|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Dismissive? Of your opinion? You are welcome to believe anything you want.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 30, 2023, Ed Oschmann wrote: And once again it gets (unnecessarily) personal. Instead of giving a detailed response on why you feel the way you do, and perhaps giving an example, it is so much easier to question my motives, my character, etc. Listen, I come here to try to fulfil the credo which appears on the forum banner. "Magicians Helping Magicians". How did your comment help magicians? By trying to make me and my opinions look irrelevant? It is stuff like this and the recent attack on me via PM, for which the perpetrator was banished for 90 days, that is making me question if people really want help. Maybe they just want to come here to get secrets and to give their opinions on things while facing no disagreement. No constructive discussion. I see threads as a conversation. If somebody says something you disagree with, argue with the statement, don't try to make the poster look like they are wrong, or irrelevant, or whatever. There is also the possiblity that the way I communicate affects some people in a way that causes this reaction. I don't know. But I am who I am and some seem to appreciate my opinion, my help, my insight. It kind of sucks when you log in and find negativity. Not arguments against your ideas, that's fine. But when I enter the forum and see vile PMs or threads where someone takes shots at me personally. That's not why I come here. My signature about "going the extra mile" is accurate. Not too many people take the time to provide links to resources or links to conjuringarchive.com, etc., etc. But I do. And I'm happy when I can help someone find what they've been searching in vain for. Or when I can help someone find out how to find their own answers, that's even better. The internet is a wealth of information but you have to know how to look. It isn't always easy. Anyway, as Mr. Racherbaumer is fond of saying, onward!
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
Ed Oschmann Inner circle Lake Worth FL 1011 Posts |
Ray, when you blithely say the word "nah", how is that not dismissive? I simply don't always agree with your opinions and assertions.
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Like I said, sometimes the way I say things can cause people to react. My "nah" was in response to the strident statement that Hugard was wrong. I wouldn't change it. I didn't point the finger at you, question your motive, or anything of the sort. I disagreed. I am not shy about injecting some personality into posts at times, something sorely lacking these days. Nah was my gut reaction, and that's what I went with.
Nobody asks for everyone to always agree with them, I certainly don't. But when someone disagrees, I would hope they explain why, and keep it to the statement and not the person. Blithely n a way that shows a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper. "they blithely ignored any evidence that did not support their theory" I love that word and the description. Tone matters and if it offended you, I'm sorry. I do think you are wrong and a lot of famously quoted magicians are on Hugard's side in this matter. For example, when Dai Vernon was quoted as saying "effect is everything". There's other examples. Notice I never said effect was EVERYTHING because I acknowledge the impact method has on effect. But in the end, I get what Vernon was saying and I will continue to choose methods which lead to the strongest effect. And that's what I think Hugard would recommend.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
I find the posts from Ray that I have seen to be good quality posts where he is respectful towards the people he responds to and Ray often mentions the troubles he has where people take his views personally or get offended. And maybe it is his way of phrasing things that gets that reaction, but if it is so, then it seems to me that people here are really sensitive since I don't see Ray's posts as being like that, I don't see him as someone who is trying to offend people or to cause arguments. Like he has said that he sees these as opportunities for discussions, I am similar to him in this manner. I don't like when people get personal or offended over magic tricks. I don't know if it is the nature of talking over text but I never have had a magician get offended with me if we are talking over voice chat instead of text, even when I bring up things that might be controversial or I question some things that are widely accepted as true but that I am not sure about.
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Here's something I found recently, an article by someone named Jon Finch. Here's the link: https://www.finchmagician.com/magic/method-vs-effect
And here are some interesting (to me!) statements he makes. "Oftentimes, even usually, where the effect is sensational, the method is mundane. Sometimes, the method is more fascinating than the effect itself (in such cases, the trick should not be performed)." We're all familiar with the idea that an audience would often be disappointed to learn how easily they can be fooled. How simple something is and how the effect outweighed the method by a large margin. And in some instances the HOW is incredibly intricate and actually is greater than the effect itself. I don't go as far as to say the trick "should not be performed", but I also understand why he thinks that. Here's another: "The best magicians know that the effect is all that matters. That doesn’t mean the method is unimportant. A lousy method, by definition, means that the effect won’t fly (or it could mean that it renders the trick impractical, or unnecessarily difficult). Lazy magicians may use as an excuse that bit of wisdom—the effect is all that matters—and choose the easiest method even when there are far better (though more difficult sleight-of-hand or more scary misdirection) methods." Again, sometimes blanket statements have a few wrinkles. And he goes on, after saying that "the effect is all that matters", to say that method does, indeed matter. It sounds like a contradiction, I know. But it is nuanced, and even Vernon would have agreed, I think, that the method does impact the effect. I can't ask him unfortunately. Maybe he did write about it, I'll search if and when I have time. To me there is a parallel to Occam's Razor. For those unfamiliar with the idea it is this, from Encyclopedia Britannica: "What is Occam's razor? Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more." A real-world example is, if you hear hoofbeats coming up from behind, assume it is a horse and not a zebra. In most instances you'll be correct. And to me, in magic, the simplest method which allows for the strongest effect is a good approach. Not always maybe, but generally. Anyways, hopefully this is more food for thought.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
If the method is more interesting than the effect, perform the method. See Teller's Cigarette Routine, or Harry Anderson's Kepplinger Holdout routine.
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Quote:
On May 3, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote: Thanks for chiming in Pop. Any thoughts about the basic statement that Hugard made? Again, one of the reasons for the topic is that I found it interesting that here was a respected magician saying something about Erdnase that wasn't flattering. And I hadn't heard it referenced anywhere. It is a shame that a lot of the older stuff isn't read anymore. And it isn't even that it isn't available. That used to be the case, but there have been some great strides in making some of the older publications available. Lybrary.com for example. And of course Conjuring Arts Resource Center and its efforts. There is a lot of good stuff in the old stuff. And not all of it is tricks.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
I have spoken about Hugard's essay elsewhere. I agree with him. I think that skill and sleights are important, but we are much more concerned with the effect than with pride in our sleight of hand. We don't work under the same conditions as a card cheat, and don't need the same degree of perfection in our moves or of subtlety in our misdirection.
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Quote:
On May 3, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote: Thanks for that Pop. Would like to read what you said and if you can recall where it is, I will look for it. I appreciate your input.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
I've said before and maintain that the value of Erdnase is in its logical systemization. If you can understand how and why he teaches the things he teaches then of course you can incorporate other techniques into it, but learning the whole system has value. It's like any other standard- you learn it then you improve it.
I think a lot of people look at it as just a collection of hard old moves and don't get into how those moves fit together and that's a bummer for them. As for effects- well we've all seen what masters like Ricky Jay can do with the supposedly "bad" effects in the book.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
ThomasJ Special user Chicago 999 Posts |
Roughly 18 months after he wrote the Erdnase article, Hugard published an editorial in HMM in which he replied to a letter that a young magician sent him. Below is the correspondence:
"Dear Mr. Hugard: I am only fourteen and got my start from your excellent book for beginners, 'The Royal Road to Card Magic.' It took me a while to master this but I finally did and went on to the best book on cards ever published to my knowledge, 'Expert Card Technique.' At about the same time I purchased 'The Expert at the Card Table.' It was very interesting how you brought him up to date. I have gone through most of what is in your book but I am still working on the false deals. I think they are the most difficult of all the sleights. I have started giving a few children's shows and although I am inexperienced I have had a lot of fun. I can make enough to buy the few magic books I want and what little equipment I need. There is nothing I would rather see than another book on cards by you and Mr. Braue. The best of luck to you and may you stay in the best of health. Respectfully yours, Tom Hoeber Dear Tom: It is good to learn that you began with my two books but I note that you have also 'The Expert at the Card Table.' Let me give you a word of warning: The first part of this book deals only with gamblers' sleights and methods. These are the exact apposite [sic] of what is required in a magician. I would advise you strongly not waste time on such sleights as second dealing, etc. These are of no use to a magician. I know men who have devoted their lives to these things with the result that so far from being good magicians they have become only technicians. Study the second part of the Erdnase book and you will find that he, himself, bears out what I have just said. Devote your efforts to making your Magic entertaining, study your patter and your presentation. In Magic, presentation is the thing, the actual method is secondary. A sleight is a secret process and in general the easiest method is the best. I will be glad to hear from you from time to time and wish you great happiness in your study of Magic. Sincerely yours, Jean Hugard" ("Hugard's Magic Monthly" Vol 16, June 1958-May 1959, p. 40) On page 30 of his 1997 book titled Jean Hugard, James B. Alfredson shares a letter that Hugard wrote to a prospective student on March 19, 1932. Below is an excerpt from the letter: "The text books without exception frighten most beginners by making the acquisition of difficult sleights the first thing to be done. This is wrong and if you will have confidence in me I can show you an almost Royal Road to some of the very best feats of magic with cards." Hopefully these examples will shed more light on his thinking. |
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
ThomasJ said...
"Hopefully these examples will shed more light on his thinking." They truly did. Thanks for sharing those communications from Hugard. I wonder how many beginners try to contact authors nowadays. Funny, but I recommended it in a recent thread. Perhaps in Hugard's time there weren't many uses for false deals in magic. That certainly isn't true now. But to be fair, most use of false deals and such still occur within gambling demos and such, so there's still a grain of truth to what he is saying. You can go your whole magic life without learning false deals and be just fine. Certainly he has a point about spending a lot of time on them when it could be spent learning other aspects of the craft. Good stuff and thanks for sharing that ThomasJ.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
ThomasJ Special user Chicago 999 Posts |
You're welcome. John Crimmins, Jr.'s column called Book Profiles was on the same page as the aforementioned correspondence letters between Hugard and Tom Hoeber. It was essentially a book review column. One of the books Mr. Crimmins recommended in this issue was THE STORY OF THE BOTTOM DEAL—by Artanis. He explicitly states that Artanis was a gambler and not a magician, but I thought it ironic that Hugard would place the editorial there.
If you're interested in more about Hugard's life, James B. Alfredson's book is a quick, enjoyable read. T.J. |
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On May 4, 2023, critter wrote: What effect from the book has Ricky Jay performed? If you are talking about the ace assembly, I doubt you can find any magician that would say that McDonald's ace assembly is a bad trick. |
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Quote:
On May 4, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote: Don't know, but I suspect he is referring to the routine he performed in his one man show, featuring patter directly from the book. The effect is: 'The Exclusive Coterie'.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
Just occurred to me, Ricky Jay pretty much proves the concept I think with his presentation of 'The Exclusive Coterie'. Simple routine, no difficult sleights and a big response. The added bits on the front end of the effect are a nice touch. The concept of showing how something might look in different eras is a compelling one.
https://youtu.be/JNUepjt6QmI
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Yes, he adds his own handlings but his presentation of The Exclusive Coterie is almost word-for-word from Erdnase.
Admittedly, it fits Ricky Jay's style and it's unlikely that most others could pull it off. Ricky made anachronisms look stylish. Either way, seeing Ricky Jay do that plot was high art in my view.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
balbec New user few 62 Posts |
There is a lot of material on false deals in Expert Card Technique, so Hugard is more likely criticizing the obsession with complex false deals rather than its actual use in magic
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Hugard's Take on Erdnase (7 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |