|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
peterdgr8 New user 94 Posts |
You buy a book like Jennings '67. While it's certainly well-written and illustrated (and conceived) I found Kaufman frequently made references to highly specific moves that you have to find in other books (or even worse, in Kaufman's case, books that haven't even been written yet and may not be published for several years to come!) I don't get it.
The other problem I've noticed, though not as frequently, in a highly praised book od an artists effects(like the Complete Works of Derek Dingle for example) again while well-written and illustrated, not ONCE is the effect ever described. (Oddly enough Kaufman does write fantastic effect descriptions in other books including Jennings '67). And even plowing through the moves I often found it difficult to grasp what experience you are supposed to convey to your audience. Look, I know we all should have a basic repetoire of sleights to take on such texts but sometimes specific passes are called for or a particular palm with no explanation on the differences as to why the artists felt they were superior to what you might know (and a big deal about its superiority in the text is made for it). And it's really frustrating when you want to study the work of a particular giant in magic. Has anyone else encountered this problem? And if it isn't a problem should I conclude that if I don't have access to the description of a particular move that substituting one I may know should suffice? Love to hear your responses. Peter |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I absolutely agree with you. If someone is writing a book and they reference a sleight they need to describe the thing and not assume anything. Nothing iritates me more than these guys writing something like "You must do the Overlip Quantro Flip Turnover Double from the Center, this can be found in the hand written book 'Magico De La Artista' in which there is only three copies known to exist, I have one, Copperfield has another, and the third is in the Vatican...this sleight will be used for 80 percent of the routines here...".
If you writers want to see it done right you need to go to your copy of Focus by Phil Goldstien. When he introduces a sleight he describes it and if you run into it in a separate routine you can go to the sleight index and it tells you where to find it described. For non beginner books I'll accept no descriptions for the double lift, cutting to the top or bottom, and that is it... |
|||||||||
Andy the cardician Inner circle A street named after my dad 3362 Posts |
Spot on Santa
Cards never lie
|
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
I have always liked Harry Lorayne's and J.K. Hartman's approach of assuming the magician knows certain foundational sleights such as d/l, EC, pass, TC, etc. That being said, I do agree that if an author makes reference to a more esoteric sleight then I believe that at the very least a brief description is in order with references provided for the reader to pursue said sleight further.
I have a very large library, but I still find the occasional move not explained in any of my resources. So, I try to re-read the parts of the method before and after the sleight to get a gist of what is to be accomplished. If I get a sense of what the context is, I can usually substitute the sleight mentioned for something else that would accomplish the same thing. I suppose there are some who would argue that if one buys a book and a sleight is only referenced and not taught nor readily available in the literature that the book is not for the person who bought it. But that argument is both invalid and elitist. Well, back to the books for me! Best, Vlad |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
Many won't need information on all the sleights but if the should put them anyway. A dictionary does not define words they assume people may not know, they provide information for a wide range of readers. While the basic sleights can be assumed a brief description should be there for those that need it. Not to do so is laziness, pure and simple, or a lack of desire to complete the reason the book exist, to teach. How about this, brief for the ones folks should know, more detailed for anything beyond what is found in Mark Wilsons book.
I'll give you an example, I never heard the term 'neck tie the deck' before. I read it and had absolutely no clue what it was. When I finally saw it I realized that I've always done it but I didn't know it had a name, I would call it 'tilt back the deck'. Wrist kill is another term that I never had heard before, I called it turning down the deck. You see I learned magic on my own or with other like minded people. I didn't have access to the books or tapes or any of that so when I moved to where there was a shop I would look like an idiot when I heard the name of a sleight, then I'd realize "oh, I know that" when I saw it. This is why the description is needed. Many don't know there is a difference between a double lift and a double turn over, many pro's don't know there is a difference! So writers, don't be lazy, if you can't describe a sleight then maybe you shouldn't be writing or and this goes for DVDs as well. Don't assume, give your customers what they deserve and pay for. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Or is it more lazy to consider you have knowledge, when you don't know the name for what you do know? It goes both ways. If one doesn't know the phrase "wrist kill" and "neck tie" one should probably involve themselves with basic technique books before going on to books meant for those with a better foundation of knowledge.
As a reader I personally would hate to have every move described as that would waste a lot of my time reading rudimentary actions being described. As a writer it is the author's choice to present his work to those with a certain foundation of knowledge. If a reader doesn't have that, they are going to need to work a little harder. You don't get spoon fed every thing, my friends. Some stuff you have to earn. And that includes researching obscure references. It is all part of the path of learning. |
|||||||||
spycrapper Loyal user Indonesia 295 Posts |
In Mike Powers book TSS, I found a few sleight that I don't know (and I don't have the book he referenced to) but he gives an alternative common sleight for substituting the required sleight. Although the quality of the effect may not be as good as its fullest, but I found this helps me a lot.
|
|||||||||
Rimbaud Loyal user Saint Louis 291 Posts |
I have to agree with Tom.
I actually find it increasingly irritating to find basic sleights explained over an over again as if card men aren't supposed to already know them. DVD's are the worst, but too many books as well spend valuable time explaining stuff that people should already know before they buy the book/DVD. Unless it's a book specifically geared for beginners, why in the world should time be wasted explaining how to do a double lift, or an elmsley count? There are many excellent reference works out there that serious card men should already have. (Royal Road, Card College, etc.) If someone doesn't know how to do an Elmsley, fine, look it up, but why force the rest of us to read/see the four thousandth description of the thing?
http://www.DanLaddthehypnotist.com
"Saying 'Everyone is special' is just another way of saying 'No one is.'" --Dash from The Incredibles |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
It is a question of terms. I certainly know how and why one would 'neck tie' a deck and also 'wrist kill'. How is it that if I had never seen the term before makes me lazy or anything else? My brother was one of the top graphic artist on the West Coast at one time. He was asked if he could draw anything, he said yes, so the guy asked him to draw a Jeep C5 or something like that. My brother told him he couldn't. The guy ranted and raved that he thought Will could 'draw anything', my brother told him that he could draw what he thought of as a jeep and it would look like a jeep but since he had never seen a C5 he couldn't just draw it to look like it. Did that make my less of an artist? Did that make him lazy because he didn't know what a C5 looked like? Once the guy showed Will a picture of a C5 he was able to draw it. As for magic the term 'wrist kill' and 'neck tie the deck' are not used in all text or video descriptions for those actions.
Let us try to think folks. Yes people should know a double lift and an Elmsley (you would be surprised how many people have been into magic for years that have no clue how to do an Elmsley or evey what it is), all that good stuff. If that is a case then in the description let them write "do a double lift" rather than "I perform the Ebenezor Due Transistion Move then not explain it or say it is simply a double turn over. You, Tom or Rimbaud, don't have to read the descriptions, I don't have to read them, but they should be there should the reader need them. You are big boys, you can go past it and carry on. Or they can set up a section in the back for describing the 'sleights used'. Here is a compromise, how about the ad for the books clearly state something like "This book contains sleights and moves that I will not be explaining. If you want to read this book you are suggested to have knowledge of the contents of the following books: Card College, Royal Road to Card Magic, and the entire works of Ed Marlo". That way some kid who is excited because he saw a trick on youtube and buys a book by that magician is aware that the instructions will not be detailed enough for him to learn the effect and that he should keep his money in his pocket rather than transfering it to the writers. I'll go back to the dictionary reference. Why should you be subjected to all those words you know the definition of or how to spell when you only need help with a few of them? Tom, not everyone is a Tom Cutts. I know of your background and accomplishments, which there are many, in the art of magic. To expect books etc to be written to your level of experience and knowledge leaves out the vast majority of magicians out there from learning and enjoying magic at a level that may just be that of a hobbiest and they are the folks buying the tricks, books, and DVDs. |
|||||||||
PaulGordon Elite user 475 Posts |
As a magic book publisher / author - can I say:
If one was to describe every sleight (used in said book) in the said book, the said book would often be twice the size. Now, some reviewers might call that 'padding' and it could also irritate some readers. What I try and do is to describe the more obscure sleights and 'assume' a certain knowldege of things like Undercut, Double Lift, Elmsley Count etc. But, for publishers/authors it can be a no-win situation. E.g., - About ten years ago a reader wrote to me, "I've been into card magic for seven years and you refer to the Faro. What is a Faro?" My thought was that any 'seven-year cardman' ought to know the Faro. So, it's a tough publishing decision. Also, I think describing the "effect" is redundant. Reading the "effect" might make you turn the page if, at FIRST glance, the "effect" didn't seem like your 'thing.' Later on you might wished you'd have at least TRIED the trick. Also, it's not really that arduous (is it?) to try all the tricks in a book. Isn't that part of the fun; the discovery of a hidden gem? Just my opinion... Paul Gordon |
|||||||||
Rimbaud Loyal user Saint Louis 291 Posts |
Well put, Paul.
Ultimately, the line is what constitutes basic knowledge. In many places, that line is pretty clear. If the book isn't aimed at beginners, describing the actions of a double undercut, rather than just saying "do a double undercut" is just padding--and sloppy writing. The two books referenced above, "Jennings 67", and "The Complete Works of Derek Dingle" are NOT aimed at beginners. Anyone who digs into those fine books are in for both a lot of great material, and a lot of serious work. They are not aimed at a kid looking for the newest, latest trick. They are serious works deserving--and requiring--serious study.(Not that I am in any way suggesting that is what the original poster was--I'm not--and I do not mean to insult him.) And I sympathize with anyone who gets stuck on an effect that is over their head, but some things require additional knowledge. Does a fourth year medical textbook include a description of where the liver is, or do they assume you know that by now? It is called a prerequisite. The very first book of card magic I ever bought was CardMagic by Richard Kaufman. This, as everyone knows, was NOT a beginners book of card tricks. It was so far over my head I nearly got a nosebleed just opening it. By the time I worked all the way through it, what it taught me most was that I had just stepped into a very, very deep pool, and if I wanted to stay there, maybe I'd better learn to swim. Santa, I respect you, and I frequently agree with your postings, but this time I'm afraid you have chosen a slightly false analogy. You keep mentioning the dictionary describing all the words--even the ones you know already. The problem is that the dictionary not an instructional manual--it is, itself, a reference book. It is a book people turn to to define or spell a word they do not already know. In other words, the dictionary is more comparable to Card College or Royal Road, than it is to Jennings '67. The Wall Street Journal does not come with a dictionary. It assumes you know how to read all the words in the paper, and if you don't, Rupert Murdoch figures you can probably look them up somewhere.
http://www.DanLaddthehypnotist.com
"Saying 'Everyone is special' is just another way of saying 'No one is.'" --Dash from The Incredibles |
|||||||||
peterdgr8 New user 94 Posts |
I can certainly understand having the familiarity with basics like double lifts, turnovers, buckles and Elmsley Counts and the like. And totally agree with those who feel that when one takes on more advanced tomes (like Jennings '67 or the Complete Works of Derek Dingle, for two examples) that that is to be expected.
So one can appreciate the sheer beauty of the thinking behind these stellar performer's effects. (Similar to having a thorough grounding in algebraic (or higher) operations, I suppose, before going on to, say, Physics.) But when an author writes, "perform the Elias Multiple shift..." or some other highly specific move and then refers you to another book (albeit one there is a high probability the reader might own) then I feel, for the most part, might not there must be another way? If the author feels (quite rightly I might add) that stopping to explain a particular sleight already familiar to the reader might ruin the understanding of the effect's flow at that point, then, if it is a really significantly useful variant of a known sleight why not have some sort of appendix or something to feature explanations of those particular sleight variants included in the text that the reader might not have access. (Again I think it is a judgment call as to which sleights are considered basic vs those that have a name attached that might not be that common). Of course bear in mind, however, sometimes a sleight explained out of context to the effect is often more baffling than having the sleight properly named (for it's inventor) and how it is executed in the particular effect but those are details that can be easily worked out by the author I think. But I feel most of today's magic writers from what I have read can certainly step up to that particular challenge. Sometimes I wonder if in the attempt to elevate magic literature to a higher form of annotated writing with the same referencing rigors often reserved to the scientific or medical communities like Lancet or Science or the JAMA, considering that there are no major Universities for magic and that the magic community consists of both tyros as well as more accomplished individuals some other consideration might be given so that no one is left out. (And done in a way that helps the tyros learn and grow and become part of the dialogue.) Just a thought. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I guess the masters of magic missed where I made the statement about non beginner books assuming basic card knowledge exists. To me that is controlling the card to the top or bottom, double lifts, stuff like that. Now I consider the Elmsley Count to be basic but I'm always surprised how many don't know it, far fewer know the Jordon Count, fewer still Hammon. Does everyone know what it means to pick up the cards in a Biddle Grip? They know poker deal position I would think. I saw someone say a Pass is basic, really? If so why do so many double cut rather than performing a pass? I agree with Wes James on this, there are two types of magicians, those that don't think a Pass is needed and those that can do a pass.
Again, if a non basic sleight is referenced then explain it. Hey, I'm sure if a lesser than you all guy like Phil Goldstien could be bothered to do so then others can. I have no problem if the description says "control the card to the top" and leaves it at that or "do a double lift" it is when they say "control the card with the Marlo Flex-a-rooni Transcription" then you best describe it or keep it out of the instruction. Paul, I don't know your material but I don't think I agree with your non description of the effect aspect. I understand your reasoning and it makes sense but the description is helpful. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I have to confess something....if I send you a copy of one of my routines I don't explain the sleights....so you best know the Elmsley Count!
|
|||||||||
peterdgr8 New user 94 Posts |
An additional comment. Darwin Ortiz, whose effects are admired for both for their sheer knuckle busting prowess as well as their strength often provided at the beginning of his books specific sleights even the experienced should master before reading any further. Two examples that come to mind are the pinkie count which he used quite frequently and the cover pass which he also favored. Even though both are available and well-described in CC (which hadn't been available at the time Cardshark and Darwin Ortiz at the Card Table were published I suppose) he included well-written descriptions of these two particular sleights. (The pinkie count a.k.a. the little finger count is described in Card College vol. 1 pp 201-02 and the cover pass in v. 4 pp 984-95 of the same work.)
All his effects were well described as to what the experience was and further he offered additional commentary afterwards giving insights to previous handlings, a genus of the idea or on any unusually specific sleights that may have been introduced and favored by Darwin that the reader without Darwin's (or many other excellent authors) vast repertoire might possess. His books are certainly not for beginners. Yet they are good in that they bring even the novice up to speed as to what is expected of him/her in the magic community as they proceed up the ladder of experience. Just an additional thought. Paul G, you are quite right in that when writing good magic descriptions providing descriptions to EVERY sleight would make a work unnecessarily (and economically) quite huge. But to take some care in providing the necessary know-how to do the more esoteric sleights. Although I disagree with not providing a quick brief of what an effect is for those who may not be familiar with the effect and while the interest in reading about the artist's creation is certainly there not having a road map or any indication for the less familiar as to what the end-goal is I feel might lose more than gain, even though I agree that part of the fun is the doing. Playing a Beethoven concerto while just reading the notes without any idea of what the piece is expected to sound like may result in getting the mechanics right but not necessarily the beauty. Like Rimbaud mentioned with his liver analogy at a certain level, some things should be known, but again I feel it's the writers' call as to what things ought be included for the benefit of the disussion. And that will forever be that delicate balance that helps determine. eventually what will become illuminating and challenging to some while at the same time not becoming condescending and daunting to others. |
|||||||||
Rimbaud Loyal user Saint Louis 291 Posts |
Peterdgr8, this is a very interesting discussion, and thank you for starting it.
It is that fine line of what constitutes "basic" that the trouble lies, I suppose. I agree that if an effect calls for something as specific as the Elias Multiple Shift, that is exactly the sort of thing that should have a description included, rather than pushing the reader off to reference shelf. That is not a primer level sleight. And I definitely don't want to stop in the middle of an effect to have to go digging through Ibidem to find Marlo's third version (NOT the Second)of some sleight that has only been used twice to date, then have to head over to Pallbearers to find the footnote Racherbaumer added later, just to get the end of the effect I'm trying to learn. If it is obscure, jeez man, just spell it out for me and credit Marlo and Racherbaumer, already. I just want to know where my little finger is supposed to go before the cramp starts.... It is just the real basic stuff that sort of bugs me. (Especially on DVDs where you either have to grab the remote and fast forward, or wait, cards in hand, for one more description of the EC.)Explaining the Elmsley, the Double Undercut, or even the Braue Reversal, sometimes just feels like padding to me. If the really basic stuff (lifts, controls, basic counts, etc.) are taught, I always at least hope for some new insight, rather than yet another by-the-numbers recipe. For example, Mike Close spends a lot of time talking about double turnovers while teaching Pink Floyd in his wonderful Workers series. But, he spends that time talking about motivating the sleight--getting into and out of the lifts gracefully. It is a wonderful thesis. And much different than "Here is what a double lift is, just in case you've never seen a deck of cards before." Again, this is an interesting conversation...
http://www.DanLaddthehypnotist.com
"Saying 'Everyone is special' is just another way of saying 'No one is.'" --Dash from The Incredibles |
|||||||||
Andy the cardician Inner circle A street named after my dad 3362 Posts |
The problem with card magic is that there is no real curriculum. Everybody starts differently and masters and knows a different arsenal. I recently had a chat with a guy who was doing card magic for 8 years. He had a great repertoire of self working tricks. His DL was superb and his false counting fooled me big time, but that was more or less what he could do.
Andy
Cards never lie
|
|||||||||
thefliss Regular user 102 Posts |
Certainly there won't be any agreement on the subject, but here's my two cents:
Instructional material in magic is not unlike instructional material in other hobbies or trades. Material written for the advanced or experienced artist does tend to assume a certain basic level of skill or familiarity with terms. That said, there's certainly no agreement on what constitutes basic or generally accepted terms. In medical literature, for example, eponymous terms (named after the first person to describe it) have largely been replaced by technical names, making for a more ready understanding for other personnel who read the description. That said, there are plenty of things that have never been renamed, because they are in such common usage. The "Elmsley Count" is probably one of those things that will always be called that, and because of the nature of most magic sleights is also to give credit to the originator, a lot more of these names won't likely ever be replaced. That said, a *series* of texts could reasonably not repeat information that came before, but most good textbooks (like in high school math, for example) at least have some basic review of terms before launching into new material. But that also assumes that the books are meant to be a course, which much of the magic publications are not designed to be. (Tarbell, Mark Wilson are courses, for example.) In the case where this isn't really feasible due to space constraints or whatever, it would be ideal for the publisher/editor to include a reference to a commonly accepted source work - but go ahead and try to find common agreement on what would constitute a commonly accepted manuscript resource. I would propose that such a work would be readily available and accessible. In some cases, even multiple references would be welcome. Again, this would probably be met with some resistance from the editor as a) requiring too much work to go find a reasonable reference, b) using up too much costly print space and c) possibly giving advertising to a competitor's product. However, as time went on, the best references would eventually come to dominate as the "source" books for the "common" sleights, and little extra work would be required to find citations, as a list would be probably quickly amassed by the publisher. (You only have to look it up once and write down the reference in a readily accessible location for future use in a footnote.) In fact, I would argue that it would be a good economic incentive for a publisher to have a well written resource book of basic sleights so that it would be purchased by a wide audience, for the specific reason of having a reference text to review (not unlike Card College, for example.) Mostly though I will say this, and this is sort of empiric reasoning: as someone becomes more advanced, more expert, more skilled and experienced at these sorts of things; when enough time has been dedicated to practice and reading and research, most of these complaints for "lack of explanation" disappear, because the knowledge is already internalized and available. Beginners need to start at the beginning. And with that said, a good review in this forum on any matter, book, DVD or otherwise (eg advertisement), should indicate the skill level, whether a ready knowledge of basic or advanced sleights is required, and whether frequent reference to other material is needed. I realize that leaves some interpretation as to what constitutes basic, intermediate and advanced, but there's just no getting around that. (Usually the basic material already states this, as in "Easy to Master," "Self Working," "A Beginner's Guide," etc.) I find cross referencing Royal Road, Expert at the Card Table, Daryl's DVD Encyclopedia, Card College and some others quite useful in trying to figure out what works best for me and what substitutions I might make, but it does require a certain investment to amass these things and the patience to look through multiple sources. My guess is that there is probably a thread that contains a list of the foundation sources whether it be card, coin or other magic. And if there isn't, there should be. Basically, I would hope someone out there started a thread - "a course in (card or coin or whatever) magic" listing basic books/DVDs: a, b, c, etc.; intermediate books/DVDs: j, k, l, etc., etc. Digressions for specific types of effects would also be worthy of addition, but this task is well beyond me or my knowledge base. |
|||||||||
peterdgr8 New user 94 Posts |
Thanks Rimbaud. This is exactly the kind of thoughtful discourse I was hoping for.
And Santa, I have to tell you...until this thread I, too, had absolutely no idea what necktie-ing or wrist-killing were (sorry Tom!). But, like you, I knew the actions but had no idea there was a specific name for them. Actually I find that a lot in magic. And quite frequently when I read a move with an esoteric name attached that is described I often realize what it is and say to myself, "***! Why the heck didn't you just say that in the first place!!" Cheers |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote:
And I definitely don't want to stop in the middle of an effect to have to go digging through Ibidem to find Marlo's third version (NOT the Second)of some sleight that has only been used twice to date, then have to head over to Pallbearers to find the footnote Racherbaumer added later, just to get the end of the effect I'm trying to learn. And I do want all that. I want to know the genesis of obscure moves. Maybe they originated from something more your style and which can be substituted. There is so much to learn, embrace, revel in when you are not racing to the the end of the trick. It kind of feels like drinking a beer just to get to the bottom of the bottle. You miss out on the beer. But that is me. And yes MagicSanta, I'll bite on the dictionary comparison. We have them in magic. Use them and get on with it. We also have a very rich history of students studying and searching for the just rewards saved for those who are willing to do the work. Sometimes an author doesn't want their work written up in another book, so the only honorable solutions are: A. Leave the trick out completely. B. Substitute what the author believes is a weaker option for a move. C. Direct the reader to the source. Which would you choose? Oh and just as you might think I can skip through the over defining necessary for you, I think you can skip over the routines which are not clear enough for you or are too much work to research. But then I have a very much "old time" view on this matter. DO you know how incredibly easy research has become with all the magazine reprints that are available? In the end I believe it comes down to this: We are not entitled to knowledge, it is a priviledge, and often one we must work for. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Books, Pamphlets & Lecture Notes » » Anyone else have this problem? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 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 < |