Card Warp

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gil,

your use of the "yes but" construction is telling about you and not in a good way. If you have issues about feeling excluded - there are people with whom you can work on such things.

The matter of secrets in magic is very simply that of the time value of data - a commonality our craft shares with intelligence. To have such data abused or even publicly compromised by those with merely venal interests is pretty much the equivalent of robbing the cradle.

Perhaps you might learn a little about conjuring and then come back with an informed opinion - not the cookbook side of what to do but the history of those whose works one might take for granted. For now you are coming across as someone claiming entitlement to others works and railing against those who wish to keep their works private.

Perhaps someday when being a part of this craft comes with having enough respect for others that there won't be copyists and people treat eachother and their works with respect there won't need to be an underground.

In the mean time I'm willing to bet that you have not contacted Micheal Weber nor read the Cory Doctorow story and so I am tempted to consider you a dolt and perhaps even an internet troll (not like the good ones who protect the bridges). Some of us have discussed the matter with both of them and also not taken sides. But then again some of us don't feel "inside" or "underground" and just treat others with respect and care about their feelings.

Sorry but for now you are not likely to be on my short list of people with whom I'd discuss works in progress. Sad for me as I bet you have a good handle on the audience side of what works and the practical side of what can be managed.

The craphound awaits,

Jon

Update: I'm still puzzling over a practical handling of the trick which ends with the two cards changing places. It's what I envision as an organic and logical climax to the Walton trick. I've been banging my head against the wall on this for too long so I'm putting this idea out in the open for all and hope somebody gets something worth performing. -Misprinted cards only get you so far ;)

[Gil]

Jonathan, I know more about magic and have done more than you ever will. I consider your post insulting and you refuse to engage in civil discourse. So be it.

[mrgoat]

Jonathan, I know more about magic and have done more than you ever will. I consider your post insulting and you refuse to engage in civil discourse. So be it.

That post amused me on many levels.

[Gil]

Jonathan, I know more about magic and have done more than you ever will. I consider your post insulting and you refuse to engage in civil discourse. So be it.

That post amused me on many levels.

Which is good we can all use a good laugh

[Jonathan Townsend]

I was unaware that a few typos (sorry Michael) would make my post insulting to others or worse uncivil. My bad :(

I know more about magic and have done more than you ever will.

That's a nice thing to believe.

Providing specifics [ as regards the development of magic items ] to back up ones argument helps move a discussion along toward productive ends.

[Gil]

What doesn't help is assuming that the only reason one would disagree with you is out of ignorance or feelings of being left out.

The issue isn't about specifics but rather about the nature of creativity and the magic community.

Take your pick of any effect and you will find that it has an extensive pedigree based on what went before.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Where has the advancement of this craft been stifled (aside perhaps from a want of reading) ?

[Brad Henderson]

Gil,

Should a creator be allowed to determine the fate of their material that they have not otherwise published or shared commercially? Or, if someone sees an idea they like, should they be free to take it regardless of the creator's feelings?

Brad

[Lemniscate]

I don't like Townsend's general attitude or the way in which he couches his arguments ("To have such data abused or even publicly compromised by those with merely venal interests is pretty much the equivalent of robbing the cradle." REALLY? I mean... REALLY? Do you even have a conception of what "robbing the cradle" consists of and how you are insulting... you know what, you obviously don't. You like to go for the big statements, whether or not they are appropriate or accurate, since that is neither).

With that being said, even with his deeply flawed examples and analogies, he happens to be right in a very narrow way (certainly not as much as he thinks, but I always think that, so that is my opinion).

Lem

EDIT: I do happen to wholeheartedly agree with the statement that Townsend takes the approach "assuming that the only reason one would disagree with you is out of ignorance or feelings of being left out." However, that is irrelevant to the facts of the matter. I think Townsend often makes weak, nonsensical, and insulting (based on ignorance, like the cradle comment) comments but that doesn't make him incorrect here. I can only hope he gets a serious attitude and/or educational adjustment (if you can't tell, I am infuriated by his cradle analogy, the most crass, insulting...ARGH...)

[Jonathan Townsend]

L - you blew it when you presumed my ignorance regarding that term. I will accept an apology from you in private if sent today.

There is no shortage of people who might enjoy a magic trick, but that enjoyment is destroyed when one dolt exposes the trick to the world at large. To do such a thing to an item in magic which has not even outlived its inventor is ... ugly. To do so for venal reasons ... can be described in even uglier terms than I used earlier.

No amount of clapping will turn fireflies back into fairies.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Okay - Peter Pan and early childhood trauma references aside here...

Where have we seen the development of this craft or even any work in this craft impeded by the group via "this is it and no more" on any trick?

Really - where have we stopped exploring because someone said "no - it has to be three coins and a marker - or three cups and four balls" or any such limitations on method, theme etc?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Silly me - as if it was sensible to expect a cogent discussion - or an apolgy when it counts. IMHO the development of magic - the free and open discussion of ideas - is most greatly retarded by folks like Gil and "Lemniscate" whose loopy whines offer nothing but complaints about others. I truly don't care for that sort of misdirection and will refer to those who proffer such as "distractors" per the Satir category.

* and now so we can advance the discussion of card warp a bit:

Anyone putting something into or onto the card before starting the warp effect? I like Giles' Contortionist but feel awkward going for a card-as-person presentation which leaves the card destroyed. Maybe a a strip of tape over the center of the card to start? Just a visual idea - have not tried it.

[Gil]

Gil,

Should a creator be allowed to determine the fate of their material that they have not otherwise published or shared commercially? Or, if someone sees an idea they like, should they be free to take it regardless of the creator's feelings?

Brad

Let's try this one more time. Imagine the Ur-magician who first came up with the idea of having a card selected and found. Soon other magicians would be doing this. One of these may have the brainstorm of finding the card in his pocket and another may then adapt that and have the idea of finding it is his wallet. Another may adapt the wallet idea but add a sealed envelope.

All of this is in my mind the sign of a healthy creative development of a creative commons. Now what if that Ur-magician decided that the idea of finding a card was his exclusively? All of the subsequent ideas would be lost. When one takes from the commons one has some obligation to add to it.

Now this doesn't imply anything is fair game-it is a bit like the distinction between research and plagiarism. To take everything from one source is plagiarism but to take from many sources is research.

Perhaps a change in terminology is needed. To find something that is potential in an effect is discovery and the creation of a whole effect or act is creativity.

Gil

[Jonathan Townsend]

Let's go with that basic conflict of interests and rather than imagine a Caveman Magician and hypothetical lost wonders use a real and current example.

While I'd support a market item which finds a borrowed bill in a bag of potato chips - I think it would be very awkward to support a market item which finds a borrowed ring in a crackerjack prize as that's been in living magician's working act for a good thirty years now and he as not released the item into print or the market. That's about where I draw the line on this stuff.

Let's say it's a hundred years from now and a serious student finds a writeup describing the performance of that trick (or a video of that inventor performing it) and decides to do their own version either as hommage or using modern props. Okay, but what if that inventor (call him MW) has passed on his trick to a delegate for their own private and exclusive use. What then?

[Brad Henderson]

Gil,

Thanks for your reply.

The Ur-magician example is an interesting one, but the "find a card" concept is now such a part of the fabric that it makes discussion difficult as we don't know how that evolved. Let's look at a better example: Card Warp.

The idea of a card reversing as it is pushed through another card (or hand as in Busby's offering) was new to the consciousness of magic at the time. They are our UR-magicians. They created a new idea and (for the sake of these scenarios) it has NOT been published.

1) Let's say "Bob" sees Walton (or Busby) perform this trick. Walton (or Busby) teaches him how to do it. Would it be ethical for him to publish the trick under his own name? Would it change things if he gave credit to Walton (or Busby)?

2) Let's say "Bob" sees Walton (or Busby) perform this trick. He figures out a way to do it. He does not know if it is the same method, but the trick looks the same as he remembers it. Would it be ethical for him to publish the trick under his own name? Would it change things if he gave credit to Walton (or Busby)?

3) Let's say "Frank" sees Walton or Busby perform their trick. "Frank" comes up with a clever ending to the trick. Does his ending make it ethical for him to publish the full routine, tipping the original ideas of Walton and Busby, in the product? Would it matter if he had been taught the trick by Walton/Busby or had figured it out on his own?

4)Let's say Walton/Busby were currently selling their idea as a dealer's item. "Frank" has a new ending. Can he sell his ending, tipping the currently marketed work as part of his product? Would it change things if he gave credit?

Of course, the latter raises the question: At what point does a once marketed dealer's item become fair game for other marketed variations/re-releases/etc.

5) Let's say "Tom" sees Frank's ending. Frank learns it from Tom. Does that make it ethical for Frank to sell Tom's ending - or a variation thereof? Would it change things if he gave Tom credit?

I think one's take on these scenarios reveal a lot about their personal ethical standards when it comes to the republishing of others ideas.

Lest there be any confusion:

I am a firm believer that those who benefit from magic and the ideas those who come before have an obligation to give back to the art. However, there is a difference between giving back and having one's work subject to the greed and pilfering of others.

There is a very simple solution to all of these issues (in fact, I can't think of any of these recent "ethical dilemmas" which would not have been solved by this): You can always ask permission.

For some reason, many magicians (especially the "gotta crank out my next one trick DVD so people don't forget my name" types) have decided to forgo this simple act.

This allows the creator some control of his or her ideas. In my experience, I have never known a creator to deny someone the release of a variation or brainstorm if indeed it was that - and not merely a step sideways or blatant copying. I have seen creators ask that a project be delayed until after they finished a project which would have included the publication of the original idea, but that's it.

Each of my above scenarios become ethically sound the moment you add the element "and he asked/received permission."

Had Green asked Weber would he have said yes? I don't know. But if Green had acted on Weber's request, this brouhaha would have never erupted.

[Lemniscate]

L - you blew it when you presumed my ignorance regarding that term.

Ok, you made an idiotic statement but not out of ignorance. Keep in mind, ignorance was providing you the benefit of the doubt but I guess you neither need nor deserve it.

Your analogy was completely tasteless, utterly insulting, and pretty much par for your course.

But, since it wasn't out of ignorance, you did it on purpose. Just for shock value? Who knows but I don't even care anymore.

Again, I happened to agree with your premise if not the horrific manner in which you tried to shore it up. It made me feel dirty, mind you, but I'm nothing if not honest, so to recap:

basic point: Jonathan has it cold

arguments: sadly lacking
reasoning skills: ibid.
appropriateness of analogy: none
ability to show even a modicum of consideration: none. Jonathan thinks magic tricks are on par with "robbing the cradle". What world do you live in, sir, because... well, forget it, you admit you know what you said so you know how idiotic it was.

Enough from me, you've dug your own hole with this, and other, posts. Live in it. I've got little time to deal with people (people being a compliment, more like a soul-less troll) like you and thanks goodness for that.

EDIT: added quote to eliminate any confusion

[Jonathan Townsend]

Some folks seem to confuse a public BBS with private correspondence - or seek approval for displaying their [lack of] tact, grace and conflict resolution skills at others expense.

While such is amusing - it also distracts from an in-progress discussion of handling variations of items one has seen and what one might do when the item one has seen has not been published.

[Gil]

Brad-

In response to you interrogatories.

Question 1-No simply taking an effect of someone else and marketing is clearly over the line. Perhaps worse is an incident I saw recently where the effect was taken and sold under the creators name with a photocopy of the creators instructions

Not magic related but of interest is the story of Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Despite his patent his invention was "ripped off" constantly because he couldn't or didn't supply enough product to fulfill the the demand.

2. Number two has a simple answer in that he needs to find out if his method is different. A more difficult issue is that of independent creation. This happens quite often because as I noted earlier much of these things are discoveries inherent in a routine more that creations. Interestingly, a couple earlier posters noted that they had come up independently with the same card warp ending.

3. As to publishing a variation this is where the issue becomes one that may go either way depending on the context. On one hand one doesn't want to make this an excuse but at the same time one doesn't want to discourage variation and improvement. Here I think time is the issue. Over time an effect like card warp tends to become so well known that it is functionally public domain.

Now having attempted these questions in the manner you presented them let me change the context.

What I find generally happens is that one magician may show another an effect that he has learned and/or purchased (I suspect more people where shown card warp than ever purchased it). This exchange of information leads to new ideas and variations, some bad and some good. This community of ideas is what I am concerned about more than the commercial aspects. Part of this exchange includes in my mind a formal lecture, does it change if we do it on video? That is perhaps a bit different but I tend there to a more permissive attitude.

Generally when on is discussing ideas I prefer a more communitarian approach, and when marketing props a more restrictive approach. The Ur Magician idea was to point out that all of us however "original" our ideas are rely on what went before.

Gil

[bagelsandlox]

I watched this recently at the club. The "finale" takes away, doesn't add to, the beauty that is Card Warp.

Seems like something the kiddies would come up that people in the know would laugh at.

[Jonathan Townsend]

B*L - IMHO that's likely what Weber had in mind with it. Since folks have seen the illusion "twister" it might also be a legitimate advancement on that handling to get the card restored and give it away intact (folded the long way but otherwise unharmed).

[Richard Kaufman]

What "finale"? The tearing in half of the card?

[Jonathan Townsend]

What "finale"? The tearing in half of the card?

Paul Green's item
http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S10415

[El Harvey Oswald]

Most Overrated Card Effect Ever

[Jonathan Townsend]

over rated by audiences or magicians? I recall it as a winner when performing a few times a week. Not a requested item but folks seemed to like it.

[Richard Kaufman]

Card Warp is pretty damn good: have you ever done it for laymen (El Harvey)?

[bagelsandlox]

Roy Walton's Card Warp is an incredible piece of magic. Some things are best left alone.

[erdnasephile]

Like Zombie threads? (Just kidding! :grin: )

[Jonathan Townsend]

e* - been working for years on a practical switch that would permit one to apparently unfold a card and give it out uncreased. Still nothing of (IMHO) merit to show but that's what lay audineces have said would bring such tricks into the realm of magical.

[El Harvey Oswald]

Richard:

Done it and watched it done lots of times, and always have the impression that lay audiences are completely underwhelmed -- particularly when they are handed the card at the end that, rather than being some mystical, impossible object, basically shows how it's done. It is never met with amazement the way even some middling I-phone forces are. Likewise, the endless string of Magic Castle performers who do Professor's Nightmare in the Palace and Parlor but don't hear the tepid comments among the audience, should also reconsider the assumption that they are performing a sacred piece of magic. For all the recognition that "puzzles aren't magic," it's astonishing that card warp, at best an OK puzzle, endures. Perhaps it's the Roy Walton association; or the fact that it's easy Walton; or it's something like the reflexive defenses of Vernon in the Twisting the Aces thread. But I would recommend that those who think card warp kills with lay audiences to put it to a focus group, or simply sit among the audience at a close-up table and wait for the inevitable card warp performance.

[Q. Kumber]

Likewise, the endless string of Magic Castle performers who do Professor's Nightmare in the Palace and Parlor but don't hear the tepid comments among the audience, should also reconsider the assumption that they are performing a sacred piece of magic.

When I was at The Castle last year, I was chatting to a magician friend and his date. He asked me to show her a trick. I did the Linking Pins, which is basically Slydini's with some additions from Ken Brooke's routine. When I'd finished, she looked at me and with great relief said, "Thank you for not showing me the bunnies."

[Jim Maloney]

they are handed the card at the end that, rather than being some mystical, impossible object, basically shows how it's done.

Ever tried Wesley James' ending?

[Dustin Stinett]

Ask Michael Finney how much mileage he gets out of Professors Nightmare.

Ask Eugene Burger how his presentation for Card Warp is received. (Ill play Torquemada!)

Ask Eric Mead how often he performs The Bunnies and how well they play.

It aint the airplane, its the pilot.

Dustin

[Paul Green]

Being a performer of Prof.'s Nightmare, Card Warp(yes with a finale), and Spongeballs before paying clients and numerous (Lay)audiences, my experience has been very successful.

Quentin's comments also show that using material that is not often seen is very positive. He is one of the most charming performers I know.

I agree with Dustin's comments above.

Respectfully,

Paul Green

[Jonathan Townsend]

Unfortunately the commonality here is the airplane and not the pilot.

There's a history of such posts here and also at the cafe where someone conflates the virtues of a trick with the virtues of a particular performer's script for the trick or their general demeanor. In all likelyhood there will be more posts where someone states they'd be happy just to hear Derren Brown recite from the phone book. There will likely also be more posts where some decry the copying of successful scripts - say Ricky Jay's use of the patter from EACT with card production followed by a card assembly. That both such posts will be made by the same participant is no longer a surprise. Perhaps worthy of study though no longer a surprise here.

The "entertainer" can read a phone book to sellout theaters. That's not about the phone book or in our case the magic trick.

The strength of an effect is, IMHO contextual where some of that context is the performer's 'entertaining' and timing of a beat to conicide with the audiences awareness of the magical event. Let's factor that out and start talking about what might make a trick 'stronger' or 'better' on its own.

Wind Shear!

[Q. Kumber]

My point was that it's not the best idea to perform whet we know as standard effects to audiences that regularly see a lot of magic, unless you have a really strong presentation or unusual twist.

Sadly far too many magicians think that a minor change, like having red backs change to purple instead of blue, constitutes originality.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Q*, and just what makes "what we know as standard effects to audiences that see a lot of magic" but that very copying?

[Tom Frame]

they are handed the card at the end that, rather than being some mystical, impossible object, basically shows how it's done.

Ever tried Wesley James' ending?

Or, my effect "Son of Hyper-Warp", based upon Wesley's effect. The resultant impossible object that I attach to an acetate base and give to the participant is, unlike Wesley's, a visually correct, seamless, topological marvel.

That effect and others can be found in The Hypercard Project, still available from me.

[Q. Kumber]

Q*, and just what makes "what we know as standard effects to audiences that see a lot of magic" but that very copying?

Perhaps I'm a bit dim today, but I don't understand the question.

[Jonathan Townsend]

They see a magician with three equal pieces of rope - what happens next? How come they know what to expect?

[Q. Kumber]

If seeing the trick for the first time, they should be amazed. If they have seen many magicians they can probably recite the patter.

Back in the eighties when I did about 500 kidshows a year, I had eight hours of material and would always change the program if I knew where the children had seen me before. Once while performing a Supreme trick, 'Tommy's Tie', I was stunned to hear a six year-old girl say my script, word for word along with me.