I just noticed and this saddens me that on Wikipedia if you search Chinese linking rings it explains how the effect is done. I don't know if its like that for other effects its just sad.

I think it's like that for all effects they can figure out.

people like getting credit for "knowing information" which ends up being "giving information they have no right to give". happens all the time even on this forum too, where you'd think people would know better.

It has already been exposed by the Masked Magician this season on television. The secrets out, everybody throw your Linking Rings in the dumpster, quick. They are not longer any good.

Who cares about entertainment, they know the secret, my life is over. Nobody cares I worked on a routine for 3 months, researching moves, putting them in the correct place to make a routine that will confuse, create wonder, make them laugh, and say, "that can't be what was on the internet and television, I handled everyone of those rings the linked together."

I'm not defending anyone, but come on, it's no big secret, the audience is not stupid, many know how it's done or have figured it out.

I remember seeing a magician perform at my school when I was eleven. Several of my friends figured it out.

People like watching the routine, especially when it is beautifully presented and they like being entertained.

I guess I am old school, but it bothers me to see magical secrets so freely given away. I realize that magic will survive, but if even one person in the audience knows the secret it will lessen the impact of the magic....even if it is just for the one person. However, that is unlikely since they will probably tell the people that are attending the show with them. As magicians, we know the secrets, and we still enjoy the magic. Laypeople care less for the skill involved, et. and if a magcian can suspend their belief, or make them wonder for a moment it is magic. That is hard to do once the secret is revealed.

The good is the audience forgets about it. I watched the Masked Magician on a few of his shows. I forgot most of the tricks he revealed. I am sure the audience forgot just as much.

As long as the audience do not know the name of the trick, they would not know what to look up in Wikipedia.

When I was a kid, I went to the school library to find out how the magician did the linking rings. Nobody else in the audience really cared enough to do that.

I did the rings the week after they were first revealed on TV by the Masked Magician. I asked how many people in the crowd saw the show. Less than a third raised their hands. Got the same response as always.

There is almost always someone after any show who comes up and says that they used to do "that trick" when they were a kid, but my rings "must work different."

You da man, Whit. I see your name listed on the page.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_linking_rings

I have a similar situation when performing it for people. There's a point in my routine where I let a spectator link the rings... and when I hand a few out their eyes light up. I could tell they could just sit there for hours tugging at them still thinking they have some sort of slit.

It's a true shame it can be just revealed... especially like it's nothing.

Wikipedia also exposes the Asrah Levitation I think.

Get a locking key r### and do the routine with it and no layman will figure it out. as you openly show all the rings.

many different types on the market.



All the best, Mark

There is no exposure that can't be circumvented with a strong personality, a good routine and expert handling.

You could also go into Wikipedia and edit it to say, the explanation is your spiritual connection to the world of magic unseen forces.

Bravo Jonathan!

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Levent
http://www.LeventMagic.com

It is sad , but one more reminder for us all: never refer to this effect in your act as the "Chinese L _ _ _ _ _ _ R _ _ _ s" or even "L _ _ _ _ _ _ R _ _ _ s". If you do you're simply giving curious audience members a very easy way to Google the term and arrive at that Wiki article (or similar exposure article) . Some even do it on their iPhone while sitting in a performance. At the start you announce you are going to perform the ancient and famous "Chinese L _ _ _ _ _ _ R _ _ _ s" , and by the end of your performance a wise-guy in your audience has already finished reading the Wiki article and is sharing the info with everyone around him. Don't think that happens ? Yes, it does. OH, and by the way since the Café owners won't insert a robots.txt robots exclusion file into the code for all the pages on the Magic Café that means Google and other external search engines cache everything we discuss here about our beloved craft.

I agree with JNeal that pros like himself, Whit Haydn, Levent, or Shoot Ogawa, etc. have nothing to fear in the long run from that sort of exposure , however it is still not a desirable situation to have these methods spread far and wide for those who are merely curious, but who have no greater motivation to learn the craft .

The cat's out of the bag and we're not going to be able to eliminate those kinds of articles on Wikipedia (although those articles are editable by anyone , including us, I'm just sayin' ... a little "misinformation" can go a long way) but we can do some simple things to throw the idly curious off the trail , like not referring to our effects by their commercial names, or if we post performance videos on YouTube make sure that Comment Moderation is activated so no one can post a comment on our YouTube videos without our first approving the comment (so malicious exposure comments or Video Responses with exposures can be deleted before they are posted).

Be funny and nobody will care so much about the method.

That is so true. Plus, when you mess up it doesn’t seem as bad or doesn't even look out of place. The over dramatic magicians and ones that try so hard to prove it’s real magic are begging for ridicule. I’d take Charlie Frye or Hobson over someone like Hans Klok any day.

The fact that Whit is listed is just indicative to Wiki, not that Whits routine isn't fun, but it is not the consummate linking ring routine. Wickopedia is a mass of misinformation.
Two years ago, I added a complete biography of Jeff McBride to it, showed it to Jeff for verification and posted it on Wicki. 3 months later someone took it down andput a different version even though Jeff and I worked on the factual version. (Jeff was working with me in my shop when he was age 13-17).
Anyone can append or edit that source and we should all change the Linking Ring exposure.

Ian,
Your comment about Jeff working in your shop reminded me of an inquiry someone had made on the Café a year or so ago asking for contact information about any readers who worked in a magic shop in the 60's and 70's. I never heard anything after that.

I think I commented back then about how working behind a magic shop counter factored into the development of some of the great pros of the past, including Cardini who I believe worked behind the magic counter at Gamages Department Store.

I guess that's another advantage brick and mortar shops have over Internet magic shops--they provide valuable experience performing magic before a critical audience. People might applaud politely at any magic show, but if they're going to spend their hard-earned dollars, they're going to be more genuine in their expressions of approval and delight.

So... does anyone know who it was that asked about people who demonstrated magic back in the 60's and whether anything came of that project?

----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez

The issue of exposure and easy access to information about magic methods being freely revealed on the internet has led me to call some classic effects by names other than the names by which they are known in the magic community. A few classics in particular are included in children's magic sets, which almost always include the linking rings, cups and balls, and multiplying billiard balls, resulting in wide exposure of the gimmicks involved. So I do not do "The Chinese Linking Rings"; I do the "Mystic Rings of the Orient". I do not do the "Cups and Balls"; I do "The Persian Goblets". I do not do "The Multiplying Billiard Balls"; I do "The Snowballs". I then carefully design the respective routines to seem to disprove the existence of the exposed gimmicks.

A novel and compelling approach to refuting common knowledge about linking ring methods is performed by Tilman Andris here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slq959dZ1Z0

He starts by quoting an historical expose of one of the two linking ring gimmicks by a French magician before he starts his performance. He then proceeds to perform in a way that seems to render the explanation impossible or at least implausible to acccount for most of what takes place.

Hear, hear!