Wattah boggin.

Posted on May 31, 2005
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

Have I mentioned I am a fan of David Regal? Maybe not. I’m a fan of David Regal. Or, more specifically, his way of thinking. My library at Casa Escamoteurettes includes his books “Star Quality” and “Close-Up and Personal” as well as his two sets of DVDs put out by Louis Falanga and L&L Publishing, “The Magic of David Regal“ and “Premise, Power & Participation“.

On my list of things to do has been getting the two-volume set of books, “Constant Fooling“ — which set of books Michael Close praised in his MAGIC Magazine review.

To continue the theme of luck, it’s lucky for me, I managed to get my order in just under the wire: both books, as well as a pack of his Disposable Decks, including flat rate USPS Priority Shipping for just $70. If you live in the USA, you can get in on the deal, too, so long as you place your order by June 5, 2005.

Check out David’s post on the Genii discussion board for details.

Tell David you heard about it here and he’ll sign your books. (Actually, he’ll sign the books if you don’t tell him you heard it here.)

ADDED 6/1/2005: Steve Bryant reminds that he reviewed these books in his excellent Little Egypt Magic in 2002. Please take a moment to read why Richard Kaufman thinks you’d be off your rocker to miss this deal.

By any other name.

Posted on May 31, 2005
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

From Wired early this morning:

Psychologists and salesmen call it the “chameleon effect”: People are perceived as more honest and likeable if they subtly mimic the body language of the person they’re speaking with.

NLP practitioners know that as mirroring. I know I’ve found the technique useful in and out of mystery entertainment, and I think it’s worth studying.

Get lucky.

Posted on May 30, 2005
Filed Under General | 4 Comments

Seneca stated:

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

Thomas Jefferson observed:

“I’m a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.”

And from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect.”

Got a moment? Read this and consider how many of these ten points you can use:
Are you feeling lucky? Here are 10 Ways to create your own luck. (And while you’re at it, take some time to read the rest of Lisa’s blog.)

Finally, Mark Cuban offers this nugget for you to consider: You only have to be right once!

Decoration day.

Posted on May 30, 2005
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

â€œWe should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. … Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.â€ — Gen. John Logan

Contrary to popular belief, Memorial Day in the United States of America does not celebrate a three day holiday weekend that offers fantastic savings on all your furniture needs (free interest for four years.)

From the Department of Veterans Affairs web site:

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans â€” the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) â€” established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. It is believed that date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country.

The first large observance was held that year at Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

The History Channel’s web site covering Memorial Day provides Major General Logan’s declaration:

Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day because it was a time set aside to honor the nation’s Civil War dead by decorating their graves. It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. On May 5, 1868, Logan declared in General Order No. 11 that:

“The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.”

That first ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery set the tone for local observances that began sweeping the nation .

I’m not sure what it says about our nation that Memorial Day has become, evidently, the day to shop for new furniture (it is the biggest furniture sales day of the year), barbeque, enjoy an additional day off from work — not that any of those things are inherently bad. They’re not. But I find obscene the act of supplanting a holiday’s original meaning with behavior that doesn’t even acknowledge why the holiday exists to begin with.

Especially at this time in our nation’s history, it’s imporant to make the distinction between the honorable voluntary — and at times involuntary — service performed, and sacrifices made by those men and women who have died in the service of our country, and our own individual opinions of war.

Today is not about us; it’s about them.

Like a nation, the military service is made up of individual people — people who have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, friends. They all had hopes and dreams, much of which went unfulfilled when their lives came to an end. Memorial Day is as much an observance of the honorable service performed by these people as it is what futures they gave up to perform that service on our behalf.

That some people in this country do not wish that service performed on their behalf does in no way diminish the fact it was performed, in good faith, nonetheless.

There has never been a “small war” to those who fought it, and there has never been an insignificant sacrifice by those who’ve made it.

Finally, here copied are the words to a song that many consider cover the roots of Memorial Day. Please read it and consider the larger meaning.

“Kneel Where Our Loves Are Sleeping”
Words by G.W.R.
Music by Mrs. L. Nella Sweet

Kneel where our loves are sleeping, Dear ones days gone by,
Here we bow in holy reverence, Our bosoms heave the heartfelt sigh.
They fell like brave men, true as steel, And pourâ€™d their blood like rain,
We feel we owe them all we have, And can but weep and kneel again.

Kneel where our loves are sleeping, They lost but still were good and true,
Our fathers, brothers fell still fighting, We weep, â€˜tis all that we can do.

Here we find our noble dead, Their spirits soarâ€™d to him above,
Rest they now about his throne, For God is mercy, God is love.
Then let us pray that we may live, As pure and good as they have been,
That dying we may ask of him, To open the gate and let us in.

Kneel where our loves are sleeping, They lost but still were good and true,
Our fathers, brothers fell still fighting, We weep, â€˜tis all that we can do.”

You can’t handle the truth.

Posted on May 27, 2005
Filed Under General | 2 Comments

I have many loves in my life. At the top of the earthly list, there are the three females with whom I live. There’s getting up at 3:15 each morning — when anything and anyone with any kind of sensibilities at all is still snoozing — and having my first cup of coffee waiting on me to pour (thanks to the miracle of Cuisinart and real Kona coffee beans) to take with me outside the back door to survey the world. I love finding elegant solutions to hard problems. There are friends to tell all of this to.

And then there are movie quotes. I loves me some movie quotes.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth.

Do you want answers, or do you want the truth? Sometimes we want the answers when we really need to hear the truth. As human beings with precious egos in danger of bruising, sometimes our itching ears want to hear what we want to hear; we can’t (or would rather not) handle the truth.

We perform and we want (need) feedback. Sometimes we ask friends or associates, feigning the earnest desire and expectation of stark honesty but actually wanting a Hershey’s Kiss. And don’t think for a second most people aren’t well aware of that mental confliction two seconds after the question rolls off your tongue. They are aware, as evidenced by the deer-in-the-headlights look staring back at you.

Want to know how most people feel when you ask them, “How was my performance?” Just remember how you felt the last time someone asked you, “Does my ass look big in this?” It’s pretty much the same thing.

And then there’s the determination of who is qualified to say what. If what you want to know is whether or not your performance was entertaining, as a general rule you hardly need to ask. “I was entertained” is generally conveyed in big, bold, underlined body language. If you have to ask…well…you already know the answer, don’t you? Still, “normal” people are in a better position to answer that question than our brethren. It’s a rare, rare magician who can put on the shades and judge a performance by spectator standards.

On the other hand, if what you want to know is if your invisible pass was really invisible, you’ll need to ask a fellow performer. Why you’d want to know is beyond me, but he’s who you’d ask.

What most people really want (need) to know is, “What part of that sucked?” or “What should I change to make it better?” It’s been widely reported that, for years, this is essentially what David Copperfield asked backstage. It’s a good question to ask because it erases doubt as to what you want to hear; “put it right between the eyes.”

And sometimes that’s exactly what you get and then you realize it’s not what you’d rather hear. And this points to another interesting confliction performers sometimes experience.

If you spend every spare moment of three or four weeks learning to be nearly adequate performing a knuckle-busting move — you know, the kind of stuff The MAN, Martin A. Nash, can do while napping — it doesn’t exactly do your heart good to get less than a stand-on-your-head-and-sing reaction from an audience. “All of that work and no one noticed.” — which is probably the way it really should be anyway.

Want to completely strip away any remaining shred of dignity? Do a spongeball routine for normal people and compare their reaction to your Fizbin Drop or whatever. (Nothing — and I mean nothing — emphasizes the difference between us and them than the reaction to a good spongeball routine.)

Eugene Burger has stated his love/hate relationship with spongeballs. As long as Burger performs for normal people, they’re going to love seeing a good spongeball routine. Why? It’s probably our punishment for the 21-Card trick. But that’s just a guess. (Actually, Eugene has discussed this in a number of his essays. You have read everything Burger has written, haven’t you?)

There’s a list of tricks that, as a general rule, are silver bullets when it comes to making close-up audiences delighted. Spongeballs — and their first-cousins, sponge bunnies — are on that list. A great trick using an Ultra Mental deck is also on that list (and for most people, that would be a word-for-word channeling of the Don Alan “Invisible Deck” routine.) One of the many terrific versions of Paul Curry’s “Out of this World” is on that list. A great routine using the Scotch and Soda set makes the list, too.

Those tricks all have something in common: they are not technically demanding and, done well, the audience reaction is so far out of proportion to the work required to perform them does make more than just a few ExTrEmE CaRd SlEiGhT GuYz despondent. Spongeballs, in particular, are hard to do badly. Not bad for something used to clean the inside of heat exchangers, wouldn’t you agree?

This is not to say I have anything against showy flourishes. Not at all. Learning to do some of that stuff takes an awful lot of time and, when you invest that time and learn to do it well, it fosters a sense of accomplishment. Most people find a lot of satisfaction in a sense of accomplishment. Just don’t confuse it with magic. Juggling is not magic.

So, do you want answers or do you want the truth?

Find someone and ask them if they’d feel comfortable being stark-nekkid-honest with you about your performances. This lets them know up front a.) you don’t want anything candy coated, and 2.) you acknowledge this is not a comfortable thing to do. If you get a non-hesitant “yes” listen to the answer to, “Did that suck?” It’ll likely be right on the money.

What else can you do? Get Ken Weber’s book, “Maximum Entertainment“ and read it. Then read it a few more times. Believe me, you’ll have the ghost of Ken hanging over your shoulder asking you questions you didn’t even think about.

And remember for whom you are performing: yourself, or a wider audience — because it does make a difference.

Speak your mind.

Posted on May 20, 2005
Filed Under General | 1 Comment

I’ll admit to being a bit looser these days about what I’ll post to Escamoteurettes, though I probably have more unfinished drafts that may never see the light of day than posts you’ve actually seen here.

In the beginning, I made a conscious decision to stay away from much of the current events type stuff. It’s not that I’m not interested or — heaven forbid — that I don’t have an opinion. I just wanted to stick to a certain path and, from the occasional email or comment, what I’ve written has been met with some degree of interest, if not agreement or approval. That makes me happy enough.

Every once in a while, though, talking about talking does some good.

Since the beginning of web logging, lo these many, many years ago, bloggers have talked about blogging right along side whatever topic sparked their initial interest. Bloggers have also blogged about other bloggers. I’ve made use of the word community more than once; this is, in part, what I mean.

I know there are plenty of magic blog readers who are probably on the fence about joining the collective and starting up their own blog. Please, start your own blog. You do not have to have a particular reason, you do not have to defend your reason (or lack of), and you don’t have to worry about what other people think about what you write.

Just write, post it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Sometimes you’re going to write something that challenges people and they respond (this is generally in the comment section of your blog.) I’ve often found the best part of a blog is in the comments section. It’s where readers feed back their opinions of what they read, and writers clarify their point(s) or, occasionally, even change their opinion entirely.

On the other hand, if you can’t stomach dealing with people who not only disagree with your opinion but also want to discuss it with you, turn off the comment section of your blog. While not illegal, it is terribly off-putting. And sometimes readers will respond when they no longer feel the love by seeking love elsewhere.

Sometimes, though, something else will occur. Sometimes someone will read what you wrote and it will give them an inclination to write about what you just wrote. How cool is that?

Want an example? I wrote this as a direct result of reading an excellent post by Magician X. In part, he wrote:

I never thought conformity would be an issue in doing a magic blog. I should’ve realized though that there are always going to be those who are established and those who aren’t, or those with power and those without. Some choose to exercise the power they have in a way which promotes individual expression. As an example, take a look at the blog roll at Escamoteurettes and you’ll see the link to this blog. Escamoteurettes is about as different from this blog as it’s possible to be, and I would imagine that John doesn’t always agree with what I say. A while back he wrote a piece defending Gospel magic, while readers here know I have a less than favorable opinion of it. So why link to me? Maybe because he’s open minded enough to see beyond his own preferences as to what a blog can or should be. I think I read somewhere before where he stated that he leaves it to the reader to separate the wheat from the chaff in regards to the blogs he links to. He’s not trying to dictate his criteria to others. He’s saying here’s what’s out there, make of it what you will. He’s confident enough in what he’s doing to not feel threatened by those who have a different interpretation.

Amen, brother. (Ha, ha.)

But please go read the whole thing, because he does a good job of noting a very unattractive personality disorder you will, occasionally, run across: the insatiable desire to control others.

How do some people in the blogging world do this? The blogroll, mainly. Here, Magician X hits the nail squarely on the head when it comes to my own blogroll.

I do link to many sites, the authors of which sometimes post opinions with which I find myself diametrically opposed. While I don’t demand a link back, it certainly is appreciated. Even if it’s a link from a post from time to time.

(I’ll insert a note that the other day I stumbled upon a rather obvious solution to my desire to link to blogs like Magic Enigma, Magic Mafia, Pagliacci — blogs which are often not safe for work, a consideration brought to my attention on more than one occasion. Yes, I know, having a NSFW section of the blogroll seems rather obvious to me, too. Now it does, anyway. I’m getting old; give me a break.)

Back to opposing opinions. You know what? They’re opinions, not dogma. Not law. Often not fact (although they may be based on fact.)

I don’t feel threatened by opinions that are far removed from my personal universe. In fact, I happen to enjoy rubbing elbows with diverse opinions — they help me learn about other people. It’s not that I will change my mind substantially. But reading diverse opinions is not about me finding like-minded brethren, it’s about widening my understanding and appreciation for what makes other people different than me.

But that’s often at the root of what irks some of the control freaks who seem to hold the position that you either agree with them, or you agree to change your point of view, or…well, you know how it goes sometimes.

(No, I don’t really understand it either.)

Ignoring someone, especially when they’re doing their level best to have a discussion with you and present their opinion, neither minimizes the importance of their opinion, nor does it make the opinion just go away. Sometimes ignoring the opinions of others exacerbates a problem.

Sometimes it gives them the impetus to start their own blog.

The Angina Monologues.

Posted on May 13, 2005
Filed Under General | 22 Comments

First, a couple of quotes:

“People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get ahead in this world are the people who look for the circumstances they want. If they can’t find them â€¦ they make them.”
- George Bernard Shaw

That is pretty apparent, isn’t it â€¦ we become what we think about? It stands to reason that a person who is thinking about a concrete and worthwhile goal will reach that goal and become what is thought about.

Conversely, the person without a goal, who does not know where to go, and whose thoughts are those of confusion, anxiety, fear, and worry â€¦ also becomes what is thought about. This life becomes one of frustration, anxiety, fear, and worry.

Remember, one who thinks about nothing â€¦ becomes nothing.

That’s Earl Nightingale from his classic text, “The Strangest Secret.” Nightingale recorded that on vinyl and, in 1956, was awarded the first Gold Record ever awarded for a spoken word record. It’s message is as valuable and valid today as when Earl first wrote it.

Over the years, I’ve made reference to Earl as my “long-distance mentor.” There are a handful of people on this planet I can clearly point to who absolutely guided the course of my life, and he is one of them. It was Nightingale’s influence that directly lead to my deep interest and subsequent study of broadcasting, public speaking, and personal achievement (including books and seminars by people like Napoleon Hill, W. Clement Stone, Dale Carnegie, Zig Ziglar, Tony Robbins, and others.)

One of my earliest memories was the short, syndicated television program run each weekday morning called, “Our Changing World.” It seemed every segment began the same: Earl would appear on camera perched on the edge of an office desk, look into the camera, and in a voice I assumed was modeled after God’s own, he’d start, “I was reading just the other day…”

As a fan of reading myself, I figured he and I had at least something in common.

Over the years I’d taken in his television programs, as well as the syndicated radio programs. Then I learned he owned a company that sold audio cassette programs that taught some of the concepts he discussed so often. Over the years, I’ve sent many, many dollars to Nightingale-Conant Corporation, the company founded by Nightingale and business partner Lloyd Conant in 1960. With every purchase, I always felt I ended up on the better end of the deal.

When Earl passed away in 1989 I was privileged to write an article for my public speaking coach, Dottie Walters, who published it in her magazine for public speakers, “Sharing Ideas.” Dottie told me she gave a copy to Earl’s widow, who was pleased to have read it.

Earl’s message in “The Strangest Secret” is found in the quote above. Over the years he presented it in various renderings. The message is simple, straight-forward, and — in my experience — axiomatic: you become what you think about most.

That works not only in the grand scheme of things we call “life” but also in the short term. Our internal dialog is a powerful thing; you can use it for good or bad. The outcome depends entirely on the questions we ask it.

Bandler and Grinder discussed this often in both print and workshops. Our brain is perfectly willing to answer any question we throw at it, regardless. If it doesn’t know the answer, it’ll just make something up. (Go ahead, laugh. It’s still true.)

We become what we think about most.

It follows that if our internal dialogs — the little conversations we have with ourself when we think — focus on negative things, negative things will manifest themselves in our external life. It’s axiomatic, too, that if we focus on the positive things, positive things will manifest themselves externally.

How can negative thoughts affect our lives? Ever think about a potentially stressful event and give yourself chest pain?

Louis Binstock, who was a greatly loved rabbi of Temple Shalom in Chicago, wrote an outstanding book titled, “The Road to Successful Living.” Binstock writes:

The causes of failure lie within a wide and confusing area: the culture we live in, our definitions of the two words, success and failure, our personal psychological makeup. But often failure, and the approach of failure, take more common and obvious forms. We are not all scholars; we are not all godly; we are all not psychoanalysts: we must deal with the tworld as it presents itself to us.

There are, in terms of our everyday reactions, ten common causes of failure. These ten are basic. Know them, conquer them — even a few of them — and you will have removed the most stubborn obstacles from the path of true success.

Rabbi Binstock goes on to discuss all ten. One of them, not surprisingly, is this: the ready tendency to blame oneself, in private anyway. He states,

Why was I such a fool? What an easy mark I am! Why do I always put my foot in it? Why do I always say the wrong thing? What a dope I was!

…

This is pernicious thinking and dangerous practice. It plants deep the feelings of inferiority and insecurity which will later spring up like weeds to dominate “the well-ordered garden of the mind.” Abraham Lincoln, who failed in many things but was far from being a failure, once said, “My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure.” This contentment is paralyzing. You may see yourself as happy in failure; and you will tend to fail everywhere.

One of the most profound books in my library has to be Viktor Frankl’s, “Man’s Search for Meaning: Experiences in the Concentration Camp.” If you have never actually read this book, I am certain I cannot possibly convey to you the solemn experience that lives between its covers.

A few quotations from the book:

“Everything can be taken from a man but … the last of the human freedoms - to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

“What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.”

“A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the why for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any how.”

Viktor Frankl could have died, as did his beloved wife, in the Holocaust. He could have died while a prisoner in Auschwitz between 1942 and 1945. He could have succumbed to the pitiable situation he found himself in. (In each somber reading of this book I tell myself I could have, easily.) Instead, Frankl died September 2, 1997, living — living — ninety-two years. In the course of his life, he wrote numerous books and changed the course of many, many lives — including mine — through both the telling of his story, but also examining and explaining how he survived.

We become what we think about most.

I know it’s fashionable to make fun of the “power of positive thinking” movement that really found its legs in 1960’s “Success Through a Positive Mental Attitude” by W. Clement Stone and Napoleon Hill was (and remains) a classic text. I’d quickly put it next to Napoleon Hill’s, “Think and Grow Rich,” and Dale Carnegie’s, “How to Win Friends and Influnce People.”

PMA on its own is not the solution. As Tony Robbins is fond of pointing out, while you’re spending your time saying, “There are no weeds in my garden! There are no weeds in my garden!” — the weeds will take over your garden. It is the opposite cause of what Rabbi Binstock noted, but the end result is the same.

Maxwell Maltz, in his book, “Creative Living for Today,” writes:

Your self-image will sustain you in creative living if you learn to declare war on your negative feelings — and win the war in the battlefield of your mind.

Your mind is a battlefield, never doubt this, and if you win, you will experience peace of mind during your fulfilling days.

So, how do you avoid negative feelings when you have to deal with this thing called life? I’ve often said that life isn’t the stuff that happens to you; life is your reaction to the stuff that happens to you. It sounds trite, I know, but the next time someone really torques you off, instead of getting angry, just stop. Regardless what the cause, say this out loud:

“That’s inconvenient.”

(Actually, that’s reframing, but we’ll cover that some other day.)

Even if you think the above is nothing but a bunch of new-age horsefeathers, ask yourself this: what if it really works only because you believe it works? And how can that be any different from how it really works anyway? (Doesn’t that sound familiar?)

As strange as it may seem, the secret well may be that we become what we think about most.

Dear Steve.

Posted on May 13, 2005
Filed Under General | 11 Comments

I find ironic the fact that I’m writing a post on Escamoteurettes to answer some of the remarks you made in a post on Magic Rants today dealing with whether or not to host/field comments on blogs. Normally, in the blogosphere, these comments would be entered and hosted with the article on which I’m commenting. Wouldn’t you agree?

First, I’ll restate something I’ve mentioned a number of times: I believe each blog author should run their railroad as he sees fit. There isn’t a case or “right” or “wrong” — it just is as the author cares to have it. You have removed the ability for visitors to comment on your posts. That’s your choice, and I’m the last person to argue about it.

On the other hand, it is a point worthy of discussion. Other bloggers have discussed it. I’ve written about it. I didn’t see you complaining about it, and I don’t believe you would complain about it. I think you feel about the autonomy of authors’ decisions about the same as I do: to each his own. But sometimes people are moved to comment on something they’ve read. If it’s in a blog, it’s on the blog they’d like to comment.

But, here we are.

In response to my comment, “Conversations are very important in a community, “ you wrote:

That would be true IF one were trying to start a community. If I wanted to start a community, with discussions I would have started a new discussion board.

By community, I meant more along the lines of a brotherhood (with more “brother” than “hood.”) A band of brethren who share a common interest: magic. I didn’t necessarily mean actively creating a digital community.

But I would like to point out your web site’s masthead includes the line: “The Evolution of Magic Discussion”. With all due respect — and at the risk of seeming snarky — shouldn’t that either be deleted or at least changed to “Devolution”?

In response to my writing, â€œA blog without comments is simply a web site; a one-way street where the writer writes and the reader reads and, if they interact at all, itâ€™s likely in private email.â€ you wrote:

A blog with comments is ALSO a website, where a very small percentage of visitors actually comment. But I think the bigger point is that this IS a one-way street. You either like what I have to say or you donâ€™t. If you donâ€™t, you donâ€™t have to come back. Whereas on a discussion board, if you didnâ€™t like what I had to say, you would probably keep running into me on various threads.

In the purest sense of the word, sure a blog is also a web site. But we call them blogs — weblogs — and it has emerged that one of the distinctions between a web site and a blog is the interaction between author and visitor, especially via the comments section. Web sites, by their nature, have writers writing, readers reading, and that’s it. Hence my reference to a one-way street.

Sure, you could repurpose my one-way-street reference to mean “like it or not, read it or not” — and that’s fine by me — but you are answering something I did not say. I’ll stand by my comment that a blog that doesn’t afford visitors the ability to interact with the author is a one-way street and I consider a traditional web site.

Even though we both know a tiny percentage of visitors ever actually leave comments — on the blog or in private email — everyone is extended the offer equally. It’s like being invited to a party. You don’t necessarily attend every party to which you get an invitation, but it sure feels good to be asked, doesn’t it? It makes you feel welcomed.

You wrote:

Regarding the change in my attitude and how I seem to have a â€œkinder and gentlerâ€ blog, well thatâ€™s true. I thought I would try something different since every new blogger is pissed off at everything from The Magic Cafe to other magic blogs.

I won’t argue that The Magic Cafe is singularly responsible for many of the blogs currently in the magic corner of the blogosphere; it is. Magic blogging was late to the blogging revolution. It’s still trying to find its bearings. TMC just happened to be a rallying point, a reason to be. Which, absent any other, is as handy as any other.

You wrote:

Just because most of you guys are anonymous, doesnâ€™t mean you canâ€™t do posts on magic that you actually do or DVDs and effects that you like. I suspect that most of you donâ€™t actually perform and itâ€™s just a hobby. Thatâ€™s cool, but I canâ€™t imagine that youâ€™re in magic because you hate it so much. If that is the case, itâ€™s time for you to get a new hobby. We all know that every magic dealer sucks, and anyone who has ever put out a DVD or releases a new effect sucks, so I would like to be enlightened, because apparently Iâ€™ve been reading the wrong books, buying the wrong effects, shopping with the wrong dealers and watching the wrong DVDs.

Some magic bloggers bitch and moan about other magic bloggers. Well, I agree it would be nice to more often see individual opinions on things other than what some magic blogger wrote, but the fact is I find that sort of train-wreck writing interesting, too. Sure, it gets tedious sometimes, but it has its place. I think there’s room for USAToday and the Washington Post and the National Enquirer.

One thing I’ve noticed in magic blogging over the last six months (especially) deserves mentioning.

Dave Winer has more years that anyone else on blogging proper. And, as Dave has transitioned from a blog I enjoyed (actually, truly loved) reading, into a blog today I don’t even care to visit any longer because of his often pissy, too-often politically-charged tone, some bloggers who launched their magic blog as a direct result of some perceived injustice they experienced at The Magic Cafe have actually morphed away from their roots and grown into something bigger. There’s hope still.

We all grow, we all change when we grow. I don’t think it’s necessarily good or bad, just different. Sometimes people don’t like change. I don’t like feeling that your blog is no more, that my comments are no longer welcomed. I don’t argue your reasons for it, but I don’t have to like it either. Obviously this is a point others have noticed. And commented on.

Your wrote:

Soâ€¦yeah, there wonâ€™t be too much ranting. A little, but to be honest, I am more interested in writing about other topics other than how Steve Brooks hates bloggers. Iâ€™m starting to agree with him.

I don’t have a problem with shoot-from-the-hip ranting. Everyone’s done it. I’ve done it. I just did it and I’m ready to do it again. Venting one’s speen in a blog is no less healthy than the long and distinguished history of magic authors through the years doing it in the printed page. But even in The Jinx, Annemann printed letters to the editor unedited and gave equal time to others to dig their hole deeper. (Fact is, Annemann’s vents were what I sometimes enjoyed more than the other stuff.)

I know it’s popular to crack on Steve Brooks. I know it’s conventional wisdom that Steve hates blogs, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Steve has visited Escamoteurettes and even left complimentary comments. If he’s sensitive towards certain blogs that have been critical, or hypercritical of him personally, well..I find it hard to fault the man for feeling a bit put out by some of the bloggers out there.

Finally, isn’t it ironic that one people more critical of magic blogging joined the Dark Side and has one of the best magic blogs in the blogosphere? He’s even opened up commenting on certain posts and, I suspect, it’s only a matter of time when he lets lose, throws caution to the wind, and allows commenting all over the place.

Baby steps.

How to blog.

Posted on May 13, 2005
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

I read two things last night worth mentioning:

The first is a blog post on how to blog. Not often, but every once in a while someone emails me and asks how to get started blogging. The simple way is to go to Blogger, follow the instructions, and start typing. Beyond that, I’m really not the guy to ask because I’m not exactly the traditional blogger (every day, several times a day — blogging, I mean.)

For a more indepth answer and what is, I think, the golden path to good blogging, Tony Pierce wrote an article called, “How to blog.” You really should read this.

Despite lists of suggestions and rules and “shoulds” and “should nots,” sometimes not following the rules is the Way to Happiness. Escamoteurettes does not exactly fit into the set of suggestions Pierce lays out. That came to mind (again) when rereading Guy Kawasaki’s, “Rules for Revolutionaries.”

I am a fanboy of Kawasaki, no doubt about it. His book, “How to Drive Your Competition Crazy,” remains one of my favorites in the world of business. (I put it right next to my Harvey Mackay, Tom Peters, and Harry Beckwith books. Believe me, that’s saying a lot.)

Guy was the Apple Computer corp’s original Evangelist. When I hear the phrase, “Apple Mac” I think “Guy Kawasaki.” The reason why is found in that book, as well as “The Macintosh Way“ — another book worth reading if you find yourself in the business world.

“Rules for Revolutionaries“ reminds you that you don’t always have to follow the rules to succeed. One of the first of many great examples given is Japan’s Shinkansen.

The Shinkansen (what most call the bullet train) celebrated its 40th birthday last year. Its creation broke the rules and, in doing so, cut down to a bit over three hours what was a 62 hour trip from Osaka to Tokyo. Today, bullet trains serve one end of the island to the other.

What rules were broken? Little things like putting an engine on every car instead of one big engine pulling everything; and laying a flat, straight set of tracks rather than flowing tracks over and around existing terrain. Had the designers stuck to how things were always done, travel in 1964 would have continued to be exactly as travel had been in 1963, which is to say, slow.

If you’re in the business of entertaining, give some thought to whether or not you are doing things the way they’ve always been done. If so, ask yourself why. Then ask yourself what would be the result of throwing out the rules and making up a few of your own.

Lefty behind.

Posted on May 11, 2005
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

Todd Karr posted a note to the Genii Forum last night noting Teller passed along word from Sandy Marshall that The Dean of Magic, the great Jay Marshall, has passed away.

Anyone who has experienced the loss of a close family member will tell you that, even knowing the end is near, when it happens, it is never easy to take. (At least, not in my experience.)

Click the link above, scroll to the top, and read a bit. Google Jay Marshall’s name, and spend a little time remembering a titan in our little world.

George Schindler, Public Relations for the Society of American Magicians writes:

The Society of American Magicians mourns the passing of it’s Dean Jay Marshall May 10, 2005 at age 85. Jay was the most beloved comedy magician and ventriloquist of our time and appeared on the Ed Sullivan show many times with his glove puppet “lefty” and will sorely be missed. He was an S.A.M. Member for 54 years and was chosen as Dean in 1992. More information will follow.

Also, Meir Yedid’s Magic Times has a news flash you should read.

keep looking »