Cain, if you can't (or won't) see the difference between these two situations... well... never mind. This time I'm going to ignore the hook and swim on.

C'mon, Cain. Your argument using the MLB isn't relevant. We're talking about magic secrets...just magic secrets...nothing else but magic secrets. It's just not the same.


These are the types of discussions that I respect a great deal, jimtron. Please allow me to add some more...

As Annemann's secrets as published by Osterlind were published by Annemann himself, it wouldn't be right for me to say that Osterlind was wrong in doing so again. And here's the jist...I don't want this discussion to go the typical "right vs. wrong" direction. Instead, let me offer a "same vs. different" direction instead.

Sticking to my original premise of nondisclosure of all secrets, young or old, I offer for adoption a different procedure for referencing what may be considered secrets in the "public domain." (whateverthe****thatis) Instead of explaining them in a publication, merely cite them and their source. That's it.

Perusing Mnemonica earlier today, in search of really spiffy cooler moves, I noticed that Tamariz did this numerous times. Often he offered a particular working that would/will improve the handling of his piece, but he didn't include an exact description of its handling. Instead, he cited the source whereby the reader would find the exact handling. Perhaps he did so because he didn't receive permission to discuss the work in its entirety. Perhaps he did so because he thought it was prudent. Perhaps he did so for a reason unknown to me. In any case, I'd prefer to see this practice adopted by all.

Complicated? Youbetyour****itis. Another reason I hope I'm offering solutions...

I suppose both of you think that by seizing upon a deliberately absurd sarcastic remark, more substantive points can be dismissed. Mr. Ledo said I cannot recite a poem that I heard without the consent of the artist -- and so I simply wondered how far he took that view (logicians refer to this mode of argument as a reductio ad absurdum). Moreover, it's extremely wrong-headed in my opinion to exclusively talk about "magic secrets" without analogies. Magic is a special case under some considerations (information that is accessed too easily destroys the point of any and all secrets), but it's similar under other considerations (a freer flow of information can allow magic to broaden and progress).

That is a tough statement to interpret. Who decides how that information (secrets) gets made accessible?

Taken to its logical extreme, we have everyone knowing a method, inventing presentations and mechanics that use the method, and yet because the secret is known, the new offerings produced by all involved will have no magical value, as the surprise and basic secret are known to all in the audience.

I generally subscribe to Cain's argument. I'm new-school on this one

The only time I wouldn't agree with more open distribution is when someone has told you something in confidence or showed you something in confidence. Then you should respect that confidence and not pass things on if that is their wish.

If an effect has been published, publicly performed, or openly marketed I think it's fair game to discuss with other interested people what methods may be used or even what methods are used. It's fair to deconstruct the effect, reverse engineer it, and perform it oneself, but not fair to use someone elses exact patter or presentation. In fact, anyone who posts at Magic Café effectively does just that to a greater or lesser degree. Discussion of methods, even of currently marketed ones, is written all over the threads. You only need to apply a modicum of reading between the lines to discover the principles.

While I don't believe in complete public distribution of methods (and in any case 95% of people are not interested in knowing them) I think discussing them in open internet forums is fine. These places are only read by magicians. The general "bans" on open exposure in internet forums or websites were made largely by people who don't understand the internet and the way magic is developing on it.

I believe any one who is "old-school" and thinks that matters can stay as they are has not realised the power of the internet in bringing together specialists and distributing information. It is changing the way magic is learned, distributed, and innovated. You have to move with it. You can fight it, and have a right to remain old-school, but you can't resist the progress, wherever that takes us. I think it will take us somwhere better, with more people doing magic and more innovation.

Well, BlackShadow, you seem to be making a pretty objective argument there, as opposed to getting personal, so I guess I'll drop in my five cents' worth.

First, you remind me of me when I was a teenager and wanted to change magic forever. I didn't go for the old fogies' attitudes and thought I had better ideas than they did. Little did I realize that one day I would be one of the old fogies and hang on to what I used to believe even as the young fogies were springing up everywhere. But such is the way of the world.

The only constant is change.

Second, I was one of the guys here a few months ago who was counter-arguing the arguments about exposure; several of us pointed out that a lot of us old fogies learned quite a bit at the public library when we were muggles, and that a lot of what we know today came from there. Can I see a show of hands?

But his leads me to my first point: you state "I think discussing them in open internet forums is fine. These places are only read by magicians."

Please define the term "magician."

From what I've seen over the past few years, the only thing required to become "a magician" is to hang out at a magic shop, or buy one trick on eBay, or join the Café under an assumed name with no personal information except for the e-mail address required when you join.

So are these forums "open" as you state, or "read only by magicians," as you also state? Which is it? And what is a "magician?"

Third, I realize magic is changing. It has to: it revived big time over the past twenty or so years, and change is inevitable. Talking about tricks and how they work has gone on for a long time and will continue to go on; the young fogies did not invent this. Sorry to break the news. The difference is that us old fogies used to do this quietly, among trusted co-conspirators, instead of broadcasting things to the world. We used to respect each other's work, and we used to respect that magic relies on keeping some things out of the public eye.

But nowadays with the Internet, as you state, dissemination of information is easy, and it's "the new wave." Old fogie or not, I agree with this.

But, with the Internet, where do you draw the line between making methods (that used to be considered secret) available to those who have a "serious" interest in them, and making them available to anyone who surfs the net?