Mon dieu.

This post has nothing to do with politics and/or religion per se; just the parallels between them and current magic discussions. There now — you may safely proceed.

I’d like to say I hate political discourse, but that wouldn’t be accurate. I love discussing politics. And religion too, believe it or not. In fact, some of my most cherished previous discussions were with people who had diametrically opposed beliefs from my own. I love intelligent debate.

The problem, though, is finding people with whom to discuss such matters. It’s not that there’s a paucity of people willing to engage in political or religious talk. The problem is finding people willing to actually discuss matters. There’s a distinction there worth noting.

It’s the same with the subject of ethics in the world of magic. Lots of people are more than willing to engage others in talk of ethics, but not much true discussion goes on. I’m convinced this is directly due to the cancer of moral relativism that’s sweeping the world at large. Most of the people I personally know who argue for ethics in magic come from a position of moral and ethical absolutes. Most of the people I encounter arguing against it come from a position that there are no absolutes. Deadlock. At this point, you might as well just order a pizza.

In an earlier post, I mentioned the importance of crediting and respecting intellectual property rights. This follows that up with a contemporaneous example.

A little back-story:

Richard Osterlind is a name that’s been well known and respected in the mentalist and mentalism community for many, many years. Richard is a very successful working professional, which is to say he earns a substantial portion of his income from performing for normal people, mostly in the corporate world. It’s what he does; he does it exceptionally well; and he’s been doing it for a long time. (This is necessary to point out for later.)

Through L&L Publishing Richard created a set of DVDs for magicians called Mind Mysteries and, as a direct result of that release and subsequent phenomenal response, his name is virtually a household name for magicians, too. Also as a direct result of these DVDs more magicians are getting their collective feet wet in the mentalism waters. This, I believe, is a good thing.

People who know Richard hold him in very high esteem and respect for a number of reasons, not the least of which is his well demonstrated level of integrity. He’s honest in his dealings with others, and he’s quick to help fellow performers when asked. (Sometimes he doesn’t even wait to be asked; he volunteers his help.) He cares about and genuinely loves people, and that shows very clearly.

So I personally find it not a little irritating to see his integrity questioned (here and here) — however veiled in “innocent” questions — by those who, obviously, don’t know him. And questioning based in something about which they apparently know even less. Since it’s hard for me to understand why a person would question another who is, by all rights, highly respected in the magic community, that leaves me wondering what is the underlying agenda.

Here’s where things get interesting.

There have been for quite a while now a number of us questioning the ethics surrounding the release by Magic Makers of a number of tricks. (My pal Tim Ellis created a page that compares and illuminates a number of these tricks and it’s worth a look here.)

Central to the discussion is whether or not an ethical performer would or should purchase tricks that have, apparently, been knocked off. That is, copied and offered for sale by someone who did not originate the trick, nor obtained permission to do so from the originator or owner of the trick.

As a result of these arguments (I scarcely can call them discussions, since they usually wind up in the land of epithets and ad hominem) is many people find themselves in the ethically indefensable position of trying to defend their decision to purchase knockoffs. Now, it’s just human nature that when you put someone up against the wall, shine a spotlight on them, and ask them to explain why they would do something unethical, you get defensive, insubstantial and deflective responses.

As I was explaining to my friend Jim Sisti last night, when you come across someone who, deep down inside, has a guilty concience because they know what they are doing is not right, you’ll also see someone who is looking for some way to excuse that behavior. In other words, “how can it be bad for me to support knockoffs when Well Known Magic Star is knocking off someone else’s tricks?” (This is best spoken in sing-song, just like it’s near relative, “Oh, so now the shoe’s on the other foot, isn’t it.”)

That brings us to Richard Osterlind’s new set of DVDs, Easy to Master Mental Miracles.

Even without knowing who is Richard Osterlind, or what’s on the DVDs, you just know with a title like that there is going to be a dust storm kicked up. (Just take every argument made against Michael Ammar’s Easy to Master Card Miracles DVDs and substitute Osterlind for Ammar, and mentalism for card magic. There, that saves us a world of time.)

In the same way Ammar researched the world of card magic for his Easy to Master… series, Richard researched the world of mentalism and arrived at a final list of forty pieces that represent some of the most baffling and wonderful mentalism a performer could do. One is his own creation; the rest are items created by others and considered classic mentalism. And, like Ammar, Osterlind made sure to clear permission to teach any item that required such permission.

Would you expect any less of someone who has otherwise demonstrated a high level of integrity? I didn’t think so.

For anyone who is wondering, let me set the record straight for you: everything on those four DVDs is properly credited and, where permission is needed permission was sought and granted.

So why the questions?

I have no problem with anyone asking crediting questions of anyone. Crediting and permission is important and, if you don’t know something, it’s generally better to ask those who might know the answer than just make things up. (I know, asking for clarification is not nearly as much fun as just making stuff up, but really, it’s for the best.)

What I object to, though, is insinuation for the purpose of excusing the inexcusable. It’s beneath dignity. But then, should you really expect dignity to be embraced by people who have already demonstrated a propensity to ignore ethics?

Back to the question about questions.

Well, one reason might be the underlying agenda that seeks to excuse away one action (making or purchasing knockoffs) by accusing someone like Richard Osterlind of essentially committing the same sin.

“How can Richard teach XXX when it’s not his original item to teach?”

Gee, you think he might have obtained permission?

“I believe he didn’t get permission to include XXX.”

That’s nice, but “I believe…” isn’t the same as “it’s a fact that….”

But why let a trifling detail like facts get in the way of a really good argument, right?

Maybe I’m wrong about the intentions of some people and the manner in which they are asking questions. I can only go by what’s said, how it’s said, and add to that previous statements made by these people to help provide context. There’s a respectful way of asking a question, and then there’s what I’ve seen recently.

I’m waiting on my set of these DVDs and will post a review of them then. In the mean time, Richard has a terrific offer: all four DVDs for just $110. If you don’t already own a set of the Mind Mysteries DVDs, you really should order those, too.