A load of crap.

Another quote to warm the soul:

“One of the things you never hear when people tell you about card magic — or any kind of magic — or read in any book, is that all generalizations are a load of crap. Each person must do his magic differently. Each person’s fingers are differently shaped and are of different sizes. The palms of the hands, the muscles, the tendons … ”

Over generalizations are almost always wrong. You must find the way that works for you.”

Doesn’t that make abundant sense? Wouldn’t your road to magical enlightenment have been filled with fewer trips and falls and unfortunate language if you’d been told that from day one (and actually listened and believed it)?

Well, those who purchased Chief Genii Richard Kaufman’s video “Basic Card Technique” at the beginning of their journey will recognize that quote from the beginning of the video.

This morning, as I was copying my tattered VHS tape to safer DVD, I was reminded of how much I enjoyed that quote the first time I heard it. I was also reminded of how good an instructional tape it is. I’m still squarely in Michael Close’s corner when it comes to the topic of books-vs-videos, insofar as I prefer books to videos, but recognize the value in supplementing the printed word with video instruction.

Meir Yedid offers it on DVD in case you don’t already have a copy. And Meir’s a good guy with whom to do business.

Two Close.

As many of you are probably aware, Michael and Lisa Close have been out on the road on a lecture tour. The next leg begins April 11th and they’ve decided to make it global. (Well, at least write about it globally.)

From their new blog:

Lisa and I are heading out on the road for another lecture adventure with our two dogs, Pablo and Murray, and we thought it might be fun to take some of you along with us.

Our postings will be casual in nature and we probably won’t post everyday, just when something interesting happens.

Check it out here.

Two freebies to occupy your time.

Back in February, I was happy to mention Richard Osterlind’s new web log. It’s a place for him to add value to the products you may have purchased from him, but he’s also provided some interesting thoughts you might want to take a look at.

If you haven’t yet visited his blog recently, you missed a post for an excellent routine for Al Koran’s Fourth Dimensional Telepathy. Take a look here.

Also, I’ve long enjoyed popping in from time to time on Peter Duffie’s web site. A few years back, Peter embraced the e-book revolution and has offered some great items. If you’ve never visited, now might be a good time because he’s making available for free the download of a PDF on Tom Seller’s “SLIP & CULL SHUFFLING”:

A treatise on how to use the above shuffles to duplicate the feats of the card sharper. A demonstration of card sharping always appeals to the spectators, even more so than card conjuring or manipulation. No matter how expert you are with cards, if someone steps in and does a bit of card sharping his demonstration will steal the show, the spectators will remember his feats when yours have been forgotten, hence the purpose of this treatise. It will show you how, if called upon, to give a demonstration of what should not be done with a pack of cards.

Take a look here.

Some sufficiently advanced technology.

You know how much I love quotations. So, here’s one that kicked off my first web site in 1994:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
–Arthur C. Clarke, “Profiles of The Future”, 1961 (Clarke’s third law)

With that in mind, take a look at this:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000340038537/

That helps put Mr. Clarke’s quote front and center, doesn’t it?

It’s good to be mindful of the difference between effect and method. I covered this at length in December last year in a post called, “Anti-Semantics.”

Coincidentally, today Jarrod Henry posted something about this very subject in his blog, Magic, Mentalism, Mystery. If you have a moment, pop over there for a look. I think you’ll enjoy reading it.

Share and share alike.

Filesharing, P2P, Limewire, eDonkey, Kazaa. In the minds of some, these are all the same thing: a convenient method by which files may be located and downloaded. In the minds of others, it’s something different: a convenient method by which unauthorized copies of files may be located and downloaded. As with most things, which definition you embrace depends upon your point of view.

As technology marches on, the ability to make near identical copies of things and share them with others becomes as easy as exceeding the speed limit on a long, lonely stretch of country road. Computers, scanners, software, DVD/CD burners, broadband connections to the Internet all are wonderful technologies that make duplication and distibution simple and convenient. And the easier and more convenient it is to do something, the more often and likely people are to do it. (That’s one reason iTunes is so popular, and people are willing to pay $6 for a gallon of milk at the corner stop-and-rob.)

Sure, we’ve always had the ability to make copies of the written word (I’m sure if the archeologists would have continued to dig in the Tel el Amarna area they’d have found tablets of cuneiform that represented illicit copies of the tablets they originally found.) In fact, Jon Racherbaumer used to have a publication that was propagated via xerography. Wait, allow me to be more clear: Jon used to have a publication that was specifically designed to be copied — the others were copied anyway. But you’d be hardpressed to argue against the fact that today it’s easier than ever before.

Some people equate P2P (or peer-to-peer) with “illegal” in the same incorrect way they equate “MP3” with illegal activity. You can use an automobile to get you from point A to point B, or you can use it for target practice on the squirrels that cross the road. Guns don’t kill people, rappers do. (HAHAHA. Just checking if you’re still reading.) In the end, it’s the user who decides whether or not to use the car legally. MP3 is just a file format. P2P is just a technology. It’s what people do with the technology that brings us to this topic.

How does any of this impact the world of magic and mentalism? Glad you asked.

There are members of the magic and mentalism world — and you’ve no doubt run into one or two of them — who get their blood pressure up whenever the subject of file trading comes up. For them, it is a mortal sin to make copies of the latest PDF download and share it with your friends. In their opinion, that’s stealing.

On the other hand, there are members of the magic and mentalism community who equate sharing a PDF with sharing a book. Or going to the library and borrowing a book off the shelf (or, these days, a CD or DVD.) That’s been going on for ages, so where’s the sudden, new harm when, instead of a book, it’s a PDF or DVD?

Chances are pretty good that you have in your own collection xerographed, unauthorized copies of booklets or lecture notes that you acquired accidentally simply by buying things used on eBay or private sales. I don’t know about you, but I tend to be trusting of other people. As a result, I’ve ended up with copies. When possible, I’ve replaced the copies with the genuine article. (More on that later.) Used magic book dealers probably have the more colorful stories to tell as they tend to buy entire collections from widows.

But this isn’t about accidentally acquiring unauthorized copies. This is about knowingly accepting unauthorized copies of books, booklets, lecture notes, PDFs, CDs and DVDs. Is that wrong — morally, legally, neither, both?

At the heart of this is intellectual property — the currency that’s built much of the advanced world. Ideas, clever thinking, solutions to seemingly insolvable problems, information — these all fall into the category of intellectual property. Note the second word in that phrase: property. Property insinuates ownership. The U.S. Copyright Office acknowledges the value in intellectual property. So does the U.S. Patent and Trade Office. Lest you complain that I am being too USA-centric, there’s the World Intellectual Property Organization and a wonderful UK government-backed site to visit, among many you can Google for yourself.

The truth is out there but for some people, as Col. Jessep suggested, “You can’t handle the truth.”

It’s been my experience that there haven’t been many debates about filesharing. Oh, there’s been a lot of talk but that’s mostly people talking around each other, not having a debate. A debate allows for the possibility that either side may concede points to the other. Largely, that’s not going to happen with this issue. Both sides are four-square certain they are right, and that’s that.

While it’s unlikely one side is totally correct and the other totally wrong, would you agree that one side is likely to be mostly correct? And you know what that suggests for the other side. If you approach this subject from the standpoint that you believe there’s nothing wrong with filesharing, you’re going to pick and choose your arguments to support your position to the exclusion of anything else, regardless the merits.. For most people — and clearly for most people arguing this issue — that’s going to make it awfully hard to reason out the opposing viewpoint. You may as well just save everyone the time and state categorically, “Because I want to.” and leave it at that.

Here are some of the more popular pro-filesharing arguments:

1. “Everyone does it. (Therefore no one should be prosecuted.)” The short answer is heard in your mother’s voice from when you were in your single-digit years: If little Johnny jumps off a bridge, are you going to jump to?

The longer answer is, everyone is not doing it. Even if most people are doing it, it’s still against the law.

2. “It’s not stealing because the (intellectual property) owner hasn’t actually lost anything. It’s just a digital copy.” This argument confuses digital bits with real value, which is the information. A PDF is just a format in which the information is stored and conveyed; it is not the information itself. When you buy a music CD for $15, you aren’t purchasing a piece of plastic which cost the label less than a dollar to manufacture. You are purchasing what’s pressed into the CD plastic, the music. If you think all you’re purchasing is the plastic, you can buy lots and lots of blank CDs for a lot less than $15 per.

If, instead of buying the PDF (or CD or DVD or whatever) you obtain an unauthorized copy, you have prevented the owner from realizing income he is due. So yes, he has been deprived of something. What word would you use to describe that? (No, tough isn’t the right answer.)

3. “The owner hasn’t really lost a sale because I wouldn’t have bought it anyway.” So, why did you want a copy? If you weren’t going to buy it then surely you saw no value in it. And if you saw no value, why did you want a copy of it to begin with? What’s left is the truth that you do see value in it but didn’t want to pay for it. I believe the technical term used here is stealing.

4. “Knowledge wants to be free.” Knowledge, like your dead goldfish, doesn’t have feelings and doesn’t want anything. But if feelings and wants matter to you, why not consider the feelings of the property owners who don’t want their stuff traded?

5. “Well, yes, I do see the value in it, but I don’t think it’s worth what the owner is asking.” In that case, you do what decent people do in that situation: you don’t purcahse it, and you don’t steal it either. I was in best Buy the other day and saw a beautiful plasma screen television on display. I didn’t think it was worth $6,000, but I still wanted one. Regardless, I didn’t steal it.

In a free market society, supply and demand play a tug of war with perception of value. There are lots of retail products that were introduced at a price higher than a buyer’s perception of its value. Few items were sold. As a result, the seller adjusted the price downward to come closer to the buyers’ perceived value. When those two kiss, a sale is made.

6. “But I’m just a poor highschool/college/unemployed person. I can’t aford to buy it.” Well, there’s this thing called getting a job and saving your money that’s been working for generations of people wanting to buy things they cannot currently afford. Try it out; I’ll bet it works for you, too.

7. “I’m not sure I think the PDF is worth the money. Filesharing allows me to try it before I buy it. If I like it, I’ll pay for it.” Ah yes, the pre-marital sex argument applied to filesharing. This is a good argument so long as the property owner condones it. There’s a sub-world of software called shareware (not to be confused with crippleware) which allows this very thing.

But the point of copyright is the third syllable: right. The owner has the right to decide how his property is conveyed. And if he states his wish is that those who want the PDF must pay for it, it is wrong for you to change the rules for him. If you want that kind of a deal, start your own country.

Want to know if the PDF is worthwhile? Ask others who’ve already purchased it. This is 2005; please don’t pretend you know how to ferret out a PDF copy of STUNNERS! Plus! but don’t know how to find people and ask questions about its value.

8. “Well, I want it. I don’t respect the rights of the intellectual property owner. I can download it for free. So I will.” At least you’re being honest about stealing.

When all rationalizations have been exhausted and found wanting, what’s left is the stark truth in the law: unauthorized filesharing is illegal. So, the only argument left is to claim the law is over-reaching/wrong/stupid/etc. and, therefore, should be ignored. You know, civil disobedience. Fine. Join that group. But I’d like to remind you that those engaging in civil disobedience are often thrown in jail. And after spending some quality time in the pokey, some few may actually still believe in the cause celebre. (I’m speaking of the USA here. If you try this in another country…well, I hope your will is up to date.)

I’ve saved the most ignorant position for last:

There are some people who take the position that technology is what it is, people are who they are, and there’s nothing to stop this from taking place. I think that’s an incredibly stupid way to look at the situation. Well, why stop at unauthorized filesharing? Why not apply that to people who drive too fast? Or fail to stop at stop signs? Or pay child support? Since everyone needs money, why not just apply that “logic” to bank robbers? Just let everyone do whaever they want to do, when they want to do it. (I believe I covered this point yesterday.)

In fact, why not just abolish all laws since some people just won’t abide by them? (See where it gets stupid?)

The fallacy in this argument is the idea that you can completely stop people from engaging in certain behavior. I think a reasonable, rational person would agree that’s not possible. But that’s not what the RIAA, MPAA and other organizations expect to happen.

Laws don’t just pop up on the landscape like mushrooms after a rainstorm. Laws, by and large, address a situation in which people cannot be consistently counted upon to behave reasonably and respectfully towards the rights of others. Laws do not stop people from carrying out certain behaviors; they provide punishment for engaging in them. It’s the stick part of the proverbial carrot and stick. There’s a distinction worth noting.

Laws against driving above the posted speed limit cannot stop people from exceeding the speed limit. Proof of that is the fact that people continue to speed. But the law provides a penalty for being convicted of breaking the limit, though, and it’s the pain associated with the penalty that modifies the behavior of most people most of the time.

There are laws against copyright violations and penalties involved with being convicted. With the ability to more conveniently make unauthorized copies of intellectual property came additional laws to deal with that. Now, in addition to civil liabilities, there are criminal liabilities. In other words, the penalties are inflicting a greater level of pain. So long as the laws are enforced and the penalties levelled, the issue of piracy has a chance of being mitigated.

Taking the position that there’s nothing that can be done is sticking your head in the sand. (Or some rear-facing orifice.) There are, indeed, things that can be done. And I participate in that something by reporting piracy when I find it. Sometimes I’ll go further and help identify the pirate. I am an intellectual property owner, both from creating it myself and by acquiring it from others, and I am dead serious about protecting that property from unauthorized copying.

But let’s forget the law for just a moment and consider another aspect of this issue.

There’s a phrase that’s often been used to describe the magic retail industry: cottage industry. Small industries are particularly susceptible to the damages done from intellectual property theft. There’s just not a lot of money involved individually even if the aggregate amount approaches the GNP of small countries.

By and large, magic inventors aren’t getting rich selling their tricks and books. By and large, they aren’t providing a full-time income from it. But it is their income, and they are entitled to it.

A recent argument suggests that, given the “obscene” markup from manufacturer to retailer, piracy is less egregious. That’s the same impotent argument used in trying to rationalize filesharing unauthorized music files: the artist is making a tiny percentage of the retail money, it’s those bastard music labels you’re stealing from. Well, that fails to take into account the magic inventors and manufacturers — like the music artists — voluntarily enter into an agreement for distribution. If they’ve agreed to terms, you can disagree with the terms but it’s none of your beeswax to argue and change via filesharing.

If you are a decent human being and someone with integrity, it is axiomatic that you’ll respect the rights of others. Situational ethics is as much an oxymoron as is “jumbo shrimp” or “pretty ugly.” Like being pregnant, either you are (a person of integrity) or you aren’t.

So. Are you a person of integrity?

More history of magic.

On March 3, 2005 I wrote about a note I received from Thomas Weynants regarding a new section of his web site. This section was dedicated to “Prestidigitation, Conjuring & Magic in relation to photography and pre-cinema” and I thought it was great.

Since then, Thomas has added so much I thought it was worth mentioning to you again, and adding to my links on Escamoteurettes.

If you’re a fan of the history of magic, visit PRESTIDIGITATION CONJURING ARTS NECROMANCY ART HAUNTED GLASS — DECEPTION OF THE EYE & SENSES

Speaking freely.

As I’ve mentioned before, I decided early on that, among the things Escamoteurettes would be, one of the things largely it would not be is topical. When the volcano of the week erupts, there are a half-dozen or so blogs out there to cover the event from many angles. It’s not that I’m dispassionate about a good flamefest, mind you — I have my opinions — it’s that I didn’t create this blog for the primary purpose of contributing to them. (Well, much, anyway.)

I don’t think I am any more or any less opinionated than the next guy. The difference, though, is I don’t think anyone should agree with anything I say just because I said it. Afterall, it’s just my opinion. The most I can hope for is that someone reads what I have to say and at least considers the merits and — maybe — argue them, if you wish. But Escamoteurettes does not exist to shove doctrine down anyone’s throat. I’ll leave that to the skeptics.

The recent shakeup over at Steve Pellegrino’s Magic Rants centered largely on the subject of anonymous writers and, as a spinoff, on linking to other blogs. Take a look at this page to familiarize yourself with the subject at hand.

Steve writes:

The blogs that I’ve removed are the ones where the bloggers have made a decision to be anonymous. While some people do not consider that it’s important to know who is writing, personally I think it is.

As arguments continued about the “real reason” Steve made the change, and even more questions raised, at the end of the day, this is about one man making a decision for himself — note the use of the word “personally” in that statement above. In this case, Steve has decided not to link from Magic Rants to anonymously written blogs. He went on to explain his reasonings and, agree or disagree with them, it’s his blog and he’s free to act as he wishes. So are you, if you author your own blog. This last point is born out by several comments on several blogs in which the respective authors question and argue what they believe are the underlying reasons for Steve’s decision.

As was expected, the subject of free speech reared its head. It always does. I’ll deal with that in a moment. But first, anonymity.

I suppose if Steve would have just dropped the links without a word, there wouldn’t (currently) be 28 comments on that one post. But dropping the links without giving a reason would circumvent one of the reasons for doing so. I sent a note to Steve expressing my support of his decision and went on to state that I had been considering a similar move in hopes that it would turn the tide in the world of magic blogging. (Recent events have shown me the folly of my desire.)

One of the people who wrote me over my comments in that thread was Jim Short. I’ve never met Jim. I don’t believe we’ve ever spoken on the phone. But we’ve traded email, blog links, and opinions. I happen to like Jim and respect his opinions. But does knowing his name have anything to do with my respect for Jim and his opinions? Surprisingly (for some) the answer is no, it does not. So, knowing my opinion on anonymity, the question then becomes, why is that?

For me, it’s not so much a matter of whether or not someone signs their name to their opinions, although I’ve been on record for many, many years that I’d prefer people use their real name. The issue for me is intent. Do I get the overwhelming impression that someone is refusing to identify themself so that they can verbally snipe from the shadows and, thereby, avoid being forced to publicly take responsibility for what they write?

It’s not a silly question, given one magic blogger’s admission in his own blog that he remains anonymous in order to avoid the backlash that would result in people refusing to buy his products.

Yes, I know, in a perfect world thoughts and opinions would be taken on face value absent any indication as to the authorship. But do I have to remind you this isn’t a perfect world? And this is not about me wishing some people would put a sock in it, because it’s not.

To use a topical example, if you were Glenn Bishop, would you prefer to have criticisms leveled at you from someone who will publicly engage you while identifying who they are, or would you prefer to have those criticisms written from behind the corner using an anonymous hand?

Hey, it’s just a question — but if you seriously consider it and answer it honestly, you might find you have a different opinion on things.

Now that I’ve raised a few hackles, before this gets too deep, I should explain a few of my opinions. I just want to lay the foundation for why I think the way I do in this anonymous issue. These are general comments about how I see things and attempt to run my own railroad. Your mileage may vary on your own railroad:

1. I am a fan of free speech. The United States of America pioneered the right to protected speech. I embrace this right and, while other countries around the world clearly do not, I’m happy to see others reach for the right to their own free speech. The Internet and, specifically these days, the Worldwide Web, allows people around the world to engage in speaking their opinions freely. Blogger.com is one tool that helps many, many people easily and conveniently express themselves.

But there are often a few problems with throwing around the phrase “freedom of speech”.

First, the guarantee of free speech does not guarantee an audience. For a moment, let’s set aside the primary reason why the Constitution of the United States of America codifies the right to free speech. No where does it guarantee its citizens an audience to hear the speech. Chose your forum as you see fit, but don’t demand anyone attend. That’s not the way things work.

In the blogging world, your free speech forum is your own blog. Go forth and blog to your heart’s content. Keep it legal, and you are free to speak.

Oh, wait a second, did I just mention a limitation of your right to speak freely? Yes, I believe I did.

In an orderly society, there are limits on freedoms. There have to be because there will always be idiots and/or inconsiderate people who, in their pursuit of personal freedom and satisfaction, trample on the rights of others.

In the world of free speech, there are limitations based on how one person’s speech may affect others. This is generally in an effort to avoid harming others. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that free speech — like all of our other freedoms — do not exist in a vaccuum. The famous phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” illustrates nicely one limitation on free speech. While you are free to open your mouth and shout what you like, there may be consequences to your actions — in other words, you will be held responsible for your actions.

If you shouted fire anonymously in a crowded theater and caused harm, how can those harmed hold you accountable for your actions? It is their right to expect to not be harmed in a situation like sitting in a theater watching a show.

2. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe a person should voluntarily take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that, so there are laws that enforce responsibility.

Especially today, there are people who do not believe in limits on free speech; after all the word “free” is integral to the phrase “free speech” right?

But then, there are people who do not believe in limits at all. They are of the mind that there should be no limits on their behavior. If they have a thought, it should be let free. If they have a want, it should be satiated. If they believe music should be free, then the RIAA should get out of their way so they can download as many MP3 music files as their broadband connection can stand, regardless of the rights of others.

The problem is — as a general rule — people have consistently demonstrated that they will not voluntarily respect the rights of others as they, themselves, go about the countryside embracing their own right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore there are laws that limit what we can and cannot do. An orderly society needs laws and a method by which those laws can be enforced. Otherwise, we’d have something called “anarchy” — a word embraced and lauded by many of these same people who are in favor of breaking those laws to begin with.

I wonder how would those people — those who argue against limits on behavior — respond to this scenario: a group of people suspect another person is, say, downloading unauthorized music files. That group believes such behavior is wrong and decide the best way to handle that situation is to break down the front door of the suspect, take the downloader to a basement room, tie him to a chair, and beat the living crap out of him once an hour until he’s dead.

Sounds extreme, doesn’t it? It is. Fortunately there are laws (I’m speaking of the USA here) that limit the behavior of others and make illegal that sort of thing. Laws, those things that help moderate an orderly society. Laws, those awful things that get in the way of downloading unauthorized MP3s. And saying anything you want, any way you want, without respect to how it might impact the life and freedoms of others.

What does this all this have to do with Steve not supporting anonymous blogs?

Glad you asked.

Steve indicated he wants to know with whom he is communicating. If you read between the lines, you might see the bold print that communicates, too, that he prefers people to be responsible for what they write. No where did Steve demand anonymous bloggers stop being anonymous, or stop writing (or starting) anonymously authored blogs, or even become responsible for what they write. He simply stated he won’t support those who choose to remain anonymous.

That, then, brings up the dreaded word, “censorship.” Like the phrase, “free speech,” the concept of censorship has been twisted out of shape.

I could launch into the same sort of explanation I did above about free speech, but let’s cut to the chase:

How does someone abridge your ability to speak freely — to write in your own blog — if he stops linking to your blog?

The answer, of course, is he doesn’t because he cannot. But this points to the difference between the guarantee to speek freely and the idea some people have of a guaranteed audience.

Someone linking to your blog from theirs is largely a courtesy, a shout-out, or a statement. Sometimes all three, sometimes none of the above — sometimes a link is just a link.

My blogroll includes links to some blogs I enjoy reading regularly. But it also includes blogs I don’t necessarily read and approve of all of the time, but I link to them because I am part of a community of magic bloggers and — with few exceptions — I’ll still link to them but leave it to you, the clicker, to decide for yourself if a blog is worthy of reading. I don’t deign to be any authority on anything other than whether or not I need another cup of coffee. (Which, at the moment, I do.)

But, like Steve, I’ll reserve the right to link or not link to someone else’s blog for my own reasons, just as others have chosen to link or not link to Escamoteurettes for their own personal reasons. But whether or not someone links to your blog in no way abridges your ability to express yourself in any way you wish, even if that means discussing why you think someone is wrong about removing a link. And if that’s not freedom of speech, please tell me what it is.

You’re fired.

As much as my constitution allows, I stay away from train wreck television. Which means when the glass boob is glowing, it’s showing me a good movie or news or history or the goofy graphics associated with the music channels I listen to. And that means I don’t watch network “news” or what passes for entertainment (although these days, there’s not much to delineate ABC/CBS/NBC news and sitcoms.)

But I do admit I watch The Apprentice. If you haven’t seen it, I won’t waste the space to describe why. If you do watch it, there’s no need for me to explain why I watch it, too.

The phrase now most associated with Donald Trump is no longer “comb over” or “bankruptcy” — it’s “you’re fired.” He even filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office an application over the thing.

You’re fired.

If you’ve ever been told that by an employer — and I have — you know the emotional impact it can have on you. Aside from the obvious loss of income, there’s something that doesn’t feel good about the implication that you somehow don’t measure up to some standard set by someone else, especially when you’ve done your level best.

Of course, some people are just begging — or, at least, daring — to get fired. Their level of performance screams “I don’t care about this job, so let me see just how clearly I can make that known.” (For a demonstration of this, visit most any restaurant where the per-person cost is less than $40 or so.) And the only thing that keeps them from getting fired is the fact that customers cannot fire employees. Directly, anyway. Only supervisors can. In cases like this, the best a customer can do is fire the business and take their dollars somewhere else.

But this isn’t about an employee getting fired. This is about you firing a client.

This is also a post that’s been in the making for quite long while. It wasn’t until this morning, when I replied to a post in a private email list for magicians, that the reminder came to me that I needed to finish this subject.

Firing a client seems to be a concept as foreign to some people as is proper punctuation. As many years as I have suggested that people do this I never fail to get a blank stare in response. But I assure you that your long-term prospects of having a business you enjoy go up dramatically when you fire clients who don’t add to your well-being.

You don’t even need a good reason — “good” as defined by anyone other than you, I mean. If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t right, and you’re better off in the long run to just let the business go.

Depending upon your financial situation, this will seem counter-intuitive. Granted, I clearly acknowledge there are times when you just have to eat the proverbial shit sandwich. I know I’ve had my belly full of them from time to time and, like cooked spinach, I just can’t find a way to acquire a taste for them. But most of the time, this is not the case. Most of the time, chowing down on one of those indelicacies is strictly optional and we accept them only out of convenience or weakness — like deciding whether or not to pass up a McDonalds when you’re hungry.

An example to consider: you have an open date on your calendar. The Mother From Hell wants you to perform for her darling’s birthday party. The child is eight years old.

As the conversation progresses, you learn there will be roughly sixty eight year olds at the party — all of them fellow students of an exclusive private school with no identifiable curriculum outside of being The Last Stop for kids who have been kicked out of every other school in the state.

But that’s not the worst part.

You will be required to perform outside — along with the three face painters, the clown, and the poor guy hired to watch the rented inflatable bouncy castle, into which everyone involved is betting will be filled with dead cats by the end of the party.

But that’s not the worst part, either.

You’re requested — and expected — to include live animals in the act, and do the show for $45.

But that’s still not the worst part.

Your name is Max Maven.

(Actually, truth be told, I’d be willing to lay odds that Max could handle that gig if he was of a mind to. And I’d fight to be the first guy in line to happily pay a hefty ticket price to watch.)

No, the actual worst part — and this will be confirmed by anyone who has done kid shows for a living — is that you and the other performers will be outside doing your respective things while all the parents are inside slamming down Cosmopolitans.

The truly sad thing about this scenario is not that someone would actually want to book a gig like this (because it happens every day) but because some performers will take the gig.

Just say no.

Now, I’m not one to tell other people how to conduct themselves in a situation like this, but it would be my humble suggestion to say, “no thanks.” (And if there’s a performer in the area you particularly despise, send the client his way. Two birds, one stone, and all that.)

It can be argued that the number one killer of adults is not auto accidents, the dreaded “C”-word, or even the prospect of public speaking; it’s stress. Stress kills. I firmly believe we could rid the world of the roach population if we could just figure out what gets them sufficiently stressed out.

It’s already difficult enough to know you’re likely to be faced with a venue substantially different than what was described to you. When you perform long enough, you’ll be able to pick out code words that would strike absolute terror in any reasonably intelligent, though inexperienced human being. (But, that’s just the sort of thing you should come to expect when you work regularly.)

But then you add the clearly identifiable signals that, even if your brain fails or refuses to acknowledge as a problem, your stomach is doing everything it can to signal you to turn the job down. Sometimes we just plain won’t listen. It’s the one part of our teenage years that remains fully intact once we reach adulthood.

As Pete Seeger said:

Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don’t.

My favorite, though, is:

Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.

Experience is also that little voice in the back of your head that reminds you that you’ve been around this tree once before and it didn’t turn out so hot the last time. (This could also be the voice of your wife. If you’re lucky, those voices will be nearly indistinguishable from one another. If you’re smart, you’ll listen.)

Reducing the amount of stress associated with your job is a good way to ensure you continue looking forward to each day’s work. Nothing drags you down and fertilizes a field of growing procrastination as does hating what you do. Taking gigs that make you hate performing is just a bad idea for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it kills your joy, and it’s hard to hide that from your clients. So do everyone a favor and just pass on the jobs that add to your level of stress.

How do you recognize which jobs those are? Experience.

Something to say.

First, some immortal words:

I’ve got something to say, boys,
I’ve got something to say.
Just as soon as I can find a way, boys,
I’ve got something to say.

Okay, maybe not exactly immortal words, but they’re pretty good ones from David Allen Coe from his 1980 album “I’ve Got Something to Say” — in which, ironically, much of radio didn’t feel he had anything to say they wanted to hear. (What else was new?)

I’ve been a David Allen Coe fan since 1977 when I first heard, “Willie, Waylon and Me.” I own every one of his (mainstream) released albums through 1982’s “D.A.C.” at which time I agreed with radio. Then, in a form of irony usually reserved for Quentin Tarantino movies, radio decided Coe did have something to say and subsequently began playing his songs. (For the record, my favorite DAC album remains, “Human Emotions” — his “Back in Black” if you will.)

At the very beginning of this blog last year I mentioned that blogging as a concept is not new. A few of us had online journals many years ago. Back then — as now — you decide you have something to say, and you say it. Getting people to read it, on the other hand, is the trick.

These days, with blogging software making the process of online publishing as transparent as is, say, J. Lo’s insincerity, you don’t necessarily have to have something to say in order to go forth and say it. You only need to know how to find Blogger and you’re off to the races. (Here I am torn between linking to an example of what I just wrote, and being polite. I’ll lean towards politeness for the moment.)

Now, this is not an anti-blogging/anti-blogger post. Far from it, actually. I’m a big, big fan of laying it out there and letting the viewing public chew you up and spit you out, if that’s what revs your engine. Writing is a creative endeavor (unless you’re of the recent plague of recyclers who take what’s already been done and write it in a different font and/or color) and, by it’s very nature, creation is given to interpretation and critique.

And, in case you haven’t noticed, some people just don’t take criticism very well. (Here I again avoid the intense desire to link to a perfect example.)

The best thing those people could do for themselves is to get over it, already. Not only does no one really care about the emotional state of a blogger they will never meet in person, the very act of demonstrating through your blog that you are unhappy is like hanging a big, thick, juicy steak around your neck and hopping into the lion’s den, with or without hoisting the one-finger salute to the Big Guy in charge.

Color me silly, but I can think of a few better ways to spend an afternoon. But if it makes you happy, please, don’t forget to staple the “Kick Me” sign to your rear end, too.

No, this is about actually having something to say.

Escamoteurettes is not a daily. These days, it’s not even a weekly. It is, literally, as I state at the top of this page: my occasional outbursts. Sometimes I just don’t believe I have anything to say so I resist the crack-like urge to type. (Note that I didn’t say I was always successful…)

Unfortunately, this is not an urge many others can avoid. Proof of this is found by going to any blog hosted by Blogger.com and click the “Next Blog” link at the top right corner. Do that for ten minutes straight and you may very well consider moving to a mountainside in Montana in your own little wooden shack. (Or maybe not. Who am I to say.)

Of course, blogging isn’t the sole proprietor of impropriety or literary vacuity approaching the life-sucking black-holeness of, say, a Jessica Simpson. You can find plenty of nothingness in the present crop of releases in the world of magic and mentalism. Not all releases, naturally, but enough to concern you if you’re at all interested in the art or not a dealer.

You’d think that here in the year 2005, with the amount of available knowledge flowing like a river, useful, quality books would be falling from the sky. But that’s just not the case. I think too many authors confuse wanting to having something useful to say with actually having something useful to say. Not a minor distinction, but apparently as difficult to see for some as their bald spot in a mirror.

I mentioned my hell shelf not so long ago — filled with relatively useless books and booklets. They stand in testimony to the fact that you should not judge a book by its cover. But also the fact that, sometimes — maybe oftentimes — you have to waste a lot of money to find value.

So when I find something written by someone who actually has something of value to say, I like to spread the joy. And with that said, let us explore Corporate America.

Well, damn The Man.

For many people, Corporate America leaves a taste in their mouth comparable to cooked spinach someone left on the counter for twelve years, or yesterday’s Big Mac. Either way, it’s just not good.

But for other people, Corporate America is a way of life, sometimes apologized for in the same way you might follow up a sneeze with, “Pardon me. Lord, where’d that come from.”

I’ve long held the opinion that life isn’t what happens to you; life is your reaction to the things that happen to you. We’ve all been both beneficiary and whipping boy to what corporate America is. And, really, attaching to “corporate America” the same sorts of actions and feelings and opinions that you would, say, to Dr. Phil, is not fair. (Mostly to corporate America, but I’ll leave it at that.)

When an art form — like mystery entertainment — crosses roads with business, not everyone is enamored. There are some who hold the opinion that art should stay pure — whatever that means — and not have intercourse with business. This point of view fails to consider that art continues as a direct result of someone, somewhere, doing business with someone else. It’s like complaining about taxes — no one (I know personally) loves them, but try living your life without the benefit of them. (This is closely related to the concept of going a week without a rationalization.)

But this is not a debate on the pros and cons of going pro. This is about the recent e-book from Richard Osterlind titled, The Business of Magic.

Value in stark honesty. You learn lesson number one in the preface.

I’ve been around the block a few times myself. I can take my experiences in several wholly unrelated disciplines over the last thirty or so years and apply them to their unrelated brethren and note some similarities in success. And from that personal experience, I can say that Richard Osterlind knows exactly what he’s talking about in this e-book.

In every secret society there are a vast number of members who would just as well prefer the secrets remain secrets. Anyone breaking out of that mold is treated in much the same as someone breaking a union picket line (with or without the broken kneecaps.) So it is in the world of magic and mentalism.

I’ve spilled much digital ink chronicling the uproar over Richard Osterlind’s “Easy to Master Mental Miracles” DVD set. For all the hue and cry, I noticed the world is still spinning many months subsequent to their publication. Funny, that.

The world of corporate mystery entertainers is, necessarily, smaller than the general population of magicicians and mentalists who sell their performances in various venues. How large — or small — is the corporate world is anyone’s guess. Getting everyone to admit they are part of that world is like getting everyone who watches to admit they tune in each week to “American Idol” or “The Apprentice.”

I’ll admit to it. I’ve admitted to it before. I’m rather proud of the work I’ve done in the corporate world. It’s not my interest to be a well-known name in our relatively small world. I’m perfectly happy making a better than average living at it, though. Still, I haven’t written a how-to and have no interest in doing that, either. Osterlind, on the other hand, has spilled some of the more important beans on the table. The results may needle some in the business, but I’m not one of them. And here’s why.

First, good, working magicians and mentalists are at the capricious mercy of watercolor-painted warriors who ply their trade in an unprofessional manner without any regard whatever to how their actions may impact those of us who are actually serious about this stuff. I have to assume the thought just never crosses their minds that they are denegrating the art (and business) of magic with hack performances that would embarrass even a two year-old. (I hold on to this as an excuse because the only other explanation is just too sad to consider.)

One can make a large living in the corporate world. Now, some may argue this point with me — and that’s fine — but it’s my opinion that the big money goes to business people who incorporate magic in their presentations and not the converse of that. The world of business is about business.

Next, there are, essentially, two ways one can learn the business end of magic: trial and error (lots of trial, lots of error), or finding someone who has fought, won and lived long enough to tell the story.

The bigger problem with the trial-and-error approach is it assumes the trial-and-erroror is wise enough to note what doesn’t work and try something else. That takes dedication, awareness, and lots of new business card designs. Most burn out before “making it” — it’s hard, a lot harder than most are willing to admit.

In my opinion, the second method is preferable. The issue with that, though, is finding someone who isn’t blowing smoke up your nose and charging you $295 for the privilege.

There is precious little in the way of on-the-money publications on the corporate end of the magic business. Those who are making it are generally too busy making it to spend time telling you how to do it, too. It’s been my experience that those who do shout from the rooftops about how they are spilling the “real secrets” of corporate magic probably would just as well slip from the roof and hold their peace.

On the other hand, Richard’s latest e-book is long on real-world, practical, valuable advice. I’m not going to spend a lot of time convincing you of either the opportunities available in this corner of the magic world, or of the value Osterlind brings to you in this modestly priced book. In the course of eight chapters, Richard covers the core knowledge you need to have to be effective and successful in the corporate world (although Osterlind mentions the contents are applicable in other areas as well.)

What I will say is this: if you have any interest in making serious money in the world of magic, get this e-book now. It, Ken Weber’s, “Maximum Entertainment” and common sense are all you really need to add to your working repertoire to earn a very nice, sustainable living doing magic and mentalism in the corporate world.

Osterlind definitely has something to say. I think you’d do well to listen.

One more blog.

As you have probably surmised, I have a soft spot for mentalism-oriented blogs. So when a new one appears, I’m happy.

Tonight, I’m happy.

I received an email from the author of Newman’s Blog pointing me towards it. After reading the first two posts I can’t wait for the next.

From the blog description:

This blog is concerned with the craft of mindreading and hypnotism. It is not, however, too concerned with art, for the simple reason that excessive reflection upon ART leads to constipation, and I don’t get enough fiber as is. I’ll be posting reviews, commentary, and random thoughts on the topics already mentioned, but also on just about anything that interests me.

Please take a look and maybe you’ll also add it to your list of favorites:
Newmann’s Blog