Who is renewing Real Secrets?

[r paul wilson]

All I have to say is:

I LOVE Real Secrets.

I get something interesting every month to play with and think about.

I experiment and try new ideas.

I have something magical to introduce in discussions, shows and meetings.

There are several of these I've had great fun sharing with people. Others are waiting for me to find my own angle.

Every envelope is a gift to be shared. And it's a bargain in my opinion.

If you don't agree, you're entitled to say so and not renew. And that's all.

P

[Bibliophage]

all this back and forth only goes to prove that there are many tastes in magic, and often a complete lack of it.

I believe Real Secrets is sending the real thing. Classic, often forgotten and frequently overlooked principles given new life and new direction. Maybe part of the unhappyness is that the props look so natural. Maybe the Real Secrets designers will take that into consideration and offer up more red lacquer items with gold Chinese symbols on them.

[Richard Kaufman]

I personally prefer the black Chinese symbols to the gold ones.

Hey, RS TEAM! I want some Chinese lettering on my Real Secrets tricks.

[Chris Aguilar]

I personally prefer the black Chinese symbols to the gold ones.

Hey, RS TEAM! I want some Chinese lettering on my Real Secrets tricks.

Since the majority of the items seem to be paper based, I'd bet they could likely accommodate that request.

[JHostler]

Holy freakin' cow - the word count on this topic (across three fora, mind you) now rivals that of the entire Apocalypse run. If only all that time, effort and angst could be redirected and reinvested... I'd buy the tome sight unseen. (Yes, bad joke.)

Healthy principle or unchecked neurosis? I still haven't figured it out. In any case, does it really matter whether RS is sheer brilliance, utter crap, or something 'tween when subscribers have the option to back out? The free market reigns.

Bloody hell - two minutes of my life down the drain.

[Tom Pilling]

Uh-huh.

Bizarrely, and for the first time ever, I find little to choose between Genii, Magic Cafe and Magic Bunny in terms of silliness.

I like silliness. Let's keep it up.

The one person who seems to have kept very cool is Mr Stone. Well done that man.

Or, is, he, [dramatic music], the, brains, behind, REEEEEEAAAAALLL SEEEEECTREEETTSSSSSSSS?????????

Nope. I don't think so.

[Richard Kaufman]

Tom's not a secret. :)

[Tom Pilling]

That's true!

I hope this all just dies. No offence, RS, but....stretch......yawn.......

[Richard Kaufman]

Apropos of the conversation on Magic Bunbun, from The New York Times, an article on internet babble called "The Nasty Effect":
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opini ... ks.html?hp

[Ted M]

Brad's post is spot on. Members of RS paid money for two things:
1. Tricks
2. Exclusivity/secrecy of the tricks

Abrahamelin has taken away part of #2

Real Secrets itself does not seem to place the same value on #2 that some here do.

The illusion in RS #10 was published all over the internet well before Real Secrets decided to appropriate it without attribution and sell it to us. Go to http://images.google.com and search for t**** illusion.

[Ray Chelt]

Brad's post is spot on. Members of RS paid money for two things:
1. Tricks
2. Exclusivity/secrecy of the tricks

Abrahamelin has taken away part of #2

Real Secrets itself does not seem to place the same value on #2 that some here do.

The illusion in RS #10 was published all over the internet well before Real Secrets decided to appropriate it without attribution and sell it to us. Go to http://images.google.com and search for t**** illusion.

This does somewhat ruin Brads suggestion that by revealing the effect, not the method, you would be spoiling the surprise for the spectator.

Its a ridiculous argument anyway, I suppose nobody should ever do the cups and balls trick again because the surprise of this was ruined by those pesky Egyptians.

But at the end of the day I agree with a previous poster that, no matter which forum you go to, nastiness and silliness prevails on this topic. I'm most shocked at Genii over this.

People are paying a small amount of money for a bit of fun on RS. Yes for me it looks complete tosh but, unless anybody was calling me an idiot for not subscribing ( and I've never heard anybody forcing RS down peopls throats), what skin is it off my nose.

Each to their own.

On the subject of the exposure of effect then for me there was a non legal acknowledgement when you signed up not to reveal the effects. This is possibly the biggest try on I have ever heard and was the warning I needed not to subscrible.

But, if you subscribed, then for me there would be a moral imperative ( not legal) to keep schtum. It may be hard if you think its a rip off but thats what you agreed to and the warning about what you may get was implicit in RS ridiculous T & C's.

Forget the silly arguments from the likes of Brad trying to justify why you shouldn't expose. It comes down to the moral question " Do I keep to my word ?"

[Bill Mullins]

Brad's post is spot on. Members of RS paid money for two things:
1. Tricks
2. Exclusivity/secrecy of the tricks

Abrahamelin has taken away part of #2

Real Secrets itself does not seem to place the same value on #2 that some here do.

The illusion in RS #10 was published all over the internet well before Real Secrets decided to appropriate it without attribution and sell it to us. Go to http://images.google.com and search for t**** illusion.

Ted -- if you will check the most recent update about this illusion at the RS page, you will see that I am fully aware of the background of it (moreso, I dare say, than most of the people who are commenting about it here). So don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

The originator of the illusion published it in an academic book, without restrictions for others to take advantage of it -- so RS isn't "appropriating" it. You are applying magic trick standards to something that was developed outside of the magic community. RS should have credited the originator when they released it, and they have now rectified that error. Their hands are clean on this front.

And despite it being "all over the internet", most laypeople are still unaware of it. It is still a "secret" in that sense, and the presentation method provided by RS is still exclusive to RS members.

Having said all that, though, anyone who received it through RS had an obligation to keep their pie holes shut about it, at least as far as it is connected to RS. That abrahamelin couldn't says much more about him than his description of RS Year 1 says about RS.

[Ted M]

The originator of the illusion published it in an academic book [...] You are applying magic trick standards to something that was developed outside of the magic community. RS should have credited the originator when they released it, and they have now rectified that error. Their hands are clean on this front.

Bill, rather than applying magic community standards, if we applied the standard of the academic community where it was developed, then presenting someone else's work without first researching and citing its source would unarguably be considered plagiarism.

[Bill Mullins]

Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work as your own. RS didn't claim to invent the illusion, they just didn't do a great job of crediting it. A different sin, and one that is not as bad.

[Ted M]

The academic standard holds the writer responsible for clearly identifying anything that is not his/her own work.

"Background: W***. This version developed by Real Secrets."

These are the full credits given. There is zero indication in this section (or elsewhere) that the illusion is not the creation of W*** or Real Secrets.

This presents another person's work as W***/RS' own. In the academic community, this would be called plagiarism, hands down.

[Bill Mullins]

I say they were sloppy, you say they stole it. It looks like we disagree.

[Ted M]

I say that by the standards of the academic community it would be denounced as plagiarism.

By the standards of the magic community...

[Jim Riser]

The magic community has standards???
Jim

[Matthew Field]

Ye gods. Yes, the illusion in question is not new. But What Real Secrets has done is send me a tangible version of the thing I can put in my wallet and amaze someone with.

No one is forcing anyone to opt in to the project. Not every month may provide something you, personally, can or will use. As Paul Wilson said, I enjoy the stimulus, I like the thoughts involved, I like the props. I look forward to year two.

Matt Field

[Brad Henderson]

Brad's post is spot on. Members of RS paid money for two things:
1. Tricks
2. Exclusivity/secrecy of the tricks

Abrahamelin has taken away part of #2

Real Secrets itself does not seem to place the same value on #2 that some here do.

The illusion in RS #10 was published all over the internet well before Real Secrets decided to appropriate it without attribution and sell it to us. Go to



http://images.google.com and search for t**** illusion.

This does somewhat ruin Brads suggestion that by revealing the effect, not the method, you would be spoiling the surprise for the spectator.

Its a ridiculous argument anyway, I suppose nobody should ever do the cups and balls trick again because the surprise of this was ruined by those pesky Egyptians.

But at the end of the day I agree with a previous poster that, no matter which forum you go to, nastiness and silliness prevails on this topic. I'm most shocked at Genii overthis.

People are paying a small amount of money for a bit of fun on RS. Yes for me it looks complete tosh but, unless anybody was calling me an idiot for not subscribing ( and I've never heard anybody forcing RS down peopls throats), what skin is it off my nose.

Each to their own

On the subject of the exposure of effect then for me there was a non legal acknowledgement when you signed up not to reveal the effects. This is possibly the biggest try on I have ever heard and was the warning I needed not to subscrible.
But, if you subscribed, then for me there would be a moral imperative ( not legal) to keep schtum. It may be hard if you think its a rip off but thats what you agreed to and the warning about what you may get was implicit in RS ridiculous T & C's.

Forget the silly arguments from the likes of Brad trying to justify why you shouldn't expose. It comes down to the moral question " Do I keep to my word ?"

I promised no one anything when I bought an invisible deck. So there is no moral argument against my exposing it to people who might someday see it?

I promised no one anything when I bought the latest trick book and or DVD. So is there no moral argument against my explaining everything on a magic forum to those who might possibly see the material, either in performance at a magic club or in demonstration at a dealers booth?

You are correct when you conclude that when one agrees to keep a secret, one should stand by their word. But based on magicians behaviors when secrets to tricks In which THEY have a vested interest are revealed, I think you will have a hard time convincing the throngs that there isn't something inherently non productive, if not outright wrong, in the exposure of elements which deter the magic suprise.

[PapaG]

Just want to apologise to Tom Stone for a couple of posts earlier.

Clearly I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was going on the MB forum.

Everything he referred to was happening in the public domain and no private confidences were betrayed.

[Ray Chelt]

Brad's post is spot on. Members of RS paid money for two things:
1. Tricks
2. Exclusivity/secrecy of the tricks

Abrahamelin has taken away part of #2

Real Secrets itself does not seem to place the same value on #2 that some here do.

The illusion in RS #10 was published all over the internet well before Real Secrets decided to appropriate it without attribution and sell it to us. Go to



http://images.google.com and search for t**** illusion.

This does somewhat ruin Brads suggestion that by revealing the effect, not the method, you would be spoiling the surprise for the spectator.

Its a ridiculous argument anyway, I suppose nobody should ever do the cups and balls trick again because the surprise of this was ruined by those pesky Egyptians.

But at the end of the day I agree with a previous poster that, no matter which forum you go to, nastiness and silliness prevails on this topic. I'm most shocked at Genii overthis.

People are paying a small amount of money for a bit of fun on RS. Yes for me it looks complete tosh but, unless anybody was calling me an idiot for not subscribing ( and I've never heard anybody forcing RS down peopls throats), what skin is it off my nose.

Each to their own

On the subject of the exposure of effect then for me there was a non legal acknowledgement when you signed up not to reveal the effects. This is possibly the biggest try on I have ever heard and was the warning I needed not to subscrible.
But, if you subscribed, then for me there would be a moral imperative ( not legal) to keep schtum. It may be hard if you think its a rip off but thats what you agreed to and the warning about what you may get was implicit in RS ridiculous T & C's.

Forget the silly arguments from the likes of Brad trying to justify why you shouldn't expose. It comes down to the moral question " Do I keep to my word ?"

I promised no one anything when I bought an invisible deck. So there is no moral argument against my exposing it to people who might someday see it?

I promised no one anything when I bought the latest trick book and or DVD. So is there no moral argument against my explaining everything on a magic forum to those who might possibly see the material, either in performance at a magic club or in demonstration at a dealers booth?

You are correct when you conclude that when one agrees to keep a secret, one should stand by their word. But based on magicians behaviors when secrets to tricks In which THEY have a vested interest are revealed, I think you will have a hard time convincing the throngs that there isn't something inherently non productive, if not outright wrong, in the exposure of elements which deter the magic suprise.

You are being silly here. There is a moral agreement not to describe the effects in RS. Fine if people sign up to it.

But when you start a wider argument on not "exposing" effect (not method) you are blatantly ignoring the fact that demos and ads for tricks do exactly that.

RS is a one off (and in my opinion a daft one). You cannot use their rules and try to apply them to everything else.

NB wouldn't these reviews by you be exposure by your definition:

http://www.mylovelyassistant.com/reviews/user/30

[Brad Henderson]

shouldn't it be up to the producer/creator to determine how they would like their content distributed?

The notion of magic reviews and the magic marketplace itself works contrary to the goal of encouraging an art which lives up to the 'uniqueness' conjured by the name magic. However, there are people who make money performing and selling to other magicians - and it is to their advantage for that information to be widely disseminated. Though I do recall a few instances when a reviewer intentionally omitted part of a description so his readers could enjoy the impact of a particular item when demonstrated live - so, even then, there is an acknowledgement that the impact of performance can be spoiled by premature revelation.

But there are magicians and now a magic producer dealing with items whose value comes from their exclusivity - and isn't it their right to determine both how they choose to advertise/market their service and the limitations place on subscribers in order to maintain that value?

If a group/school/gaggle of magicians wish to work within a paradigm of a particular value system, one which is forced upon no one, what moral good comes from thwarting their efforts? I don't know about you, but I don't find a lot of that which goes on in the magic world to be really interesting. And arts should be trying to encourage interesting things. Taking steps which actively hinder someone's attempts - whether you agree with their goals or not - seems hardly the actions of a moral person.

[Ray Chelt]

So all your reviews were vetted by the creator ?

[Q. Kumber]

Two friends, that I know of, subscribe to RS. I do not. Knowing that they do, I choose not to discuss it with them. It would be unfair for me, as a friend to put pressure on them.. They would feel bad by either discussing their monthly goodies with me, knowing they had promised not to, or telling me they can't discuss and potentially annoying me.

I respect what they signed up for and would feel irritated myself if I had signed and now found what I had agreed to was being discussed all over the magical Internet, by people who had made the same promise.

[erdnasephile]

RK please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the majority of reviews that appear in the magic press are items submitted by the creator for review. If this is true, then if it is the publication's custom to detail the effect, the creator would seem to be giving tacit approval to do so.

However, I can't think of a reputable reviewer who would go out of their way to violate a creator's specific wish not to expose a specific effect. Indeed, years ago, a very highly priced book test was reviewed by Danny Orleans and the specifics of the effect were not shared. However, the review was constructed carefully enough to let the reader know what the key features were, and to determine whether it was for them. Thus, it preserved the creator's wish for exclusivity and protected the value to the purchasers, while still informing the readers who had the skills to use it.

(FWIW, that particular item was not available to just anyone. The creator would only sell it to those he deemed skilled enough to utilize the item to the fullest. Imagine what the "it's the elites vs. us" hater crowd would do with that...)

[Brad Henderson]

all my reviews were items submitted to me for review or items for which the creators placed no restrictions for review. There are many great items of which I am aware personally which I did not review because the creator did NOT want knowledge of their product to be wide spread.

But that has nothing to do with anything. If you wish to indict the magic for magicians industry (which includes the magic marketplace and reviews) as being counter productive to the goal of magic as an art - I would agree with you.

Allowing a review of a commercially released product intended for mass consumption to influence your reperatoire decisions is probably not a path which leads to growth as a magician or artist. Any choice which encourages sameness among performers, Including choice of material, is an unartistic and uninteresting one.

Sadly there is a lot of money to be made selling sameness to magicians. Hence we have reviews - which I no longer provide.

But yes, I have participated in the magic marketplace and have reviewed items which were being pushed via advertisement to the community and had sufficient push to warrant a review.

Real Secrets is NOT pushing their items into the marketplace. As alec has commented, their model actually works against them when it comes to encouraging new subscriptions. They have taken a stance which prevents members for being able to thoroughly defend positive opinions against attacks from those who have never seen an rs item, knowing about them only through vindictive, biased exposures.

So, if they decide that they want to put out a series of items that is NOT geared for mass consumption. If they decide they would like to operate within a different paradigm that values exclusivity over market saturation. And as they have mechanisms in place to insure those dissatisfied can receive satisfaction, then I don't see how a mature, sensible adult who cares about magic and wants to see it grow would actively attempt to thwart their compeers efforts.

it's funny. on the cafe we are told that it's ok to discuss and share because everyone there are brothers, and brothers take care of each other.

So why can't we respect our brothers's choice to try to offer or present magic that is not googleable, that is not so common as to be cliche?

I come back to the question - given the money back guarantee and the value of exclusivity - what good comes from an exposure like abrahamelin's?

as no good comes from it, it serves the purpose only to upset those having fun and destroy exclusivity.

are those moral actions, Ray?

[kevinm]

If not for anything else, RS has kept us commenting and ranting. I look forward to Season 2.

[Tom Pilling]

Truly, I think most of us who have not subscribed are only really interested in the quality of the material. Did it deliver?

A few have got bogged down in what at best was a marketing ploy, or at worst was a piece of vanity.

As performers, we understand the importance of "bang for your buck"; the curiosity for those of us on the outside is, "Were you satisfied by the bang?"

;)

[Brad Henderson]

I got some great ideas, and have had fun presenting an idea or two. one of the bonus items was the best of it's kind I've ever seen.

Several well known magicians have publicly stated they enjoy and feel they received value.

Of course, as we have Learned, these people are shills, part of the you scratch my back clan, or are suffering from some stokholm syndrome esque delusions. On the bunny rk was accused of engaging in double speak when he seemingly praised rs.


So - does it matter what subscribers think when their positive statements are ignored or used as proof of some imagined conspiracy?

[Richard Kaufman]

Most items are submitted to us by Murphy's Magic, acting as the exclusive distributor. Other items also come in, but less frequently. I send out almost everything to the reviewers, but they don't review all the items they receive. That's their choice. We always have more on hand to review than we have space for, so we generally don't buy stuff to review if it isn't sent to us.

[Ian Kendall]

After a couple of days away from all this, an interesting coincidence happened last night. First, though, a wee look at the timeline of the whole brou-ha-ha might help.

Before things split into an inter-fora war that is in danger of being swallowed by a small dog, there was a post on the Bunny listing the effects that were put out by RS. The poster, an amateur magician from Blackpool, had signalled his intention a few months earlier of making such a post, and we've probably all seen that by now. At the start of the post, he accuses RS of stealing a particular item, saying that it had was the creation of Kim Iles, and Iles was not credited.

Despite the fact that Iles says himself that he did not create this piece, the ball was picked up by Mike Jay, and things dissolved into a witch hunt of epic proportions. During this riot of common sense and reason, Richard was accused of all kinds of nefarious deeds. When he posted to the contrary, he was met with another barrage of common sense and reason which crossed the digital divide into this forum. At this point, our local paragon of good taste and charm stepped in (Hi, Damian!) and pointed out the possible libellous nature of that train of thought.

From here things went a bit south in the diplomacy stakes, with one member of the company adding 2+2 and getting 14,321, and the resulting meltdown could be felt in Sweden, where Tom bailed in a cloud of credits.

Now, here's the coincidence; remember how this all started with the claim that Hypercard was stolen? The reference cited is Fulves' introduction to the effect in the Chronicles (1978). Last night I pulled a random book from the shelf for a bit of light reading, and it happened to be The Hypercard Project by Tom Frame. In its introduction there is a more detailed letter from Kim Iles, who ends up with the lines:

"No problem from my viewpoint for anyone to adopt it in any way they please".

Which puts a slightly different spin on things...

[Jonathan Townsend]

"No problem from my viewpoint for anyone to adopt it in any way they please".

Vague internet postings. Mystery envelopes. Looks like plot points for contemporary thriller/puzzle stories including The Ninth Gate or National Treasure... or Eco's story Foucalt's Pendulum. How about a movie?

[Richard Kaufman]

Welcome to the new forum!
Looks a mess on my iPhone but progress is being made!

[Bill Mullins]

If you like the Real Secrets business model (surprises in the mail), you may find this interesting.

[Richard Kaufman]

Bill, that's very interesting. And expensive!

[Matthew Field]

From the Quarterly Co. website: "Quarterly is a devoted cheerleader of the United States Postal Service. We love the mail and we love that we can use the USPS to send wonderful things to you." When I stop laughing I'll read more.

[Richard Kaufman]

hehehe ... good one, Matt.

[stereo]

New April Real Secrets stuff is available now on the website.

[Richard Kaufman]

Thanks for the tip!
Unfortunately it appears that for the second month in a row we are not getting printed instructions with the effect, just a pdf that we have to print out ourselves. I don't like that.