeling any reluctance toward letting the general public into the secrets of our procedure, we are most anxious to educate the public on such matters, in order that a proper understanding of our art may be disseminated among its votaries and patrons."

This venture was not a financial success, for it appeared that the public did not wish to know -- prefering to be entertained and mystified.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 28, 2010 04:35PM)
Funsway, Seneca could have told them that [quote]But show me how the trick is done, and I have lost my interest therein[/quote], had they bothered to read, over a thousand years before they set to work. ;) Then again even a few minutes watching a cat play with a mouse or a piece of string can inform the attentive on the matter of mysteries versus secrets.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_45
Message: Posted by: ku7uk3 (May 29, 2010 03:28AM)
It all comes own to what I said in the other post, as long as money is 'physically' handed over at some point of the process, you are free to expose whatever you want.

Magic societies no-longer kicks out members who have written a book, sell magic to the public or have released a DVD. But they still kick out members who have made a video and put it on YouTube.

For me, they are the same thing. And while I have no problem with either, find it disappointing that a high-class society can have double standards when it comes to these two different forums for which exposure is given.
Message: Posted by: Scott F. Guinn (May 29, 2010 04:14AM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-29 04:28, ku7uk3 wrote:

Magic societies no-longer kicks out members who have written a book, sell magic to the public or have released a DVD. But they still kick out members who have made a video and put it on YouTube.
[/quote]

Really?

When?

Where?

Who?
Message: Posted by: ku7uk3 (May 29, 2010 11:32AM)
In the UK, The Order of the Magi (Manchester) have kicked out magicians, including myself because I had a video on my website that taught a few basic tricks to my clients. They deemed it as exposure and kicked me out.

But the society still has numerous members in it which have released books and DVDs, all of which can be got read for free by ordering it at your local library.

The Magic Circle (London) is another society that has lowered their tolerance level on exposure in public books. Pat Page had a history with them over his book, along with other magicians. Eventually the Magic Circle backed down and now allow exposure in books, even when its complicated magic like the cups and balls. But they still won't tolerate a website video that teaches tricks like the afghan rings via a website video.

The definition of exposure seems to have changed, it is now acceptable to exposure whatever magic you wish as long as you make money from it and its not done online.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 29, 2010 07:54PM)
Steve, you're dealing with folks who think you can pay money for a someone else's secret in an open market. And they will tell you so. Not even a hint of confusion as they say it. They believe it. If you were to ask them whether that's secret with a (TM) or (R) they will look at you funny. If you ask them about the need to sign anything for transfer of trade secrets they will laugh at you. If you ask them about performance rights they will likely shrug or just look at you as if you made a sad joke.

So what specifically do you want from these people? Can you settle for a nice social club where folks who enjoy magic tricks meet?
Message: Posted by: ku7uk3 (May 30, 2010 04:01AM)
Your right of course, I would have a better chance trying to convert them to Scientology rather than the differences between teaching and exposure, DVDs and websites.
Its just annoying when your the victim of someones Else's double-standards and self-imposed superiority.
Message: Posted by: alpha alex (Jul 8, 2010 10:47PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-30 05:01, ku7uk3 wrote:
Your right of course, I would have a better chance trying to convert them to Scientology rather than the differences between teaching and exposure, DVDs and websites.
Its just annoying when your the victim of someones Else's double-standards and self-imposed superiority.
[/quote]

exactly
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 9, 2010 12:08AM)
I disagree. IMHO the notion of being "at cause" is abhorrent to many in our community by and large - and so keeps them from standing in front of the effects they offer in perfoomance and also keeps them from taking a position on issues like the root question: "is this my item to openly discuss and explain in public?"
Message: Posted by: Jay Jennings (Jul 9, 2010 02:41AM)
I think exposure (of the unethical type) lies mainly in the intent. If the intent is to just reveal the secret, I think that's exposure. if the intent is to teach someone how to perform the effect, it's education, not exposure. I think Joshua Jay's book is the latter, most definitely.

I became interested in magic in the 4th or 5th grade -- we lived in a state that didn't even have a magic shop (still doesn't). It was the books available at the book stores that got me going, for several years. Not everyone has access to magic shops and mentors.

Jay Jennings
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 9, 2010 03:58AM)
While I understand what you are saying Jay...

The Masked Magician actually stated that it was HIS INTENT to educate the masses.

His intent was to push Magic into NEW FRONTIERS by forcing Magicians to develop better methods and presentations.

Not looking to show you wrong, but if INTENT was the only criteria in it being Exposure or Education, everyone would just say that their intent was good...

We live in a world now where communication is fast and relatively easy. We can't stop people from sharing the information.

I say we all just accept that it is beyond our control to protect our methods anymore. Then we can go about the business of entertaining people in our Shows. That's way more important, imho...

:online:
Message: Posted by: Servante (Jul 9, 2010 11:19AM)
Yes, but saying a thing doesn't make it so. We all know it wasn't his intent to move magic into new frontiers. His intent was to make money. His intent may also have been to build a reputation as a master magician who exposes fraud (Like Houdini with the spiritualists).

Didn't exactly work out that way.

But still, if the local performance venue in an average-sized city booked The Masked Magician, don't you think it would fill the house?
Celebrity isn't necessarily based upon skill or talent or anything else so much as being seen by the masses as you are performing on TV, doing pretty much anything. Lots of famous people are famous simply for being famous.

So, in that sense, he accomplished his true intent.

I'm in the same boat Jay was in. When I was a kid I saw magicians on television...and I saw ventriloquists on television...and I wanted to do that.
I bought a Jerry Mahoney figure and Paul Winchell's and Vanrensaueler's (sp?) books. I bought Adams and Tenyo stuff at the toy store...and I checked Walter Gibson's books out of the library...and I discovered the Vic Lawston catalogue...and I was on my way.
Before too many years I was entertaining at various Blue and Gold banquets and company Christmas parties. I discovered a local magician's magic shop on the other side of town and started hanging around with other young magicians...buying books and tricks and trading moves and listening to our fearless leader.

Obviously, though, I had to grow into knowing the "big" secrets. I sussed out most of it early, based on what I knew of the littler secrets. The "big" secrets simply weren't available to the general public.

The problem these days is the huge amount of television time that has to be filled, and the Internet.

When I was growing up there were three networks and one independent station far enough away that the picture was only watchable when the clouds were low enough for the signal to skip. We didn't have cable and, of course, there was no Internet.
Now there are a jillion TV channels with time that must be filled, and we see more magic...but we also see more exposure. There's a positive part to that, though: since there are so many channels, the secrets are being revealed to fewer people than if there'd been only three networks.

The Internet continues to be a problem...but at least there is porn to distract the seekers of secrets!

But, to return to Jay's point: If there hadn't been libraries to reveal some secrets, there wouldn't be a lot of us around to be kvetching about it now, I think. The problem these days it that it's no trouble to find the secrets. You don't have to get to the library and spend hours poring through books. You don't have to save up your money and buy something through the catalogue. You don't have a magic shop where you can hang around with like-minded people, because the magic shops are on the Internet.

The problem may not be the revelation of tricks and illusions so much...but the availability of the secrets without much effort on the part of the seeker...and the seeker is someone who doesn't care to DO either the work or the tricks. It's not just tyro magicians doing the seeking any more...it's the audience. Because it's easy.

-Philip
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 10, 2010 07:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-09 12:19, Servante wrote:
Yes, but saying a thing doesn't make it so. ...
-Philip
[/quote]

Philip that's a contradiction to one of the basic tenets of magic - the one we recall with the word [i]abracadabra[/i] - with these words I make it so.
Message: Posted by: Servante (Jul 10, 2010 09:33PM)
Ah yes, saying THAT may not make it so...but it makes it SEEM so! And THAT is what makes it...magic!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 10, 2010 11:56PM)
Close - when you can add more about the "enough for who(m)" bit you'll have something workable. There's more to magic than self deception (and the latest product you can fuss with).

Or if you like playing Lewis Carroll using Richard Bandler and Rene Descartes, Here's the Mock Turtle's rules of magic:
I delete therefor it's enough.
I distort therefor it's right.
I generalize so it must be true for everyone else.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Jul 11, 2010 07:34AM)
I reveal therefore I feel superior...
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 11, 2010 07:52AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-09 12:19, Servante wrote:

The problem may not be the revelation of tricks and illusions so much...but the availability of the secrets without much effort on the part of the seeker...and the seeker is someone who doesn't care to DO either the work or the tricks. It's not just tyro magicians doing the seeking any more...it's the audience. Because it's easy.

-Philip
[/quote]

Who is this "Audience" you speak of? If these people seek it out, won't they qualify as "Magicians"? If they don't qualify, then what makes someone qualify as a "Magician"?

Someone who performs Magic for an audience in a Show?

Many people here know how to do Magic but never really perform for others in a proper Show. So, they're not "Magicians"?

Or just being able to do a trick, any trick, qualifies someone as a "Magician"?

Then most people are "Magicians" already. Most people can do ONE simple card trick, so they're "Magicians" or "Audience"?

What about the Magic enthusiast who only collects Magic? He/she is "Audience" or "Magician"?
Message: Posted by: Servante (Jul 11, 2010 11:10AM)
The magic enthusiast is, I think, still a magician if he practices the tricks for himself...or for guests, perhaps. I had a friend who was like that. He loved to buy older classic tricks. He lived in my neighborhood and I would go to his house with some of my stuff...and we'd talk magic. I told him he should be performing, because he was skilled. He demurred. It was enough to collect and preserve.
He was a magician, a preservationist and an audience...all rolled up into one man, and it was enough for him. He had a lot of lovely stuff, and I gave him a couple of things of my own to complete a couple of his preserved treasures.

Just being able to do one trick doesn't make you a magician...it makes you a person who knows a trick.

I guess part of what I was saying up there, Pakar, is that it used to be that you had to make considerable effort...reading...and research...and practice to acquire your magic. These days people who don't revere the art or who don't want to be magicians can discover in ten minutes on the Internet what it used to take months or years to discover. In the "old days" (My, don't I sound like an old fogey)there was so much time and effort involved that you "became" what you sought. Some still do it that way, I guess...and the Internet part of it all is just that--only a part, instead of the be-all and end-all.

The Internet has created a whole new posse of seekers, though: The seekers who don't care to be magicians, but who just want to know how it's done, specifically to be "in the know" and tell others How It's Done. We had those people back in the day...but there were few of them, and most of them didn't care to do the labor to discover How It's Done. What's been removed from the equation, though, is the labor...and what's been added is international effortless mass communication.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 11, 2010 11:51AM)
The labor, how to make an item work for an audience, remains the same.
as to how our culture fostered generations of churls who confuse base mechanics with the work that goes into offering a thoughtful gift... well that's the issue IMHO.

or as a much more insightful person noted a generation ago - there is an initiation into adulthood and no matter how they might try, children cannot initiate themselves or each other into adulthood. you might not like my shorthand for this: most people don't want responsibility. some people mature while all people grow older.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 11, 2010 12:11PM)
Servante, I see your points, sir.

Well put your thoughts are...

And you said.

"...and what's been added is international effortless mass communication."

That there is the good and the bad of this smaller world.

I have no answers, only more questions...
Message: Posted by: Servante (Jul 11, 2010 12:34PM)
As do we all, my friend...as do we all.

--Philip
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 12, 2010 10:13PM)
Perhaps one might start with some consideration of whether or not one is willing to keep secrets - even when the rewards for gossiping can be rather tempting.
Message: Posted by: kasper (Aug 8, 2010 04:32PM)
I don't think most of the general public cares about magicians secrets. No one ever pushed me out of the way to get too the magic books at the bookstore. Ive never seen anybody look at magic books at the store. I usually have some sort of magic book on my coffee table. No body even picks it up.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 8, 2010 08:56PM)
Well, that is that then...
Message: Posted by: deadcatbounce (Oct 18, 2018 07:01PM)
I've read most of this thread, and let me say first of all - I have the book - I think it's one of the best out there, at the price. Sure, there are a load of revelations - but that's the point of the book. My comments are

This may be slightly off topic, but my thoughts on the subject are from the point of exposure, rather than the ethics/originality/namechecks, etc.

I look at these books - and Youtube, and ask myself "how will this affect me, as a working magician?". I work for 4yo's up. Now - you could probably get way with a TT & silk up to the age of about 6. After that - it's a bit dicey. I've been doing this magic lark for 30 years now - 20 years of hardcore close-up, followed by ten years of kidstuff

Every magic box has a tt. But - I still use a tt in every show I do. For older kids and adults, I do a tt bill switch - as part of a routine - not a standalone effect -- never get called out on it. Because, laymen in general, don't associate a tt with a billswitch. (I've mentioned this before on the Café, but I can't underline it enough - it applies to many other presentations/applications. But, if you bring out a silk and vanish it, you'll get nailed - even if you do it well.

Here's where I veer off a bit...

If I do have a persistent "I know this one" - (audience member) I'll sucker trick them, if the occasion calls for it. Of course, if you're working something like "Double Cross", then ... sort it out yourself... :-) The hardest audience I can imagine, would be an uncontrolled group of 14 year olds...which I have, frequently. (just remembered - no - hen nights were the worst!)

I use the Shell game, 3CM, Chicago Surprise, Bill in Lemon, Ropes, Svengali Deck, Hydrostatic Glass, etc.. All of these are findable on youtube. Now, take an average 14 year old, and let him loose on that Josh Jay book for 6 months, maybe a year - then put him in front of an audience. You don't learn stagecraft for real, in books. You have to DO it.

If you get called out by Mr "I've seen this one - he's got a plastic thumb/Himber Wallet/a wire running up his sleeve and into his back pocket that links somehow onto the keys of his TVR/that's not the puppet talking -it's him - look- you can see his lips move/ ", then you have to learn how to handle them.

I find it quite easy, but I must admit to my chagrin, I have been punched out a few times. And all these times, I've been aware of what I was doing. I've not worked many rough places... but the streets of Tralee were a cruel, challenging training ground. Probably a bit more sociable now, - several feuding traveller families moved out a few years back.

In short - if I'm a working magician, and I'm forced to adapt because of exposure - I adapt. There was a time recently, where Bill in Lemon was on some talent show. Dropped it for a year - and now - I use a potato - they never connect the two..

However - I will say - if I ever invent a decent effect (unlikely, as all I do is rejuvenate old stuff), I'd probably rather not publish it. Rather than publish it and be ripped off. I hate that. And I rarely use the word ..

I'll go along with what Kasper said.

ps. Last words - Magic must be entertaining. Turn a trick into a playlet. First sleight of hand trick I ever learned was Emerson West - Color Monte. Took me 14 hours to learn the moves and the patter. That's nothing to the time I spent weaving a story around it. I still love performing it - because it's not a trick - it's a play/fable/education/head grabber. It's based around my experiences in Las Vegas, which everyone can relate to, whether they've been there or not.


Rambling Deadcatbounce
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jan 11, 2019 10:06AM)
Ok, here we go.

I really get a kick out of posts that defend "revealing to magicians" and decry "revealing to the lay public." Does walking into a magic shop make one a magician? Does buying a magic book at B&N or Amazon make one a lay person?

Many years ago I attended a meeting of the local IBM ring. One of the guys was going to "teach" a few card tricks. He started by looking around and declaring "everyone here is a magician, so it's okay." From his behavior before his lecture, it was clear that it was his first time there and he didn't know anybody. It was all I could do to shut up and not scream, "How the ********* do you know?"
Message: Posted by: Mike Gainor (Jan 11, 2019 11:03AM)
Does joining a magician forum make one a magician?


Pssst... it's ok to answer as you can plainly see I have over 50 posts. ;)
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jan 11, 2019 06:47PM)
Methinks not, anymore than joining an astronomy forum makes one an astronomer. :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 11, 2019 07:19PM)
Got a rabbit on your back? Magic market dealers don't like it when others are selling their product without "permission". Though if you look at the books on Modern Magic and Latest Magic you will find they were written for the public. Greater Magic was published in volumes to be on public library shelves, to sit next to the dictionary and encyclopedia.

hmmmm... how many stars have you named? :) There's some tradition about who gets to name what and order or precedence on naming things.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jan 12, 2019 11:24AM)
[quote]On Jul 11, 2010, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
Who is this "Audience" you speak of? If these people seek it out, won't they qualify as "Magicians"? If they don't qualify, then what makes someone qualify as a "Magician"?

Someone who performs Magic for an audience in a Show?

Many people here know how to do Magic but never really perform for others in a proper Show. So, they're not "Magicians"?

Or just being able to do a trick, any trick, qualifies someone as a "Magician"?

Then most people are "Magicians" already. Most people can do ONE simple card trick, so they're "Magicians" or "Audience"?

What about the Magic enthusiast who only collects Magic? He/she is "Audience" or "Magician"? [/quote]
I am just totally fascinated by all this talk of being a magician vs a non-magician, as if one were higher on the food chain than the other, or if the subject were worth getting defensive about.

I've been in and around magic since I was about eleven, which was fifty-six years ago. I performed professionally in my late teens but haven't done so since I was twenty-two. I've been a member of IBM for fifty years and recently received my "Order of Merlin Excalibur" certificate. And I've been hanging around the Café since 2005. So, by all accounts, I should qualify as "a magician."

Yet, the few rare times the subject comes up, I just say I build props for a magic dealer and leave it at that. I don't consider myself "a magician" because I don't perform for the general public. And, back in the days when I did, and before I was getting paid, I referred to myself as "an amateur magician."

Call it what you will. For me, being "a magician" is not some kind of neon badge you wear on your shirt to show you're in on secrets -- it's just a description of what you do. If you perform magic for an audience, you're "a magician;" if not, then you're something else. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I say again: THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Maybe it's just an old-fashioned concept of respect left over from the Jurassic or Triassic periods, but I refuse to invite myself into the same crowd as the Copperfields, Burtons, Siegfrieds, Roys, Penns, Tellers, and others.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 12, 2019 11:47AM)
George even within that construct there are levels to be considered.

I have done nothing but perform for 30 years to earn money. Yet I would not put myself in the category of those you mentioned.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jan 12, 2019 12:20PM)
You're absolutely right, Danny, but I couldn't possibly mention them all. :) That's where the "others" CYA comment came from.

If nothing else, I doubt that anyone in the Café would question that they are magicians. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 12, 2019 02:52PM)
At some point an audience tells you if you are a magician or not.
Message: Posted by: Mike Gainor (Jan 12, 2019 03:12PM)
... or they just pay for the pizza. ;)