|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
kozmic kettle Regular user 123 Posts |
Just to complicate things. I've checked the previous threads and Harry Lorayne's Classic Collection 2 and Nick Trost's Subtle Card Magic 1 were both allowed in 2008 when Peo was running it and people did vote for them!
I like the idea of option 2. If the best book of the year happens to be a compilation - so be it. My vote is for that with one reservation: I think that calling it the 'most influential' book of the year tilts the vote too much towards massive collections like The Definitive Sankey. I doubt previous winners such as Power Plays, Session or One Degree could have won awards for being the most 'influential' books of their year. 'Best' book and 'most influential' book are very different things. According to Duanebarry, the Pat Page book was heading to be runner up last year. Magic Page by Page is a (brilliant) compliation of previously published material, so it would be ruled out by both options 1 and 3. |
|||||||||
cpatchett Veteran user My current prediction is that I have 337 Posts |
Why not have two categories...best compilation and best new material?
Magician: Someone willing to spend $15 to learn how to make $1 disappear.
|
|||||||||
motown Inner circle Atlanta by way of Detroit 6127 Posts |
Quote: Cameron,
On 2012-08-20 09:30, Cameron Francis wrote: My point is that in general most books contain material that is seeing print in book form for the first time. Personally, I consider material written, typeset, printed or released in electonic form to under the banner of published. There are many many books that have been published by someone who's never put out a DVD. I would also say that in more cases than not, the material put on a DVD was taken from a book, rather then the other way. Books have been around far far longer than DVDs. As far as the Book of the year goes, I would still prefer that it be a book made up of material seeing print in book form for the first time.
"If you ever write anything about me after I'm gone, I will come back and haunt you."
– Karl Germain |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-08-21 20:23, motown wrote: Great discussion everybody. I just wanted to focus for a moment on the above exchange between Cameron and Motown. It brings to light a situation that will only continue to influence how we think of books at least in terms of their relationship to other media (e-books and DVDs). The Definitive Sankey may in fact be the game changer. Heres's why. In previous years we have had compilations in which the majority of the material had previously seen the light of publication in print before including Harry Lorayne's Classic Collection volumes, and the Nick Trost set being peoduced and published by H&R to name a couple. But the difference between the Sankey volumes and the Lorayne and Trost volumes is that the majority of material published in the Lorayne and Trost volumes appeared previously in print. In Harry Lorayne's case, there was the Best Ever DVD series, but even the staggering amount of effects in that series is but a fraction of Harry Lorayne's total output since he began writing magic in the late 1940's Nick Trost of course was a regular columnist for The New Tops for decades and there are effects in the set that had previously appeared in Abbott's house journal. Then there is Jay Sankey who has published in virtually all extant media. I know I have already pointed this out in a previous post in this thread but I want to expand upon it with a few thoughts. If The Definitive Sankey consisted of only effects from his previously published physical books then the long standing rule of disqualifying compilations would stand because the effects had seen print publication in a physical book before. The fact that Andi Gladwin and Joshua Jay rewrote the effects makes no difference because the IP is still Jay Sankey's. Harry Lorayne's books were disqualified because the effects contained in The Classic Collection series all appeared previously in a Harry Lorayne book. [N.B.: Yes I am thinking out loud so please pardon the ramble]? Perhaps - and this is to my addled mind an important point for us to consider: I think what we are really grappling with is what constitutes "published" for the purpose of the Book of Year Award. Consider the folowing: 1. VHS and then DVD exploded in the late 1990s and continue to grow. There are far more DVDs being produced every year in the art and with editing software in practically everybody's hands, the proliferation of DVDs will continue to expand. 2. E-books have also rocked onto the scene. Chris Wasshuber could speak more authoritatively on actual percentages/numbers but even a cursory glance at any given time on Lybrary.com will show that new e-books are being produced at a rate outpacing physical books. Part of the reason of course is that production costs for an e-book do not even approach the budget required for a physical book. Also, with tablets, IPads, Kindles, and what have you, the dissemination of information has changed. There are of course many precedents in terms of communication and dissemination: before Gutenberg, only royalty, the very weatlhy burgeoning merchant class, and the Church had books - all inscribed largely by monks. I remember reading that William the Conqueror had two books in the royal library, namely, the Domesday Book and The Bible. Gutenberg changed all of that centuries later and the change is happening again. Peter Duffie essentially pioneered the e-book and this area of publishing has been flourishing - and I would add providing invaluable research possibilities in publishing digital compilations of massive magic periodicals. This brings up another point I would like all to consider - and I hasten to add that I am not advocating including e-books into the Book of the Year Award - not yet anyway so hardliners can breathe. Okay here is the question: is is profitable for us intellectually to maintain the hard delineation between physical books on one side and DVDs and e-books on the other? Are we privileging one type of intellectual dissemination over others? One of the big physical book hits of recent years was Peter Duffie's Card Magic USA yet this physical was first published as an e-book. I would love to see sales figures on this but I remember people commenting that since the Duffie book was now in physical form, they would purchase it. (Stay with me folks as this all has to do with Sankey and with the larger question of a possible shift in paradigm). We have had a book of the year award for a number of years. I have often wondered why no one has decided to create an e-book of the year award or a DVD of the year award. Last year in fact when Peo handed me the reigns for this award and before the unfortunate trolling that derailed the 2011 award, I had even offered to to helkp with creating such an award for e-books. There was some interest but when I asked for help in actually doing it, no help was offered. I don't think that it was a case of laziness. I do think however that the lack of such awards points to either a privileging of one form of media over all others or perhaps a Neo-Luddite clinging to old paradigms. Personally, I do prefer physical books for the same reasons that many others do. I like to be able to hold a book and turn the pages and feel the heft of a tome. That said, I also purchase a great deal of e-books as well because I want the information. I am a student of magic and if for instance Peter Duffie, Cameron Francis, Raphael Czaja, and others are primarily producing e-books only, I love their work so much that I would never consider not buying them because they were not books I could hold. I would offer that DVD aficionados would argue similarly. So, back to Sankey. Sankey is one of magic's most prolific creators - I believe he is third behind Marlo and Maven. The Definitive Sankey, unlike the Stewart James books is but a subset - albeit a substantial one - of his overall oeuvre. But a lot of the material in the Sankey set under the prevailing rule appeared previously in print AND DVD or in some cases, ONLY in DVD. Yet the fact remains that these pieces of intellectual property were published previously. We've not faced this dilemma before and frankly folks, this won't be the last time; even L&L Publishing is jumping into territory that was for the most part the demense of Chris Wasshuber and Todd Karr in terms of e-books. Let me offer a few hypothetical examples that could have and may at some point come to fruition. What if Bill Malone had decided to combine On The Loose, Here I Go Again, and Malone Meets Marlo into a physical book. Would we have considered that book as a contender even though the material had been published previously? Another scenario for you: many of us have been waiting for ages for the Richard Kaufman Mr. Jennings Takes It Easy. There will be overlap with Mike Maxwell's The Classic Magic of Larry Jennings. Would the Kaufman book if it is ever produced (no slam on you Mr. Kaufman) qualify as vote worthy? Last scenario and perhaps the one that really rattles the prevailing paradigm: Cameron Francis decides to publish a compilation of his excellent e-books into physical book form. All of the effects HAVE seen print before, it's just that they have not been in the form of printer's ink and binding with signatures. Would such a book count? Interestingly, more and more big hitters are going another route too! Giobbi, Roth, and Ammar to name a few are offering their intellectual property that was initially in physical books as DVDs. I know that your eyes are bleeding and so are mine but please bear with me? I am a firm believer in the constructivist model of learning and believe it or not, so are you or you wouldn't be a member of any magic fora. I am going to shoot from the hip here folks and say that I really welcome the discussion and I am asking that it continues. While I am capable of making a decision on my own - and I will after weighing all of the varying perspectives offered - I believe that it is time for the community to reexamine our important award in light of changes discussed already. It is not so cut and dried anymore. Time was that books were the norm. But no more. Avenues of IP dissemination are unprecedented in number and so we face a challenge. Certainly it would be easy to just state that the Sankey set cannot be considered and have done with it. Doing so however may only be a band-aid solution. Look at some of our past winners and realize the difficulty here: David Regal's Approaching Magic, Mike Powers' Power Plays, Joel Givens' Sessions have all met the criteria of the award because all met the criteria of new material never having appeared in physical book form previously. As I stated in another less lengthy post, I will not go through 500 Sankey effects to determine if the majority of these were previously in books or DVDs. Finally what nags at me are the books that did not qualify and here again I invoke the Lorayne tomes as an example. This discussion is not one of merely making an exception for the Sankey volumes. It is a discussion about how we will handle such cases in future because there is much more to come! Apologies for the long post; I wish I could do a TL;DR summation. [N.B.: TL;DR is a new internet shorthand. It means "Too long; didn't read." The author of a post condenses her/his thoughts into a single sentence. That however could be a dangerous thing on our sometimes volatile Café. I will risk length over brevity always. Namaste, Vlad |
|||||||||
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1927 Posts |
As perceived by many, there’s no easy and absolute solution to this conundrum.
I can see however 3 possible, but mutually exclusive, fixes. 1. Let people vote for what they want, as long as it is a hard-copy book published in the current year. OR 2. Introduce sub-categories • Hard-copy book of the year : most material has never appeared in print (but DVD material accepted) • Hard-copy book – compilation type Most material has already appeared in print (hard copy or electronic) • E-book • Etc.. OR 3. Make very strict rules on what is an acceptable vote and discard everything that does not conform to them. There are pros and cons for each alternative that all can work for themselves. I favour option 1. At the end of the vote, a hard-copy book will be voted a winner and it will be probably the one bought (or read) by most people, so it must *mean something* Cheers Claudio |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Thanks Claudio. Option 1 seems the most easily implemented at this early stage, but, I am still thinking of how to address the past instances where compilation books like Sankey's did not qualify. Still, since my dissertation was about change, option 1 seems to be the most clear. That said, I will give this some more time - afterall it is only August - before coming to a decision that will cause the least amount of whinging. Thank again Claudio and to all for your help and continued advice on this. I do believe it is an important recognition considering the size of the membership of The Café and past winners have thank the community for the honor that it is so it's important to me as it was/is for Peo to make this work. Truth be told, I am still a little cautious after last year's debacle.
Namaste, Vlad |
|||||||||
duanebarry Special user 883 Posts |
The less there is for people to argue about, the lower the chance of repeating last year's fiasco.
|
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-08-22 09:16, duanebarry wrote: I agree, but, a lot of last year's problems were due to a banned member and numerous new accounts touting said member's book. In addition - and you know this - members were advised and invited to take the issue up with the admins. At the end of the day however, by putting discussion points out, and a consensus hopefully reached then yes I agree with you. That said, the actions of trolls and banned members spamming the vote has no bearing on a potential re-examining of of a long standing paradigm. I realize that your comment is meant to be helpful and I appreciate it. I would also add that the reason I am putting this out for discussion is precisely for the reason you have stated. Namaste, Vlad |
|||||||||
ixnay66 Inner circle Denver 1525 Posts |
I didn't know Tom Stone was banned. His books are so great. What happened and why would being banned have ANYTHING to do with wether his books are good or not?
|
|||||||||
nooner Regular user 187 Posts |
A person was banned from the Café. His book was removed from consideration in the contest as a result. I imagine the Café didn't want to use their name to promote that person's product. It isn't a reflection on whether his book was good or not. It is a common action for a business to take when presented with similar circumstances. If it happens that some other author is banned the same actions will be taken. The rules are very clear on this point.
|
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-08-22 11:52, ixnay66 wrote: Ixnay, I was actually referring to the other author who got banned. The Café makes the rules and Nooner's answer reflects what is Café policy. As for Tom Stone, I do not know why the ban occurred; I am no more privy to such matters than you my friend. I am just hoping that no authors are banned this year, although, having had to deal with that twice last year has led me to be certain about one point about the award in which I shall remain steadfast: since it is Café policy that no banned member should benefit from The Café - and clearly gaining recognition for one's work on a forum as large as this is a benefit - I must adhere to Café policy. The owner and the admins have their reasons for the rule and as a Café member I am bound by it as we all are. I hasten to add that my answer to you shouldn't be misconstrued as off-putting or nasty. Text is a hard thing in which to convey thoughts. I agree that Tom Stone's magic is very good indeed, but I will err on the side of prudent judgment and assume the ban was for an infraction of a rule whose consequence is a ban. Namaste, Vlad |
|||||||||
Robert P. Special user Kansas 632 Posts |
At first my initial instincts was to have a category for favorite new book and one for the best compilation, but the more I think about it I am leaning toward just best physical book. I believe e-books and DVDs are different enough to still have their own category.
So, about including compilations…I think the reason for their exclusion is so that we can concentrate on new material and I can understand that line of reasoning. But is the concern that a ‘Best Of’ (in this case it would be The Definitive Sankey) would dominate the votes whereas a book of new material might not get the love it deserved? I guess my stance is that if a book is truly special, whether composed of new material or not, it will garner that respect. Even if that book doesn’t win, we would still be able to see the praise received from the vote tally. I have more of an ‘issue’ (that may seem negative even though it is not intended to be, I just don’t know of a better word to describe it) in that these awards are given so soon after a book is released. I can definitely understand why it is done this way and I don’t know that I would do it differently, but just using my own personal case as experience, many times I don’t purchase these books until after some time has passed. I certainly haven’t purchased enough published in that particular award year where I feel I can give an honest evaluation of all or even most of the nominees. Books are a different beast. They take time to consume. They are not like movies where we can easily give an assessment because of the time it takes to digest them. Again, I’m not saying anything should be done different, I’m more just rambling out loud. I would love to see a thread created that listed books released from a 5 year period, let’s say 1981-1985, where folks listed their top five books and each was weighted to give a final tally. But since so much time has passed since that period, people would now have a better idea of why they picked what they did since they’ve had so much time to reflect on it. And even more I would love to see their reasoning on why they chose what they did. Yeah, lists are great, but I’m even more interested in knowing WHY you loved the book as much as you did. To get off of the beaten path even more…this reminds me of a thread Vlad started about people listing their ‘A’ material. But not to just list their favorites but the reasons for why they chose what they did. That’s what I really love reading. Where in the heck is that thread, I’ve searched but can’t find it. OK, I’ve gone on long enough, sorry about that. Whatever is decided, I’m good with. Thanks for taking the time to organize the thread. P.S. Vlad, I was going to quote your lengthy post and start off the reply ‘Bold Please’ but chose not to because I didn’t want it to be taken the wrong way, it was more going to be a joke reply to TL DR addressing message board speak. |
|||||||||
volto Special user 603 Posts |
I like the idea of a return to simplicity. If it's written word, it's a book, whether it's an ebook or a printed book.
I think trusting the voters to filter stuff themselves is a simple solution. Reprints of old material are less exciting than new stuff - although (as with Sankey and the Page book) new light shed on existing effects can make for an interesting read. Even putting previously published effects into a single volume - I think - can be interesting. The contrast of methods, presentations and so on can lead you down a different path. Kind of like radio stations having a different vibe because of their playlists - or albums being more atmospheric than singles. Anyhow, I think it's worth allowing votes for new collections of old material. Let the voters decide. I can understand the Café rule of not promoting products from folks who are banned, but that should be a Café moderator thing, not a voter thing. It's a crying shame that it results in some excellent books like Tom's not being eligible - but then, the Café is provided to us for free, and we must respect the rules that allow it to exist. Voting under multiple accounts is a tricky issue. There's no easy answer to that... one option is the old-school democracy option, where only "full citizens" got to vote. In ancient Greece, it meant adult males who had completed military training. In Café terms, maybe it means only members with a certain number of posts. It kind of sucks, but then the alternatives - manual filtering, or opening the vote to easy rigging - are bad too. So to recap: 1) If it's written word, it's a book. 2) It must be published in 2012. 3) To vote, you need to be a Café member in good standing - which means (say) 100 posts. Or 1000 posts, or whatever. You get to vote for one thing. If the thing you voted for is judged invalid (by Vlad) then you get your vote back. Those are my suggestions anyhow. I think keeping the rules to an absolute minimum is the way to go. |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
RobertP and Volto,
Thank you both for your thoughts! BTW Robert, I would have caught the joke You both offer much to think about along with other posts thus far in this thread. I appreciate everyone's help on this; afterall, it is a community undertaking. Robert, you mentioned that thread I started. I don't know where it is either but I am sure it was also eye bleeding I do remember however that I wanted to go deeper than just the usual what are you favorite 10 books topics because I believed - and still believe - that commentary as to the "why" certain books would be A-list would be more educative to the community at large. Veterans and newcomers alike can always benefit from such information. In the thread concerning J.K. Hartman's new book, a member noted that she/he was ordering Hartman's Card Dupery and found the new book Card Codgery. Clearly this member knows a bit about Hartman's excellent work yet if I remember correctly Card Dupery received only a handful of votes in its publication year. There are a few of us who have most if not all of his work but I believe that for the most part, Hartman has flown under the radar of many. As an aside, Back to Earth is one of the effects in Card Dupery. It is a really cool twist on OOTW. [N.B. Derek Dingle had a similar effect in The Complete Works of Derek Dingle]. For me it was worth the price of admission. I do agree that books, unlike movies and that includes magic/mentalism DVDs do take a while to digest. I've often wondered for instance if reviewers like Michael Close, Jamy Ian Swiss, and Eric Mead have ever revisited their reviews after a period of years and reassessed their original verdict. Volto: Your notion of simplicity is an intriguing one. The problem however is that some would argue that e-books should still have their own category. If your precious sight survived my long post, you will remember that I alluded to this. That said, I AM considering implementing an e-book of the year award but only after the criteria for the physical book category is firmly established with as little bloodshed as possible. So your point 2 is of course a given. Point 3 I like because it may stave off trolls. But again, it's not fair to assume that a person with more than 100 posts cannot be a troll as one member (not the Swedish one) proved so well last year not only during the voting but in other instances as well. If I would implement such a condition, I would consider the Café standard of 50 posts thus keeping in line with the requirements for access to Secret Sessions and the sale area of The Café. Keep those ideas and constructive criticisms coming folks! They help more than you can guess. Namaste, Vlad |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Okay, here's is where I am leaning based upon comments received thus far. But please, keep posting suggestions?
I did a cursory run through of The Definitive Sankey and so much of the material did NOT appear in his books that I believe it warrants inclusion in this year's voting. Since the rule was that effects in a book eligible for voting could not be reprints of earlier physical books, The Definitive Sankey fits that rule since for now since we are maintaining a separation between physical books and other media. (Yeah, I said I wouldn't go through the Sankey books and do this but it was nagging at me that badly) So, in broad strokes, read not set in stone, here are the guidelines thus far: 1. The book's publisher imprint or copyright statement HAS to bear the year 2012. No exceptions. 2. Rewrites/updated compilations of previously published books are still disqualified. Not included in this guideline would be books in which effects appeared in lecture notes for instance. 3. To vote, a member must be in good standing with The Café. The member must also have 50 posts at minimum. I like the idea of consistency with the overall Café rule for 50 posts for a number of reasons that I need not elaborate upon here. That said, maybe some of you lurkers might have some incentive to join in the fun here! 4. Only one vote per book per member 5. If the scenario of an author being banned should repeat itself, the book written by the author is disqualified. No exceptions. This is a Café rule and if you want to discuss it, Steve Brooks, Steven Steele, and others can be PMd 6. Compilations of magic periodicals into physical book form are disqualified. 7. Voting will begin on 31 December 2012 and end on 31 January 2013 Hawai'i time. Votes before and after those dates will not be counted. 8. ONLY physical books - i.e, books produced on wood pulp by product are eligible. I am going to try and get an e-book award thing going to run concurrently with this award. 9. Since we are maintaining a separation between physical books and e-books, an e-book converted to a physical book will not be considered. That e-book can be voted for in the e-book award thread. I am appealing to the better angels of our natures and asking members to remember that this is not Tammany Hall. Optional but encouraged: Please write a sentence or two or even paragraphs if you are verbose like I am detailing why you think the book deserves the award. I think that doing such a thing serves a number of purposes: it educates the community, it helps authors to have some feedback on their work, and I like to read other's thoughts. We have a knowledgeable community here so let's share the wealth. In 2013 if I have still have the honor of facilitating this award, I would like to propose some changes to the conditions since the face of publishing is rapidly changing. So the points I detailed above are a sort of transitional set of guidelines in anticipation for a change next year. Finally, what I have written is not set in stone. I still would like feedback, alternative ideas, and constructive criticism. Namaste, Vlad PS: Important and obvious point: this is NOT the official thread for voting. At the beginning of December I will post a new thread detailing the final guidelines. On 31 December Hawai'i time I will create the official voting thread. The guidelines WILL be repeated in the official thread as well to facilitate understanding. |
|||||||||
nooner Regular user 187 Posts |
I would only suggest changing the "Optional but encouraged: Please write a sentence or two..." to "Required: Write a sentence or two...". I don't think it is too much to ask for this for a vote to be counted. Part of the value of going back and reading prior years is to cull these mini reviews for books that I may not be aware of. It is more meaningful for the reader to get an abbreviated reason for someone using their single vote on a book as opposed to them just saying the book name. I'm not sure requiring this small extra effort would deter someone from voting. Think of it as giving a small gift to the author for them to read and enjoy as the price you owe them for writing your favorite magic book of the year.
Jim |
|||||||||
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1927 Posts |
Nooner, I see where you're coming from but I don't think it's a good idea to compel members to add a comment: it's likely to bring comments like: because I like it, or It's a great read etc... Whereas uncoerced comments are more likely to be more meaningful.
This has been my experience in the past (for some other project). Claudio |
|||||||||
John Kokot New user 96 Posts |
Andrew Sarris, the recently deceased and noted film critic, once pointed out that the difference between a reviewer and a critic was that a reviewer functioned as a consumer guide, while a critic helped you “see” aspects of a movie that you may not have noticed or appreciated. Sarris further claimed that reviewers assumed that the reader had not seen the movie, while the critic assumed his readers already had. To oversimplify, reviewers were prescribers; critics were describers. Pauline Kael, who often battled with Sarris, did agree with him on this latter point. She believed the best criticism was accurate description.
These distinctions have relevance for the ongoing discuss about eligibility criteria for best book or most influential book. In the absence of data, I’m hypothesizing that most readers of the final poll use it as a consumer guide for making purchases. Given that most voters do not include justifications for their votes, it’s difficult to see how the whole book-of-the-year process could be deemed to be criticism in the Sarris sense. Admittedly, there are some bragging rights at stake for the authors and maybe for readers as well (“See, I told you ‘The Real Work on the Square Circle’ will be considered a classic”). But on the whole, there’s not much at stake here. It’s not as if the winner is going to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize. With these assumptions in mind, it’s plausible to argue that the poll is, at best, a consumer guide, a popularity contest and a source of conversation fodder for Café members. If so, then there may be merit to not making any distinctions between reprints, original works, material that originated on DVDs, and e-books. Allow people vote who or what appealed to them. Publish the final list with total votes and add a citation as to whether the publication was a reprint, an e-book, etc. That way, poll followers can be exposed to material of merit (the function of a consumer guide) regardless of its provenance. While this approach lacks the aesthetic purity of mutually exclusive categories, it does have the advantage of revealing what was the most popular book overall, as well as which book prevailed in each genre. |
|||||||||
ixnay66 Inner circle Denver 1525 Posts |
I guess if the Café is giving out a cash prize it's their perogative to ban people they don't like from their contest. So what's the prize?
|
|||||||||
duanebarry Special user 883 Posts |
Yep, even a troll can have 1000+ posts.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Books, Pamphlets & Lecture Notes » » It's Never too Early - Book of the Year 2012 (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 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 < |