Bellies with stars.

Posted on October 31, 2004
Filed Under General | 2 Comments

It’s not enough that the world of mentalism is so much smaller than that of magic. No, some of those who are ostensibly in the higher echelons of its practitioners — to hear them describe themselves, anyway — are of smaller minds, too.

I’ve already mentioned the upcoming, highly anticipated set of DVDs by Richard Osterlind. “Easy to Master Mental Miracles” — which you can pre-order here — has managed to cause fits of purple apoplexy in the secret dins of the Super-Secret Raccoon Hat Fraternity of the World’s Self-Appointed Greatest Mentalists Organization of Dentists, Doctors, Lawyers, and At Least One Several-Times-Arrested-But-Subsequently-Acquitted Assaulter. (Numerous duffers, too, but they won’t admit it.)

In a word, these poor darlings are just not happy.

Richard Osterlind, himself, has finally had enough of answering the same — as he calls it — red herring questions over and over again presented by members of these Raccoon Hatters. (In this thread on The Magic Cafe you can read the latest sad stanzas, along with Richard’s coda.)

At the heart of this tempest in a teapot is the fact that some, not all, members of certain psychic entertainers organizations — some who claim boldly, “Protecting our Trade Secrets is our TOP PRIORITY” and then proceed to name their web site domains things like www.nailwriter.com — are in a huff. It seems that now that they’ve acquired the cherished secrets of mentalism, they are the Special Ones and should guard their secrets from the Great Unwashed Ones who wish to enter by the gate. (Or something equally idiotic.)

This might be mildly amusing were it not true. Instead, it is very true and, therefore, hilarious.

Given that these folks lay claim to being the Insidest of the Inner Circle of Head Mucky-Mucks in Mentalism, it should make you realize how valuable are these new Osterlind DVDs and why you should obtain them yourself. Yes, apparently, they are that good.

Since the topic of this post is juvenile behavior, it seems only fitting that I provide a quote from a juvenile book. Ted Geisel is the perfect author of the perfect book for this admittedly imperfect post. As the beloved Dr. Seuss, he wrote, among many, the classic “The Sneeches and Other Stories.”

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches
Had none upon thars.

Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

But because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And whenever they met some when they were out walking
They’d hike right on past them without even talking.

Those of you familiar with the story know one classic line is, “No. You can’t teach a Sneech.”

That Dr. Seuss. What a mindreader he turned out to be.

Maven. Max Maven.

Posted on October 31, 2004
Filed Under General | 9 Comments

Shameful. Just shameful.

In a conversation with a close friend not so long ago, I found out he isn’t a James Bond fan. (For the more reasonable among you, I’ll give you a moment to settle down and recover from the expected, and perfectly understandable hyperventilating.)

Now, to be clear, it’s not that he’s specifically not a fan of the prissy Roger Moore James Bond; the regrettably forgettable George Lazenby James Bond; the wildly popular — if not un-Flemingesque — Sean Connery James Bond; the dead-on, this-is-who-I-believe-God-Himself-would-have-picked-to-play-James Bond Timothy Dalton James Bond; or the Roger Moore-extra Pierce Brosnan James Bond. I could even overlook the overlooked reference to the Barry Nelson James Bond.

But he doesn’t like James Bond in toto. (Not that I have any strong opinions on the movies and the individual actors, you understand.)

Naturally, I still consider him a friend. I believe there’s still time to save his soul.

To my point: while several actors and producers have contributed, collectively we have a character, created by Ian Fleming, named James Bond. That character is clearly identifiable and, in the world of entertainment, carries a great degree of stature, substance and marketability.

This is not to say there haven’t been spoofs of the character. The second treatment of Casino Royale — the comedy film version — featured a performance by the brilliant Peter Sellers. The Austin Powers series is another example, though clearly aimed at the Dumb and Dumber crowd. But these can be considered legitimate entities.

I won’t go into naming them, but there have been versions of the James Bond character — overt copies — that are just shameful to watch. Relatively speaking, there aren’t many Ian Flemings — or Tom Clanceys or Patricia Cornwells or Sue Graftons or Jonathan Kellermans and other fiction writers — in this world to create the James Bonds or Kay Scarpettas or Kinsey Millhones or Alex Delawares and other memorable, engaging fictional characters. So, those who cannot create, appropriate and, as a result, can — at best — only present a shell of a character without the substance.

In a recent thread on The Magic Cafe, there was discussion of one of Ted Lesley’s offerings. The primary issue got sidetracked as a direct result of a Cafe member posting a link to his personal web site. I clicked the link and the word “shameful” tumbled out of my mouth. The more I clicked, the more I shook my head in amazement — and not the kind we, as mystery performers, hope to engender in our audiences. (At least, not deliberately. I hope.)

To take you along with me, let us first visit the web site of well-known Max Maven:

http://www.maxmaven.com

That is a distinct, unique look — a character — deliberately created and built over many, many years and thousands of performances. Both in and out of our little world of magic and mentalism, it carries a great degree of stature, substance and marketability.

Now, let us visit the web site of lesser known Deddy Corbuzier:

http://www.deddy-corbuzier.com/

This isn’t Peter Sellers territory. This isn’t even Austin Powers territory. This is in a category all to itself, although — sadly — not a small, sparsely inhabited one. This falls into the category of intellectual property theft and gross disrespect.

And it’s not, as young Corbuzier suggests, coincidence. When I viewed the video of his “Jakarta Blindfold Drive 2004” I see a person who not only appropriated a look clearly identified with Max Maven (the widow’s peak and eye makeup, to start with) but I see attempts at the same clothing, the same gestures, the same overall performing persona. Corbuzier even sports a long, braided ponytail, for pity’s sake. It’s embarrasingly shameful behavior.

His reason for stealing Max’s image? Does it really matter?

Corbuzier considers himself a professional, a self-given appellation he’s only too quick to remind you of. But would a true professional behave in such a manner?

The only thing that might be more appropriate than Corbuzier ceasing to use the word professional would be for him to stop using Max Maven’s look and channeling Max’s performing persona. That would be a good start.

With quite a bit of hard work and effort, there might even be something left worth watching.

EDITED 11/1/2004: I changed “Roger Moore-lite” to “Roger Moore-extra” because of something Andrew W. mentioned in his comment. I think he’s right, I was a bit harsh. Brosnan is, well, manlier than Moore, but still not Dalton. Noted and corrected.

Contrasts.

Posted on October 29, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

I love obvious contrasts. The greater the difference between two things, the easier it becomes to embrace one over another. Given the choice between two items that are nearly identical, wouldn’t you choose the less expensive one? Given the choice between two methods of completing two tasks, isn’t it human nature to choose the easier method?

These concepts can be found in the world of magic design, manufacturing and sales, too. For some people, creating a new trick is a long, laborious process. A lot of work can go into a simple trick that truly entertains and amazes a lay audience. It’s hard work, the evidence of which is how long it is between truly original new magic tricks.

On the other hand, some people don’t put in the hard work it takes to develop a new trick. They, instead, acquire the work someone else has already created, change the name, and manufacture a duplicate. (Sometimes they don’t bother to even change the name.)

And then there are the retailers. For some, given the choice between a version authorized by an inventor, or a cheaper knock off version, they choose the cheaper knock off. Not all do this, but many do.

Years ago, my friend Tom Ladshaw of New Orleans released a new trick called “The Sleeping Pill.” Imagine a huge, two inch long capsule that stood up and laid down in your hand — as if by magic. At the end of the trick, you could hand the pill out to be examined. The routine was clever, very funny and filled with the sort of puns Tom is well known for.

He brought several dozens of this new trick with him to a magic convention hoping to sell some. It was a brand new trick, unknown, and garnered a modest amount of interest. That is, until Karrell Fox bought one and showed it to anyone who’d stand still long enough to see it. Tom sold out. He went on to sell thousands of these things. It was, and still is, a great close-up trick.

Tom has been on the hunt for a replacement supplier of the capsule, hoping to bring his delightful trick back on the market. A few months ago, a “new” trick hit the market. Imagine a huge, two inch long capsule…

Well, you get the idea.

This version is called “Vitamin M” and the packing suspiciously masks the manufacturer who supplies the retail stores. Tom isn’t dead, and he’s easy to find, so it’s curious why whoever it is who is manufacturing these things didn’t bother to contact Tom about this. It was easier to just knock off Tom’s great trick.

I’ve dealt with this theme already. I bring it up because of the contrast between “the hard way” and “the easy way”.

Here’s another example of contrasts. These are the 48 laws presented in the book, “The 48 Laws of Power”, an attractively designed and wildly successful bestseller:

1 Never outshine the master
2 Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies
3 Conceal your intentions
4 Always say less than necessary
5 So much depends on reputation â€” guard it with your life
6 Court attention at all cost
7 Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit
8 Make other people come to youâ€”use bait if necessary
9 Win through your actions, never through argument
10 Infection: Avoid the unhappy and unlucky
11 Learn to keep people dependent on you
12 Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim
13 When asking for help, appeal to people’s self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude
14 Pose as a friend, work as a spy
15 Crush your enemy totally
16 Use absence to increase respect and honor
17 Keep others in suspended terror: Cultivate an air of unpredictability
18 Do not build fortresses to protect yourselfâ€”isolation is dangerous
19 Know who you’re dealing with â€” do not offend the wrong person
20 Do not commit to anyone
21 Play a sucker to catch a sucker - seem dumber than your mark
22 Use the surrender tactic: Transform weakness into power
23 Concentrate your forces
24 Play the perfect courtier
25 Re-create yourself
26 Keep your hands clean
27 Play on people’s need to believe to create a cultlike following
28 Enter action with boldness
29 Plan all the way to the end
30 Make your accomplishments seem effortless
31 Control the options: Get others to play with the cards you deal
32 Play to people’s fantasies
33 Discover each man’s thumbscrew
34 Be royal in your own fashion: Act like a king to be treated like one
35 Master the art of timing
36 Disdain things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best revenge
37 Create compelling spectacles
38 Think as you like but behave like others
39 Stir up waters to catch fish
40 Despise the free lunch
41 Avoid stepping into a great man’s shoes
42 Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter
43 Work on the hearts and minds of others
44 Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect
45 Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once
46 Never appear too perfect
47 Do not go past the mark you aimed for; in victory, learn when to stop
48 Assume formlessness

Now, here’s my list. It’s shorter, which makes it easier to share. It’s easier to remember which also makes it easier to know when I’m breaking one of the rules:

1. Live a life of integrity.
2. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

I would suggest that, in the long run, it is more difficult to live in this world following those last two laws than it is following the first forty-eight laws above. The forty-eight laws above are part and parcel of today’s “accepted business life” — for the most part, you won’t be castigated, ridiculed, or made to look foolish if you follow those laws, despite the fact you might step on some of the “little people” on your way up.

In stark contrast, often these days standing up for what’s right — doing the right thing — gets you loads of ridicule and ribbing. It’s a sad thing to see occur, and worse to see it so often in an area of life I love, magic.

By the way, the book I referenced is put out by Penguin Books. No, not the same company you might be thinking of. I just thought it was an interesting coincidence, though.

What did he say?

Posted on October 29, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

I got my start in the world of advertising and marketing when I was fourteen years old. This was before the Internet. It was before MTV. In fact, it was before desktop computers. I was a runner for an ad agency which immediately led to a part time gig at the local radio station. My primary interest was writing ad copy and producing commercials for radio and television, something I still do although these days I do it in my own studio.

Within a couple of years, a remarkably short span of time, I worked my way up through the ranks to production manager — the guy responsible for commercials being done well and on time — largely a result of the fact no sane human being wanted the job. In other words, as a high school graduate I fit the job description and, in fine Peter Principled manner, I ended up with the position.

One of the very first lessons I learned, virtually from day one and a lesson I take with me to this day, is the value in speaking clearly and properly. The first part is a lot easier to “fix” when broken than the second, which can only be “fixed” by effective education and disciplined learning.

Unless you’re performing a silent act, from the moment you open your mouth to speak, the success of your act depends on what comes out. If your opening sentence is mumbled, you have lost your audience in fine, if not unfamiliar form. It’s a whole lot easier to keep them in the first place than to regain them.

Speaking clearly is one of the fundamentals dealt with in Ken Weber’s seminal book, “MAXIMUM ENTERTAINMENT”. (If you don’t already own this book, I have to assume you did not know it was available. You absolutely have to own a copy of this book and read it several times. I told Ken, when I met him in Las Vegas, that I considered it and “Greater Magic” my “stranded on a desert island” books; the former to keep me occupied, and the latter to help me be successful should I ever be rescued.)

Ken writes:

“Yes … luck plays a considerable role in the success of a performer. For just one example, where your Mum happened to pop you out and grow you up makes a difference, because you will sound like your neighbors. That may be fortuitous, or it may be unfortunate. Some of us have naturally pleasing voices, some don’t.

An off-putting accent, a whiny voice, a too-slow or too-fast speech pattern: all present obstacles that must first be recognized and then modified. Careful analysis of your videotaped presentation is, again, the first step.”

(Chapters 8 and 9 deal specifically with this post. They are worth reviewing if you have this book in your library.)

Ken and I are both True Believers in video taping your performance for review and critique. Cutting your foot off with an old, dull, rusty knife is probably only slightly less painful than the first time you sit down and watch a video tape of your performance. (It does — or at least should — get less painful with each subsequent review but I suggest you keep handy a copy of your first tape for those times when you think you’re an excellent, preeminent performer. Nothing keeps you humble like watching your first tape.)

Pay particular attention to how fast you speak. Many issues dealing with clarity can be fixed immediately simply by s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n. All evidence to the contrary, the brain thinks faster than the mouth performs. This causes many people to speak faster than they can clearly mouth words. While what you intend to say may make perfect sense between your own ears, something gets lost in the translation for your audience when you speak too quickly. SLOW. DOWN.

The other, primary fix is in how you physically get the words out of you. Speak this sentence out loud. Now do it again, and notice from where the words come: your throat or your belly. If you take in a deep breath and start your words in your belly, they’ll come out louder and clearer than if you pinch them through your throat.

How can you train yourself to speak better? Record your voice, then listen to it. Repeat.

In the late eighties, a company called Achievement Dynamics began running radio commercials for an audio book product called, “Verbal Advantage”. The ad copy read, “People judge you by the words you use…” — and do they ever.

Speaking colloquially is perfectly acceptable in the appropriate situations. It may be in private or group conversation. It may even be because your character requires a speech pattern that is colloquial in nature. But for everyone else, using proper English before an English-speaking audience is of paramount importance.

Mentalism, to a greater degree than magic, requires its practitioners to gain immediate respect of the audience. After all, the subtext that runs through people’s minds — which is human nature — is, “If you’re one of us, how can you be special?” (Or, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”) And this is especially important for younger performers, and far more so for younger mentalism performers.

A command of the language is an overt message to your audience that you are a serious professional. (Yes, I know, we shouldn’t judge people that way, but you can either go with how we should do it or how people really do it.)

Does that mean you should pretend you are Stentor somehow propelled through time onto a stage channeling Sir John Gielgud doing “Henry V“? (I hope you didn’t actually ask that.) No, what you should do, however, is consider the character you’ve created for your act and decide if it’s best for him to speak properly — and then make sure he does.

Why mentalism sucks.

Posted on October 26, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

Actually, I don’t think mentalism sucks at all. I happen to love mentalism with the same degree of feeling I do close-up magic. Mentalism appeals to a higher order of entertainment, to be sure, and it’s in that stratosphere that sometimes bad things happen. Like magic, some presentations of mentalism reek. Generally speaking, that’s not mentalism’s — or magic’s — fault. That’s the performer’s fault.

The principles underlying mentalism are closer to the mechanisms that make magic magical; the gray matter between our ears that expects a certain thing to occur along that familiar “cause and effect” road and, when it doesn’t, it’s like falling out of a tall tree, but without that sudden deceleration that can become so problematic for most of us.

Those underlying principles are most often tied directly to the names “Annemann” and “Corinda” and rightly so because so much of what we can call classic mentalism finds the seeds of its birth in those names.

Richard Osterlind has a new set of DVDs coming out very, very soon now that deals precisely and brilliantly with this very subject. This DVD set, called “Easy to Master Mental Miracles” — which you can order now here — along with copies of Annemann and Corinda make up a college course in the fundamentals of phenominal mentalism. (The graduate course is called “actually performing this stuff for real people” — and not everyone choses to attend classes.)

There’s nothing wrong with mentalism, per se. The problem is found in some of its practitioners.

Some people simply are not cut out for magic and mentalism. I’m not being ugly about this, it’s just so. Their personality — that is the anti-social, condescending method of human interaction that brings so many of these social misfits into our art form to begin with — is simply at bitter odds with what normal people would call “entertainment.”

So, when one of these poor fellows finds himself in the midst of diminishing or non-existent audiences, who do they entertain? Why, fellow practitioners, of course. (There’s an indelicately worded phrase for that, which I’ll get to later.)

If there’s one thing that can make a poor performer even worse, it’s unfounded, unearned praise — which is generally presented by one ill-equipped performer to another. (Normal people would call this behavior “lying through your teeth” or “the blind leading the blind.”)

Given the choice between constructive criticism and destructive praise, give me the criticism any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I can’t fix what others convince me isn’t broken.

As a follow up to my post yesterday about Jamy Ian Swiss’s book, “Shattering Illusions,” I thought that since I’m already late to the party getting my copy, it’d be okay to dwell on the book a little more.

The second chapter is called, “Mentalism Grows Up.” And, while it’s not my intention to quote my way through the book — something I could easily do, since the whole thing is quotable — here’s a great section from chapter two:

In Mentalism & Its Presentation by Bob Nelson & Syd Bergson (1959), Nelson insists that the mentalist must “convince his audience that he is ACTUALLY reading minds and predicting future outcomes,” and repeats such claims throughout his work. “The object of the mentalist is not to just entertain…but to so [sic] entrance his spectators into believing that he is actually doing true MENTAL MIRACLES” (All emphasis per original.)

The problem with this approach, however, is that while a certain percentage of the potential audience will be attracted to the delusion of special abilities, much of the audience â€” those with functioning bullshit detectorsâ€”will recognize the practitioners as the pathetic losers they are and run in the opposite direction. Little wonder that mentalism was rarely perceived as sophisticated, grown-up entertainment outside the hands of a very few. Mentalism at magic conventions seemed to make bad card tricks look good. How many times can you watch some pudgy myopic nimrod puff out his chest and prattle on for twenty minutes on the basis of two words read off a center tear, as if anyone but himself (and his Psychic Entertainer buddies) cares?

So. I guess a good question to ask is, who are you really fooling?

Why magic sucks.

Posted on October 25, 2004
Filed Under General | 2 Comments

I’m not sure where is the best place to begin this quotation, so this is as good as any to begin:

But lacking some larger substantive goal, the audience is left watching trick after trick after trick, each time receiving this most dreary of messages loud and clear: See, I fooled you. See, I fooled you. See, I fooled you again.

And this is why most magic sucks. I accept that as a given, an a priori assumption that colors all of my thinking about magic. It is a caveat that will hover above and lurk between the lines of these pages in the year to come.

And so I love what magic occasionally is more than what it most often is presented as.

And I hate every self-styled conjuror who misinforms the public about what magic can be. I hate every neurotic social misfit who ever bought a sponge Ding-Dong or mangled a Double Lift in an act of magic aversion therapy.

What should we do to remedy the situation? Should we spend our lives as mimics, mindlessly recycling old saws and standard tricks without a moment’s examination? Should we live awash in covetousness, as vicious thieves robbing the most precious creative fruits of those artists we envy? Should we devote ourselves to the containment of the paltry secrets of our art, as if the mechanics of a centuries-old card sleight were the moral equivalent of a state secret? Should we institutionalize mediocrity by way of our associations, avoiding honest evaluation and the pressure to achieve greatness, all in the name of good fellowship? Should we embroil ourselves in petty disputes, busily hacking at trees without a moment’s glance toward the forest? Should we use our special skills as a bludgeon with which to beat down our victims, in order to compensate for our own personal inadequacies?

If the present state of affairs is any clue, then the answer is yes.

But I say â€” no.

And I will continue to say no in the following pages.

After a too-long hiatus from writing for the magazine, Jamy Ian Swiss began his new Genii Magazine column, Shattering Illusions, in 1993 with an essay from which the above quotation is taken. That essay was the opening salvo to a terrific column which, as all great columns do, ended too soon.

Those sixteen essays, along with a few more, were reworked and then compiled into book form. “Shattering Illusions“ was published by Stephen Minch’s Hermetic Press.

I mention this for three primary reasons. First, I’d recently ordered a copy of the book directly from Jamy and it arrived this morning. The book had been on my “wish list” for quite a while and I only recently thought to order it. Maybe it’s on your list, too. If so, order a copy. If it isn’t on your list, order a copy anyway. (Just substitute it for the next trick you were going to buy and probably will never perform anyway; you’ll be far better off for it. Trust me.)

Second, quotation touches on a number of things I’ve already given time to here in this blog.

Finally, it’s inclusion represents a theme I’d planned for this blog from the beginning; to discuss or at least mention books that deal with the more important aspects of magic and mentalism — which is to say, books not about tricks, but books that deal with the why and not the how of magic. If there are two things most of us don’t need it would be another hole in our head and another book on how to do a magic trick.

Another book high on my current list is Richard Osterlind’s new e-book, “Essays,”which I will review in detail soon. In the mean time, you can immediately purchase and download a copy here now.

The Din of Inequity (or, An Ode to Toasted Oats.)

Posted on October 24, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

“But it’s not fair!” (And in these cases, the word fair is generally pronounced as a long, annoyingly drawn out, “fay-yerrrrrrrr.”)

You know someone has exhausted any semblance of a reasonable, rational argument when their answers become, “But others are doing it, too.”, “Why are you ganging up on…”, “No one can prove this wasn’t an old trick to begin with…”, “But I want choices…”, and so on.

It may be because directly answering the question may cause the answerer to force himself to examine his own behavior and beliefs, and that may be more painful than just not answering the question and looking like an idiot. (Speaking of choices…)

It may be my age, or my experience, or the phase of the moon, but I can’t find time or energy to try to debate people like that. It’s like talking to a brick wall when the person with whom you are attempting to debate an issue won’t address the issue directly, but finds it necessary to deflect.

For the purposes of discussion and commentary, I present this quote by Sean Murphy (aka Maxwell Murphy) who is, ostensibly the guy who owns Penguin Magic, claims in a recently deleted thread of discussion on his own discussion board:

Personally, I think it’s good for our customers to have as many options as possible, and I love it when we’re able to offer a generic item and a name brand item next to one another on the shelf just like a grocery store offers Toasted Oats and Cheerios.

Everybody has different needs, and everybody had a different budget.

If a product is junk we don’t want to carry it. But if it’s high quality and a better price, we think our customers deserve the option to purchase it.

As for the issue of what’s a copy and what’s original, it’s very complex. I know that Magic Makers works closely with a research team, and they vigorously defend the origins of many of the items they manufacture. When they appear to be knocking off an other company’s trick, the trick often dates back before that company ever started marketing it.

But that’s a very long and boring argument, and it’s not even really the issue. The real issue is do you want the choice to buy one of several brands of a given effect? Or do you want only to be able to buy one brand of any given effect.

I think you’ll find that you’ll get the best quality for your dollar in a market with lots of competition. But there are also some potential drawbacks.

I’m excited to hear what you think.

And hear he did. After which he deleted what was said in response.

Here’s a fundamental difference of opinion which, I think, may be rooted in the fact that Murphy is not a magician. (At least he stated this to Rosie about a year ago, as reported here.)

Using the “generic version” excuse doesn’t work for a number of reasons. Generics, in the world outside of magic, come about when private label companies wish to offer a product similar to a brand name. A brand name becomes a brand name after much effort and expense in building the brand. This occurs as a result of time in market, marketing efforts, and other things that cost money. That’s why brand name products cost more than their generic counterparts; generics don’t factor in the costs of R&D, marketing, etc. Generics may be produced as a result of a brand item’s patent expiring, or when the brand manufacturer licenses the rights of his product to a generic manufacturer.

Is that the case with the “generic versions” of magic tricks put out by Rob Stiff and Magic Makers and referred to by Maxwell’s comments?

It was recently announced that Magic Makers is releasing a DVD called “Crushed and Cured”, ostensibly an instructional video teaching Anders Moden’s Healed & Sealed trick. Anders was not asked permission to teach his trick. In fact, Anders was not contacted at all by Magic Makers.

Just prior to that, Magic Makers released a DVD titled, “Ghost Kings.” When viewing the online demo of the trick it becomes clear that this is simply Lee Asher’s trick, “Asher Twist.” In this case, Lee reports he was contacted by Magic Makers for permission, but Lee declined. Magic Makers produced the DVD anyway. (I’d be happy to send you to the links on The Magic Cafe where this was discussed, but those threads were deleted. However, this remains for your viewing.)

The other issue is that of patent and copyright law. I bring this up only because it is so often mentioned in excuses and rationalizations for knocking off a creator’s trick. For the most part, copyright and patent law does not pertain to magic secrets. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE LAW, IT’S ABOUT MORALS AND ETHICS. (Sometimes yelling does help.)

Partial birth abortion is legal (currently, anyway), but everyone with whom I’ve discussed the matter states it is anything but moral or ethical. Yet, doctors hide behind the law to claim what they do is right. Because something is legal (or, not illegal) does not make it right; it makes it not illegal.

The other excuse is, “Some magic tricks are just too expensive. It’s not fair to price magic tricks out of the reach of most buyers, so it’s good that we have a choice.”

Inequity. “Them and us.” “The Haves and the Have Nots.” Class warfare. Place into the mix the phrase, “But I want it…” and an expedient means to that end, and you have the present situation we’re discussing.

In times past, there have been ideological “solutions” to the sorts of inequity brought about by the fact that some people will not or cannot perform the same actions as others to get successful results and, therefore, find themselves without. In every case I can find, such solutions have been bitter, utter failures.

In the long run, you cannot short-circuit the path to success.

In the United States of America, the application of a good idea and hard work often yields financial success. Our free market economy, supported by our system of laws, virtually guarantee success. Some people, unwilling or unable to provide the “good idea” part decide to appropriate the ideas of others in an effort toward bridging the reasonable and perfectly equitable inequity as they see it.

How can someone argue such behavior is ethically and morally sound, let alone laud it?

Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid.

Posted on October 24, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

There are many, many examples of good coming from horrific bad. I think it’s a testament to human nature to find some good in a bad situation. Sometimes that comes in the form of a phrase that otherwise would seem crass, as in the example I used for the subject of this post.

In the 1950s James Warren Jones, a man degreed by Indiana University and Butler University, began an inter-racial mission for the homeless, sick and jobless located in Indianapolis, IN. By the mid-1970s, Jones’ The People’s Temple had built a relatively large group of followers relocated in Ukiah, CA (deemed safe from the coming prophesied nuclear war.)

It was also about that time that New West magazine suggested illegal activity going on in Jones’ People’s Temple. Under the microscope, Jones decided to move his organization to Jonestown, Guyana. On November 18, 1978, as a result of the killing of visiting Congressman Leo J. Ryan, along with others of his visiting party — all there to investigate reports that some members of Jones’ cult were being held against their wishes — Jim Jones decided to put an end to his group of followers by forcing everyone to drink a beverage laced with a lethal dose of cyanide. Those who refused were shot to death.

914 bodies later, the names “Jim Jones” and “Jonestown” became etched in history.

While it’s been widely reported that Jones actually mixed cynanide with FlaVor-Aid and not Kool-Aid, the phrase “don’t drink the Kool-Aid” has become ubiquitous in pop-culture, garnering over 3,000 hits on Google, with an additional 100 or so hits for those who can’t spell.

(It’s interesting to me that “don’t drink the Kool-Aid” is so prevalent a phrase on the Worldwide Web that a Google search to find Kool-Aid manufacturer’s web site would have been a complete wash were it not for the fact I knew General Foods owned the brand.)

“Don’t drink the Kool-Aid” is now synonymous with the admonition against laying blind trust in someone you like and/or respect; think for yourself; search the facts, and then make up your own mind.

This phrase came to mind recently as a result of a thread of conversation over on Penguin Magic’s discussion forum which was (mostly) discussing the subject of knockoffs, theft of intellectual property and the effect on the world of magic. The topic was titled, “Whats the deal with magic makers inc.?” though you won’t find it any longer; it’s been completely deleted from the discussion forum.

The topic was started by member “Beesflirtn” on Sunday, October 17, 2004 at 10:26 p.m. It actually covered most of the points I have made on this blog and elsewhere regarding the abuses of intellectual property and how it affects magic. To that extent, I am sorry to see it gone, but I can’t say it surprises me; “For everyone who does evil hates the light, lest his works be exposed.”

Among the many pages of responses, you would have found proponents and opponents of the idea that any manufacturer has the right to make any trick he thinks he can sell. Actually, some were very well stated, on both sides of the fence.

Troubling, though, were the followers of certain manufacturers and web-based retail sites. These people, apparently, refuse to consider that their idols in magic and retail may be behaving in an unethical and immoral manner. When faced with facts and questions, these people deflected direct questions and, instead, engaged in ad hominen attacks on the questioner. Or they used the flacid argument, “Others are doing it too.” Or the equally impotent, “If you’re going to accuse X of selling ripoffs, why aren’t you accusing Y?” All because it seems impossible to ascribe unethical behavior to someone they like and respect. Psychologists might invoke the phrase, “double bind.”

In short, they drank the Kool-Aid.

For whom the bell tolls?

Five Feet of Literary Love.

Posted on October 20, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

How many of these books do you have in your library:

Stanyon, Magic (periodical, 15 vols., complete)
Tarbell, Tarbell Course of Magic
Stanyon, The Stanyon Serials, (l-21)
Downs, The Art of Magic
Hilliard, (Sequel to above now being published)
Sachs, Sleight of Hand
Maskelyne and Devant, Our Magic
Hoffmann, Modern Magic
Hatton and Plate, Magician’s Tricks
Clarke, Annals of Conjuring (Magic Wand Nos.121-140)
Houdin, The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic
Thurston, 200 Tricks You Can Do
Thurston, 200 More Tricks You Can Do
Erdnase, The Expert at the Card Table
Annemann, 202 Methods of Forcing
Johnson, The Open Book
Lloyd, Thimble Manipulation
Dereen, Expert Cigarette Manipulation
Hull, Billiard Ball Manipulation (2 parts)
Lippy, Chemical Magio
Houdini, Paper Magic
Hull, 33 Rope Ties and Chain Releases
Gibson, Houdini’s Escapes
Hurst, The Georgia Wonder
Houdini, Miracle Mongers
de Laurence, Medical Hypnosis and Magnetic Hypnotism
de Laurence, The Book of Black MaÂ«lc and of Pacts
Prince, The Whole Art of Ventriloquism
Roth, Roth Memory Course
Carrlngton, The Physioal Phenomena of Spiritualism
Abbott, Behind the Scenes with the Mediums
Alexander, The Life and Mysteries of Dr.’Q’
Hull, How To Answer Questions
Dusenbery, Making Magic Pay
Glen, The Road To Fame
Funk and Wagnall’s, The Practical Standard Dictionary
Globe Book Company, Elementary Grammar

I don’t have all of those, but that list is pretty well represented in my library. I am particularly fond of my set of Stanyon’s Magic and Serials (the Kaufman slipcovered reprints put out by Richard Kaufman, this set I got from my friends at H&R Magic Books); first editions of Art of Magic and Greater Magic; Maskeylyne and Devant’s Our Magic; and, of course, Tarbell.

Of this list, the author writes:

Down through the years have come many books on the art of magic and allied subjects. Of late the production of such literature has increased until hardly a week goes by without the appearance of a book, brochure or manuscript. Many are good and many are not. The titles given here is an impartial and unbiased opinion of my own as to what books constitute a working library on the art of mystifying.

Every included work has its value and I take my stand now that the shelf of magic as herein listet covers every phase and known principle necessary to a modern performer. There are hundreds of other books, magazines and pamphlets which contain excellent and practical effects but I’m not listing trick books alone. I’m listing what I think are textbooks and if an absolute stranger to magic asked me tomorrow what books he should buy I’d give him this list. Check it over carefully and see if you can think of a subject connected with mystifying that isn’t covered with the best book (my opinion) obtainable.

It’s an interesting list for many reasons, not the least of which is that this particular list is almost 70 years old. It’s from the May 1935 issue of Ted Annemann’s The Jinx. I’ve been re-reading my reprints over the last couple of days and I am amazed all over again how much great stuff was printed in this monthly publication. Ted promised “the biggest quarter’s worth ever put before a magician.” (That’s a quarter, as in twenty-five cents.) Mission accomplished, without any doubt whatsoever.

I read through these issues and I wonder what Ted would think of the fact that his own monthly would feature so prominently in the canon of “absolute must haves” in magic and mentalism. I wonder what he’d have thought of Corinda’s 13 Steps.

Every once in a while studying your library, like studying your navel, is good exercise.

R.I.P.

Posted on October 19, 2004
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

Twinkies, the epitome of junk food, may be on its deathbed.

At least that’s the possibility suggested Dr. W.C. Douglass upon word that Interstate Bakery filed for protection under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy laws. (Interstate Bakery is the nation’s largest wholesale bakery.) Interstate blames it’s money woes mainly on the Atkin’s Diet craze, while analysts suggest it may be rooted in the fact that they haven’t poked their strategy-head out of the ground since the 50s.

At any rate, Dr. Douglass is shedding no tears over the potential loss. He’s not a fan of Twinkies, which regard is evident in his rendering of some of the 28 ingredients found in the pop-culture icon of snackfood:

Enriched wheat flour (flour that’s been bleached, starched and de-nutritionized)
Sugar (self-explanatory)
Corn syrup (more sugar)
High-fructose corn syrup (more sugar yet)
Partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed, or canola oil (trans-fats)
Dextrose (even more sugar)
Modified cornstarch (glucose polymers - more simple sugars)
Cornstarch (Yay! More sugar!)
Corn flour (refined to worthlessness, of course)
Corn syrup solids (you guessed it - another type of sugar)
Dextrin (a starch/sugar hybrid)

Wow, that’s 8 different kinds of sugar, three kinds of starch, and a dollop of killer trans-fats. Yum! The other 17 ingredients are largely preservatives and colorings. I could only find four ingredients on the whole list that were at least somewhat good for you: Eggs, whey, salt and water.

That’s from today’s episode of Dr. Douglass’s Daily Dose, to which I recommend you subscribe.

So, is it reasonable to for a person to be joyful in the possibility of the demise of a business concern? Oh, I think so. Have you ever participated in a boycott of a product or company?

That leads me to these notions:

“Death to knockoffs.”

“Death to companies that produce knockoffs.”

“Death to companies that sell knockoffs produced by companies that make knockoffs.”

That’s a pretty clear position. But death to company owners themselves? What kind of whack-job suggests such a thing?

Well, in an email list for IBM Ring 2100, I stated my opinion that we should not support manufacturers who are proven to knock off magic products. Specifically, the subject was “purchasing ‘legitimate’ products while shunning the knockoffs.”

Bruce Purdy responded to my statement. In part, here is what he stated in response:

I suppose you wouldn’t be happy until he was put out of business completely - and even then you would harbour a grudge always thinking of him as a “Thief”. Perhaps you’d never be satisfied until he was dead.

To be fair, after I told him directly that what he wrote about me was not only offensive, but absurd (stronger language, while intended, is not generally allowed in the email list), he back-peddled:

I do not mean to say that you literally wish him dead - only that you seem to be on a vendetta and these things don’t just end. You are not just dead set against his disreputable practices, but his honest enterprises as well.

I think vendetta is a too strong, inappropriate word to use in this case. I am having no feud with anyone. I have an opinion on this matter and I am simply stating for the record that I hold the intellectual property rights of magic creators in higher regard than the business health of those who disregard those rights as inconvenient to the point of dismissing them completely, as though they were waving away a mildly annoying gnat flying around.

I support the right to free association, which is the guaranteed freedom that allows for consumer boycotts of products.

As for the last part — that I am dead set against his “honest enterprises as well” — he’s right about that. I am dead set against rewarding the “good behavior” in some vein hope that the knock off manufacturer will, somehow, realize the error of his ways and go on the straight and narrow path.

Get a grip on reality. Please.

In the world of commerce, the reason knock off manufacturers knock off products is because they can sell desireable products without the pesky and profit-eating encumberance of research, development, and any of the other ancillary costs involved in bringing an original idea to market.

It’s profit driven, so, in my opinion, it’s misguided to the point of absurdity to think that “good doggie” pats on the head will be more persuasive than pinching the pocketbook by simply not purchasing any merchandise made by a company that knocks off products.

Take a look around you and see how many examples of successful appeasements you find. No, really, go ahead and look. When you get tired of looking, I’ll be here waiting with the rest of this essay.

This discussion broke out as a result of someone posting a link to a web site which, in part, compares “Watch and Wear” and “3 Dominoes Monte” to products offered by Magic Makers. (A more comprehensive list of magic products compared to versions offered by Magic Makers is here on Tim Ellis’s “Magic Fakers“ page.)

Here’s something to think about: if you are part of the world of magic, these issues affect you. Once you become aware of what’s going on you are no longer an innocent bystander; you are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution.

So, now that you’ve come this far, what side are you on?

keep looking »