Posted on February 28, 2006
Filed Under General | 10 Comments
I am under no delusion that I am a writer. (Pretend you are Cary Grant and pronounce those last two words out loud — that’s what I had in mind.)
Oh, make no mistake, I love to write. While I sometimes fret over the way one word preceeds the other in the way Alain Ducasse might question whether the butter comes before the lemon juice in the asparagus parmesan dish, I find I am literarily closer to the sorts of choices Rachel Ray might make. (With the exception that I’m taller than she. And far less cute.)
I am often amused by the goings on in this weird little world of ours, and I sometimes like to share those amusements in hopes that I might bring at least a half-smile to the teeming masses. (Or at least one of you two regular readers.) So, here we are again. That was the wind-up. Time to put on my Andy Rooney hat — or, maybe I should say my Harry Lorayne hat — and let fly. (Insert LLCS joke here.)
There was a time in my life when I was happy to blaze new trails (or I thought they were new trails.) I thought it was a good idea to just go out there and do stuff, make mistakes, learn from them and move on. I’ll admit I often got stuck at the “learn from them” part — and I still have issues with that today.
These days, though, I embrace the saying “a smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from others’ mistakes. “ While I won’t get in the path of someone out to make all the mistakes he can pack into one lifetime, I figure I’m better off learning from the experiences of others and spend all that extra time fishing, or otherwise enjoying life.
Therefore, I find it wise to read Michael Close’s Workers series and benefit from Close’s experiences rather than spend twenty or thirty years noodling out a workable handling for some trick. Not that it wouldn’t be tons of fun to spend all that time doing it myself. I’m sure it would be a gas to reinvent the wheel, too.
In the same way, I also find it wise to study Richard Osterlind’s work. (See? I’ve already aggitated someone.)
Over the last year especially, mentioning Osterlind on The Magic Cafe has made certain individuals salivate at the opportunity to tear into Richard. Why? Who knows. Not that these people actually need a reason. And not that the criticisms have been founded anyway.
The interesting thing is Osterlind is perfectly happy to discuss his work if you’ll ask him to. Have a question about anything he’s written? Handling, paternity, anything? Ask him. And not just the workings, but how he arrived at the place where he put this stuff in print or on DVD.
Now, I know this might utterly shock and mystify some people, but he’ll actually engage you in conversation and help you understand his thinking. In my experience, he doesn’t demand you agree with him, but at least you’ll know why he thinks what he thinks.
Yet some people who would prefer to create nonsensical Internet handles — like, say, barkmagicman — and lay into Osterlind over some supposed miscredit, or paternity, or whether the chicken came first. Typically this is an example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” — another product of the wonderful Internet age, I suppose.
So, instead of being a reasonable, decent human being and sending Richard a note asking, people like that post aggressive, coy, or just plain snotty messages on discussion boards that call into question Osterlind’s integrity. (And, of course, we all know how much incredible bravery it takes to anonymously take pot shots at someone on the Internet.)
Somehow or another, their moral imperative to “question authority” leads them into an amusing logging expedition: while they’re busy trying to hack down a 150 year old redwood with their gumball machine penknife, the rest of the forest is shaking their heads, sniggering up their leaves at them.
I suppose some of these people forget that, while they are puffing out their chests being the Alpha Male teacup poodle, in the end they’re still just a teacup poodle.
So, Richard explains his position, and the accuser is left twisting in the wind, a textbook example of being hoist by one’s own petard. And that generally doesn’t go over too well with the young barkmagicmans of the Internet world.
Rinse, repeat. It never seems to end.
It’s a useful thing to separate factual criticism and opinion. Generally speaking, it’s also a good thing to get your facts right before criticizing someone on the facts. As for opinions, well, everyone has one. Isn’t that why Al Gore invented the Internet — to give everyone a printing press?
Like common sense, the only thing wrong with common decency these days is it isn’t so common.
Back to learning from other people’s experience.
Unlike a lot of magic authors these days, you won’t find pipe dreams in the ebooks or DVDs or tricks you can purchase from Richard Osterlind. These things are — literally — the documentation of routines he’s actually performed before paying audiences over nearly thirty years. That’s a lot of experience to hand over, and all you have to do is read (or watch) and study. And that’s one of the reasons I recommend Osterlind’s work — and Michael Close’s work — to any who ask.
I’m going to recycle something I posted recently because it makes this very point.
One of the common threads you’ll notice in the stuff Richard has released is that it’s based on real world experience. (And experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you expected!) I’ve compared Richard’s stuff to Michael Close’s stuff and I think that’s a fair comparison. Neither fellow releases pipe dreams. All of it has been tempered in the fire of experience. And you can go out and get your own experience, or you can learn from someone who has literally been there and done that.
One of the bazillion discussion groups of which I am a member is Restaurant Magicians on Yahoo! Groups. There recently was a thread on marketing for magicians. One of the members noted, “It is very important to fail because how else will you know it was the wrong way?”
The following was my reply. I’m posting it here because I think it captures the essence of why I love and value the ebooks, tricks and DVDs Richard has released:
Well, that’s one way to go about it. And if that works for you, I won’t argue.
However, I’ll add that simply failing doesn’t teach you anything unless you have the presence of mind to notice something didn’t work, and the further presence of mind to try something different. You may have seen Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It’s amazing to see people do that. Over and over.
To know whether or not something worked you have to know what outcome you expected. And if you can define your outcome, you can find others with similar expectations and learn from their experience.
If someone wishes to go out and blaze new tried-and-true paths, I say God bless ‘em all. As for me, I’m happy to study the results others have gotten and save myself some time and trouble.
Back in the late 80s I decided to enter the public speaking industry. I could have slogged it out for years to learn the ins and outs of the business. Instead I attended a long, intensive workshop by Dotty Walters of Glendale, CA. This is a woman who knew the public speaking business inside and out, rubbed shoulders with the greats, and published a magazine for the industry. (She went on to release a book based on the workshop and called it “Speak and Grow Rich.”) The workshop was pricey, but over the years I can safely say it would have been worth a hundred times the price.
There’s another saying I’m fond of. It’s found in various incarnations, but the essence of it is this: a smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from others’ mistakes.
Also, unlike some magicians, Richard hasn’t held back the real work. Volume 1 of his Mind Mysteries DVD set is a commercially successful set of mentalism that, even if you aped Osterlind’s presentations word for word, would be successful. It’s all there for you to learn.
But for some people — like Osterlind and Close — the interval of time between initial release and now (whenever now is) means more time to think and hone and find clearer ways to communicate the thinking behind some of these creations. In Michael Close’s case, you have the incredible Workers ebook, which updates and annotates one of the best series of books the close-up worker will ever read. In Osterlind’s case, you have a wonderful new project that starts with Mind Mysteries Guide Book - Volume 1: The Act.
From the ad:
In an unprecedented event, Richard Osterlind has revisited his hugely successful Mind Mysteries video series and has written a definitive guide book that exponentially enriches the material presented in it.
In this first volume, Richard takes Mind Mysteries Volume 1, which captured his professional act, and dissects it effect by effect, pointing out all of the subtle yet essential details to making these effects work for you as powerfully as they do for him.
In this guide book, you’ll discover new, unearthed treasures regarding Mind Mysteries as well as important new additions…
So, what is this thing? It’s a companion book that you read along side watching the DVD. Volume 1 extends the Mind Mysteries Volume 1 DVD. Subsequent ebook volumes will extend their matching Mind Mysteries DVD volume.
Since the release of the Mind Mysteries DVD set, Osterlind has had plenty of time to watch and dissect and annotate the videos. Since it’s impractical to go back and edit the video, the guide books allow you to learn from these annotations one video at a time. So far as I am aware, this is a first in the world of magic instructional videos.
At this point it would seem anticlimactic to rhetorically ask, “Is this ebook worth owning?” I had an opportunity to proofread it before release and I had the same sense of amazement after reading it that I had after watching the Mind Mysteries DVD set; so this is why some in the mentalism community had kittens when Richard released the DVDs.
What sorts of things will you find in the guide book? Well, for starters, you’ll learn the history behind each of the pieces on the DVD. You’ll learn why the presentation is structured the way it is, why some lines come before (or after) others. Why you handle a prop a certain way, as opposed to any other way. In short, while the DVDs allowed you to benefit from thousands of actual performance, this guide book “pauses the video” and explains subtle handlings that you probably didn’t know existed — or why they existed to begin with. After thousands of performances of each piece, Richard has learned what works, when and why, and explains it all to you.
In the end, if you own the DVDs, I can’t find any good reason not to invest in the guide book. It extends, explains, makes more clear — and more enjoyable — the material in the DVD. Is it worth $25? Well, let me ask the same sort of question I asked when I reviewed Michael Close’s ebook on the torn and restored card: how much is twenty-five years of your life, performing thousands of performances, and distilling that experience worth to you?
If you own the Mind Mysteries DVD set, you really owe it to yourself to get the full university education experience. Order it now here.
Posted on February 16, 2006
Filed Under General | 5 Comments
Do you realize how many publications have popped up lately dealing with the peek? Well, when in Rome…
I think I’ve decided to jump into the “peek book” fray and write one myself. But I decided to approach this from a completely different angle: The Rock & Roll Peek Technique. I think I’ll call it Aldo Novus.
Film at eleven.
Posted on February 13, 2006
Filed Under General | 2 Comments
Q: Who does Uri Geller say he is?
Does he say he’s a magician? A mentalist? A psychic?
I think it’s pretty universal in our corner of the world to accept that Geller uses the same techniques and methods magicians and mentalists do. And for many, many years some people, for various reasons, have done their best to expose Geller as a fraud — as someone who is no different than any great magician.
Guess what? For the most part, people don’t care. But the bigger question is, why? Why is Uri Geller still an entertainment force majeure? Why don’t “normal people” refer to Geller as a magician or a mentalist? And who does Geller claim he is?
Many magicians tend to be hypercritical (i.e. myopic) about the success of another performer in the same way they are myopic about their own act. It’s the “missing the forest for the trees” syndrome, and it’s rarely an attractive thing to watch.
I still see the same critical remarks about David Blaine years later: “he’s not a great magician,” “there are plenty of magicians who are better than Blaine,” “slum magic blah bah blah,” etc. The issue I have with that is these people are not considering the package — the entire act. Here’s a news flash for you: the act got on television a number of times, not Gene Gordon’s “biting a quarter” trick.
Criss Angel is not an overnight success. The Penn & Teller act was not overnight success. David Copperfield was not an overnight success. In all three examples, the end result — success — is made up of tons of intrinsic parts, and years of hard work. To dismiss any of these people because “X is a better magician” or “it’s who you know” is so absurd I have a hard time even addressing the comments.
There was a thread of conversation recently on The Magic Cafe about Criss Angel’s radio interview with Penn Jillette. In part, speaking of contemporary magic and magicians, Angel stated:
“…most magicians present it in a really hokey, cheesey way…”
He went on to say:
“…these other guys are like sitting there doing the same old nonsense that’s been done for like, you know, it’s a zillion years, and it doesn’t really present itself in a fresh way.”
It’s so much easier to do Don Alan’s “Invisible Deck” routine verbatim, rather than study the Ultra Mental deck and what it actually does and build a great, original routine that uses it in a new way. Is there anything wrong with doing the Alan routine word for word from the instruction sheet? Although my knee-jerk reaction is to recoil from the very idea, I have to admit that, in the long run, I’d say less damage is done to magic by performing the trick with a proven, sure-fire routine than some off-the-wall, bizarre (in a bad way) presentation that gives the 21 Card Trick competition. “All magicians do the same tricks” is the lesser of two evils. Whit Haydn has stated often that learning a trick word for word is a great way to learn magic; get comfortable with what works, then put your personality and presentation into it.
Similarly, it’s much easier to say, “Hold out your hand. No the clean one. Oh, that was the clean one.” and get the easy laugh, rather than spend a few days coming up with a great, original line. Great comedy is not easy, even for the guys who make it look easy. Nicking someone’s funny line is not a good thing on so many levels. I have asked (and received) from their originators permission to use two really funny lines. (From Eric DeCamps and Rich Marotta for those keeping score.) But I never felt completely comfortable using them. (Call it guilt, roots of a long ago abandoned Catholic upbringing. Clearly it’s the gift that keeps on giving.)
When we consider the relative success of Angel and Blaine and Copperfield and P&T, the world of magic isn’t that much different than the world at large: those who achieve great things typically expend massive amounts of effort, and over an extended period of time. But that effort is not the hardest part of success in general; showing up is. Becoming successful and/or famous is not rocket science. Anyone can do it, but not many people will do it.
One aspect of this that seems to go without mention is the very issue of “being famous.” Why do people seek that level of attention? It seems to me to be rooted in one or both of two things: a desire for attention, and wealth.
It always seemed to me that the phrase “rich and famous” is actually backwards. Fame usually precedes rich. Is Criss Angel working harder now than he ever did? I’m not so sure about that. I believe he’s working a lot smarter, and he’s surrounded by a lot more people who are in a position to help him short circuit a lot of wasted effort. In my opinion that’s pretty wise. And I don’t know if anyone would argue that his fame over the last year has affected his bank account.
Not everyone seeks fame, and fortune doesn’t have to mean millions of dollars in the bank. But you get neither fame nor fortune without defining what those words mean, mapping out a course, then working towards it. Or being born a Hilton. (The other “secret” is noticing the results you get while working towards a goal. If something you’re doing isn’t working, you might try doing something different. Einstein was right; the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Sort of like criticizing Blaine and Angel. )
Woody Allen is variously quoted as saying, “90% of life is just showing up.” Most people want the benefits of success, but aren’t willing to take the first step — literally, take a first step — towards success.
Three frogs were sitting on a log one day. The middle frog suddenly said, “You know what guys? I feel like going for a swim!”
Q: How many frogs were left on the log?
A: Three. The middle frog only said he felt like going for a swim, he didn’t actually dive in.
You can think and ponder and consider and say you are going to do X until the cows come home. But until you take that first step and actually do something, you’re just another frog on a log. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.
I suppose the world of magic is not much different than any other art form; its practitioners eat their young at every turn. You can call it jealousy, or misguided attention, or armchair quarterbacking, or whatever you like. But the subject of such attention rarely directly addresses those things, and even more rarely takes part in the discussion at all. Why do you suppose that is?
Oh, yes. One more thing:
A: Uri Geller
Posted on February 3, 2006
Filed Under General | 1 Comment
I really hate to admit this, but I watch…
No, I can’t do it.
Well, we’re already here, so why not: I watch American Idol. But I watch it only for the articles.
Actually, as far as train-wreck television goes, it’s pretty good. And my involvement in the music industry really fueled my initial interest, but the talent contest (and I use that phrase generously) has all the elements that make up great television. (And that’s coming from someone who hates network and much of cable television programming.)
I’m also happy to announce I am a fan of Simon Cowell. The guy knows the music business, knows a hit, and knows how to surround himself with people to make good television. And now he’s taking the show to Vegas.
Wannabe singing stars on “American Idol” have been known to cringe whenever judge Simon Cowell speaks. Would-be magicians and other Las Vegas-style entertainers could soon become just as nervous if the acid-tongued Cowell finds a judge as outspoken as himself for a new talent competition.
Cowell will create a show for NBC that allows viewers to ultimately decide which performer is rewarded with a headline spot in a Las Vegas show, NBC announced Thursday.
Cowell will executive produce the program but leave the judging to someone else this time.
“Personally, I hope to find the next Siegfried and Roy,” Cowell said of the magicians who were a Las Vegas mainstay for decades.
You don’t have to win in order to benefit. In fact, just auditioning could (not always, but could) provide you with valuable advice just for asking. And actually competing puts you in a professional world on someone else’s dime.
The show starts in the summer. I’m glad I have a Microsoft Media Center Edition computer set up. (Microsoft’s MCE is sort of like a Tivo, except much better. You know, because it’s Microsoft.) Until now I’ve used it exclusively for recording the History Channel and my two favorite soap operas: C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2. No, really.
(Thanks to my friend Venomous Kate for the link!)
Powered by FireStats