Conceptions of Mystery by Shane Black

[Tom Frame]

Conceptions of Mystery (PDF) by Shane Black $24.99
61 pages, 189 photos
Available at: http://www.shaneblackmagic.com/product.html


This PDF contains 19 items from Shane Black.

Mr. Blacks writing leaves much to be desired. The text is rife with typographical and grammatical errors. He appears to have no understanding of syntax. His meandering sentences run on and on and he frequently doesnt bother to use periods or capitalization. This sloppy writing makes for very annoying reading. Heres a teeth-gnashing example:

One #19 rubber band, I prefer a fossil watch the leather band is larger but an average wrist band will work too but not as sufficient as the other thats it!

The quality of his teaching runs from adequate to poor. His instructions often lack important detail and are sometimes confusing.

The photos are extremely helpful. Godsends, really. But they are on separate pages from the text. So, the reader is forced to scroll back and forth between the text and the photos in a frustrating attempt to comprehend the methodology.

There is no pagination.

Mr. Black makes a half-hearted attempt to provide attribution, but he doesnt dig back far enough in the published record to cite primary sources.


P.I.P.1: A card is selected and left on top of the deck. The performer openly palms the selection and grips a bottle of beer, wrapping the card around the bottle. He shakes the bottle and peels the card off of it, revealing that the card has a blank face. He pours out the bottle and the cards image is now printed on the inside of the bottle.

Youll need to spend about 15 minutes and a couple of bucks to have the gimmick fabricated. The image of the card printed inside of the bottle looks very good.

Surprisingly, Mr. Black states that you can let your participant keep the bottle. I strongly advise against this gesture. If the participant pokes around inside of the bottle, she will quickly discover the gimmick. Keep the bottle, preserve the magic and reuse the gimmick. I like it.


P.I.P.2: In this version of the effect, the cards image appears on the inside of a beer glass.

Youll need to buy a glass that matches those found in the tavern where you plan to perform this effect. Then youll need to drop a few bucks to have the glass specially prepared. Mr. Blacks procedure for secretly smuggling the glass into the venue demands that you wear, uh, shall we say, accommodating attire.

The author doesnt address what happens to the glass at the conclusion of the effect. Ostensibly, the glass is the property of the bars owner, so you cant simply take it home with you. If you tell the proprietor whats actually going on, he may let you keep his glass, but the other patrons will wonder why youre the only person that gets free glasses. They will approach the proprietor about this inequity, and hell be placed in an uncomfortable position that may cause him to terminate his arrangement with you.

You could leave the glass at the bar, but I doubt that the proprietor will be thrilled that you altered one of his glasses. If you repeatedly perform the effect, the bar owner will be the unhappy recipient of a growing inventory of altered glasses.

You could buy the glass. This proposition will delight the proprietor. He makes money and his inventory of glasses somehow never decreases. Over time, your costs will mount. I dont like it.


Mental and Proud of It!: The performer borrows a participants signed dollar bill. He removes a pen from his pocket, clips the folded bill to it and tables it. The participant selects a card which is lost in the deck. The performer removes a prediction envelope from his pocket and hands it to the participant. He removes a ring box from his pocket and tables it.

The participant opens the envelope and finds a key. She uses the key to open the ring box and discovers her signed bill inside. She opens the folded bill clipped to the pen and sees that the performer previously wrote the name of her selected card on it.

Though Mr. Blake doesnt refer to it by name, the ring box is actually a Lippincott Coin Box, which will cost you about $30.00. You will also require a common magical device.

This is a poorly designed effect. When the participant sees the second bill, she can only conclude that you switched her bill, even if she doesnt know exactly how you did it. From there, its likely that she will be able to reconstruct a close approximation of the remaining methodology. I dont like it.


Simplest Freaking Card Steal Ever: This is a technique for secretly stealing a selected card from a fan.

There is nothing simple about deceptively executing this technique, nor is there anything new here.


All Head No Substance: This is a technique for causing a jumbo coin to repeatedly vanish and reappear in your hands.

Mr. Blacks acknowledges that his methodology is extremely angle sensitive. He states, The placement of your spectator should be to your left side almost looking over your left shoulder with your body slightly slouching over during the second vanish.

While the authors methodology is clever and the effect looks good, its just too angley for my tastes. I dont like it.


Poor Mans Ring Flight: The performer borrows a ring and places it in his left hand. The ring vanishes and then appears on the ring finger of his right hand.

The authors moniker for this effect is inaccurate. It bears no resemblance to Ring Flight as we know it. Considering his Rube Goldberg-ish methodology, I fear that he is not familiar with the basic sleight of hand techniques used to produce this common effect.

To cover some dirty work, Mr. Black says, I dont have any sleeves but if I did I would need to pull the [sic] up. Yes, he actually pretends to pull up his imaginary sleeves, not once, but twice! I dont like it.


Water of Leaf: While lounging in a swimming pool, the wet wizard submerges a handy leaf, tears it into four pieces and restores it.

Youll require a filled swimming pool that just happens to have several similar leaves floating on the surface. So yes, its an anytime, anywhere effect. Mr. Blacks method is pedestrian and is probably transparent to all but those wearing water wings. I dont like it.


C.T.B. Live: A card is freely selected and lost in the deck. The performer cases the deck and holds it over the participants hands. The selection penetrates the case and falls into the participants hands.

While the authors handling is fine, theres nothing new here.


Casper: A card is freely selected and lost in the deck. The performer holds his hand over the deck. The deck begins to spread itself slightly. A card slowly creeps out of the deck and turns face-up. It is the selection.

The method utilizes a common magical aid. Theres nothing innovative about Mr. Blacks handling, which strikes me as being rather transparent. He loses points for neglecting to mention Al Baker. I dont like it.


B.B. Double: Mr. Black teaches his technique for causing a double card to spring off the top of the deck, do several revolutions and land on the deck or in the hand without splitting.

This is a knacky technique. Considerable practice is required to consistently propel the cards and prevent them from separating. I have no interest in card juggling, but I imagine that the flourish fiends will dig it.


Clinchd!: This is a technique for propelling the top card off of the deck. It too will require a lot of practice. I feel the same way about it as I do about the previous technique.


Snap Change on Steroids: Clearly, the author believes that he has developed an innovative version of the Snap Change which (he fails to mention) is typically associated with Ed Marlo. Well, Im here to inform him that this is not the Snap Change. He has simply reinvented Marlo's "Miracle Change No. 1", from Miracle Card Changes, published in 1954! He loses points for not doing the required research.


Blown: A participant signs her dollar bill. The performer inflates a balloon and pierces it with a large needle attached to a piece of thread. He pulls the needle all the way through the balloon, leaving the thread inside. He takes the participants bill and pushes it through the balloon, where it is seen to be impaled by the thread. The participant pops the balloon and the performer breaks the thread and returns her bill to her.

Obviously, youll require a Super Needled Balloon. Mr. Black uses standard methods to create this unusual multi-phase effect. There are two problems with this effect. First, after the participant signs her bill, the performer uses the pen to scribble on the ends of the bill. He offers no presentational justification for this action. The participant must wonder why he needed to do this. She may correctly deduce that the method demands it.

Second, the participant has just seen that her bill was pierced by the thread. Being a logical woman, she realizes that the piercing created a hole in her bill. Yet when the performer returns her bill to her, there is no hole in it! What happened to the hole?

Mr. Black doesnt address this glaring discrepancy. The participant wonders if the performer magically healed the hole as a bonus effect. Nah. If that was the case, he would have called attention to it and claimed credit for the restoration. In her attempt to make sense of this discrepancy, the participant may discover the method. I dont like it.


In the next section, the author provides superficial descriptions of the Pinky Break, Riffle Force, Cull and Tenkai Palm.


Machine Gun Deck: The performer uses a rubber band to shoot a card off the top of the deck.

This isnt magic. Its not even much of a stunt. Its a pasteboard slingshot. So what? I dont like it.


Tabled Pass Cut: This is simply the Erdnase Shift completed by cutting the deck to the table. Mr. Black states, What makes this unique is the delivery I use to make it invisible. I couldnt detect any special delivery. Theres nothing new here.


Felony: The performer borrows a participants dollar bill. He signs the front of it and she signs its back. He folds the bill, tears off a quarter of it and places the pieces in the participants hands. Upon opening her hand, the participant discovers that her bill is now restored.

Youll need to create a special dollar bill. The preparation is easy and takes only a moment. Mr. Blacks handling is well constructed and efficient, except for his latest version of the clean-up. It involves the performers ludicrous demonstration of a common act. His original method, while standard, is cleaner and appears natural. I like it.


Back & Black Change: The performer sandwiches an indifferent card between two fanned Kings. By shaking the sandwich, the indifferent card changes into a previously selected card.

Given the vivid visual change, the crowd will want to examine the cards. You cannot grant their wish because you are left dirty. The author offers no suggestions for cleaning up. I dont like it.


Copper & Silver Delight: This is a multi-phase Spellbound effect.

While this effect is just fine and dandy, it doesnt break any new ground. You must wear a jacket to execute Mr. Blacks recommended clean-up.


The Elmers Gag: In a restaurant setting, the performer approaches a table and prepares to perform a card effect. While shuffling the deck, he drops the cards onto the table in a face-up/face-down mess. Mortified, he whips out a bottle of Elmers glue, pours some into his hand and rubs his hands together. He says, Sometimes magic smells like lavender. He thrusts his hand into the patrons faces and urges them to smell it.

He picks up the cards and spreads through them, displaying their face-up/face-down condition. He snaps his fingers and spreads the deck on the table, revealing that all of the cards now face the same way.

The author doesnt teach you how to right the deck, but he urges you to use Kimlat Kostyas Road Runner Cull.

Mr. Black claims that he uses this effect as his opener, and that it elicits peals of laughter from the diners. Hes kidding, right? If not, he must possess an incredibly charming, engaging, downright lovable personality.

Call me a petulant party pooper, but I think this effect is rude, not humorous. Scattering a deck of cards onto a group of strangers dining table is funny? Purportedly pouring glue on your hand and sticking it in someones face for a smell is a hoot? I dont understand the lavender joke and I live in San Francisco. I dont like it.


Not Recommended

[Richard Kaufman]

"Tabled Pass Cut: This is simply the Erdnase Shift completed by cutting the deck to the table. Mr. Black states, What makes this unique is the delivery I use to make it invisible. I couldnt detect any special delivery. Theres nothing new here."
Correct: The above is Howie Schwarzman's.

The Snap Change, if it's the move I think you're talking about, is Horace Goldin's, not Ed Marlo's. Double card held between thumb, first, and second finger. Second finger snaps the card toward the wrist. Horace Goldin.

The Needle Through Balloon was invented by Tom Ransom.

[Shane.Black]

I appreciate you taking the time to review my book Tom, on the other hand the need to rip my creativity in the manner that you have was not needed. These effects have served me well for the past eight years and the book was proofed by several editors so maybe your just a bit too picky but to each his own. I will admit I'm not an english major but others that have read the book have concluded it to be easier to learn from than other books on the market.

As of the moment I encourage everyone to feel free to contact me for alternative reviews from other contributors in the business that have purchased the book and actually performed these effects.

I wrote the book to follow the classic cook book template breaking each effect down simplifying the reading experience.

Here was my approach.

1. The effect and basic presentation.
2. Each step along with being number coded.
3. Then illustrations to follow the number codes.

In the beginning of the book I explain how to read and follow the book for simplicity. Why did I write the book in this manner?

Following detailed steps in a book can become fustrating in long narrations leaving you getting lost on lines and having to back track to find your spot. I wanted to present each effect where it was easy to get a clear picture of what the effect was first so you have a general idea of what your about to learn.

Next I wanted you to be able to follow the illustrations which are in HD by the way allowing you to go back and read the steps if needed to get a better picture of what your doing, so far most of the reviews have applauded me for taking the extra step to help readers learn from an easier perspective. I was very detailed in each effect and spent over two years making sure all attention was in detail so I encourage you to understand that maybe my style of writing is just not for you and that's fine.

I have included credits, thanks, and inspirations in the book and I clearly stated if I missed anyone my apoligies and I would fix the issue promptly but I did my homework Tom but I don't know everything and in any effect released in this day and age there can always be a missed credit or two.

P.I.P- I explain how the effect works and how it can be handed out but I also stated you have to be very careful and pick your audience well if you decide to take that route.

P.I.P. 2- Closing and finished handling is explained in detail I'm not sure what you mean there?

Mental & Proud of it- Also a workers routine and in any situation in magic where something changes your audience could assume you changed it but that has yet to be an issue with laymen and magicians alike. I believe that lies in the hands of good presentation but call me old school there.

S.F.C.S.E.- Please clarify where this has been published since I have been demonstating this handling for over eight years and have shown it to many of the top minds in the industry that are using it till this very day.

All Head No Substance- Another routine you have failed to see as unique and once again applauded by many in the business as well as used by them. Another approach is using this with a cell phone.

Poor Mans Ring Flight- I'm not familiar with his handling but the inpsiration was the ring flight plot and I'm sure sleight of hand can accomplish the same thing here but this approach allows you to show the front and backs of your hands before and after the execution please show me where sleight of hand can do that.

Water of Leaf- I have been doing this effect for twenty years and there is this moment called summer in the ear that allows you the perfect setting for accomplishing this effect, once again you failed to see the potential in the effect here but to be fair I use a torn and restore plot effect with a beer label that kills audiences using the same sleights.

Casper- Very different handling here my friend. You begin clean and end clean while doing the same ol' handling, I failed to see Al's take on this so that is my bad but performers such as Kranzo, Ammar, and others love this approach.

BB Double & Clinch'd- lol I'm not a card juggler but I guess Lernart Green is since his performs a top shot or Lee Asher has a Diving Board double. Just a flashy way of flipping a double or shooting a card to off the top of the deck and yes like all visual magic it requires practice. Usually sybils and such fall withing juggling.

Blown- This is intented as a parlor effect so yes you will need the needle and balloon but I did fail to mention the tear that is prepped in the signed bill thanks for bringing that to my attention I will get on that.

Machine Gun Deck- I stated this wasn't a trick in the first sentence, I have gotten rave reviews for the fun of the effect at conventions and added it to the book for those that want somewhere else to go if the situation presents itself.

Tabled Pass Cut- I'm aware who creating this approach but the shifting of the pass and cover was my added contribution once again stated.

Back & Black- Sorry you didn't see the possibilities of this handling and a simple Tenkai is the clean up upon handout, this is sleight of hand not real magic.

Copper & Silver Delight- Once again I stated in the beginning of the book this is a workers collection not the razzle dazzle, smoke and mirror effects that require elaborate setups but instead to give you new ideas and routines to use.

Elmer's Gag- I can't beleive you don't like this one since just about everyone I have ever showed this to has it in their workers repoitore now.

In conclusion I hate having to respond to a review like this and usually I never would, I respect Tom and his contributions but his review was murderous, bias, and very opinionated and I have worked very hard on these effects to let his opinions diminish my contributions.

PS. For those of you that are not familiar with my work feel free to look in last months Genii to find the review for my "Sweetly Done" there as well as this months Magic Magazine for my effect "The Pandora System". Videos are here.

Papercrane

Shane

[Shane.Black]

I have made arrangments to fix the crediting issues I missed gentlemen.

Shane ;)

[Shane.Black]

I apoligize for the confusion on crediting, I have taken the steps to fix them and bring the book up to par. I started by removing the snap change and Elmer's gag completly from the book. The book was proofed and researched and it's next to impossible to know everything that's been previously published but I edited the book for the grammar, credits, run-ons and such and sent a new copy to Tom for his help in finding things that I may have missed as well as the stores.

My deepest apoligies,

Shane

[Brad Henderson]

Just wanted to point out a couple of things

I appreciate you taking the time to review my book Tom, on the other hand the need to rip my creativity in the manner that you have was not needed. These effects have served me well for the past eight years and the book was proofed by several editors so maybe your just a bit too picky but to each his own. I will admit I'm not an english major but others that have read the book have concluded it to be easier to learn from than other books on the market. . . I was very detailed in each effect and spent over two years making sure all attention was in detail so I encourage you to understand that maybe my style of writing is just not for you and that's fine . . .

and perhaps Tom's style of reviewing and range of values are different from yours. To criticize someone for doing something differently that you would want it done, when you are defending your choices as a matter of a different approach seems desperate and hypocritical.

I have included credits, thanks, and inspirations in the book and I clearly stated if I missed anyone my apoligies and I would fix the issue promptly but I did my homework Tom but I don't know everything and in any effect released in this day and age there can always be a missed credit or two.

Missing Al Baker as a credit in the Haunted Back is not just "missing a credit or two." I think it's egregious oversights of this magnitude, and the callous dismal of it being just "Al's take on it" that give one's work an appearance of either laziness, ignorance, or indifference. I appreciate that you are willing to learn from this and make changes as needed. I just hope you can see how and why it was worthy of comment.

S.F.C.S.E.- Please clarify where this has been published since I have been demonstating this handling for over eight years and have shown it to many of the top minds in the industry that are using it till this very day.

All Head No Substance- Another routine you have failed to see as unique and once again applauded by many in the business as well as used by them. Another approach is using this with a cell phone.

I am always intrigued by these allusions to "top names." Would you mind sharing who these top names are? Maybe there are "top names" out there who don't know the history of the art their purport to love. With notoriety becoming more a function of post count youtube hits than real world performing experience, I think it is wise to support these claims with names.

Who do you consider to be the "top names" who missed this credit?

BB Double & Clinch'd- lol I'm not a card juggler but I guess Lernart Green is since his performs a top shot or Lee Asher has a Diving Board double. Just a flashy way of flipping a double or shooting a card to off the top of the deck and yes like all visual magic it requires practice. Usually sybils and such fall withing juggling.

And THAT would be your opinion of the line between magic and juggling. Tom has another and he did a great job of letting us know of his bias in that regard. He's a reviewer. That's his job and he did it.

Elmer's Gag- I can't beleive you don't like this one since just about everyone I have ever showed this to has it in their workers repoitore now.

I first saw Bill Goldman use Elmer's glue as a hand/hair lotion back in the early 90's. It was funny. Then again, he wasn't putting his hands in other people's faces.

A lot of stupid things play well for magicians - and then they foist it on their own audiences to the result of them thinking we are either stupid or jerks.

Intentionally calling a volunteer by the wrong name is rude, but magicians think it is funny. I remember dozens of young magicians buying the shock cards when they came out. they thought it was great. They were wrong.

I think the issue here is not with the notion of using Elmer's glue in an atypical context, but in invading the person's space and having them do something demeaning - to smell you.

I'm sure it get's laughs though. So would spilling blood on someone or farting in church.

. . . his review was murderous, bias, and very opinionated and I have worked very hard on these effects to let his opinions diminish my contributions.

Reviews are supposed to be biased and opinionated. That's why they are called reviews. Good reviewers inform their readers of their worldview, and the reader can then put those words into context.

Tom's opinions do not diminish anything you have done. They may shed light on perceived discrepancies, disappointments, over sights and even mistakes - but your work is your work and his opinion is his opinion. He gave his opinion and backed it up. That's his job

[Shane.Black]

Brad,

I'm not sure where you got the idea I run around sticking my hands in peoples faces but nothing could be further from the truth. To call me ignorant due to the fact that my routine is different from Al's is below you so I would stop there my friend.

I can see why you out of all people would come to the rescue of Tom since your interest involves you writing reviews but I have not attacked Tom nor have I avoided to taking his advice I just stated the obvious. Trust me when I tell you I haven't been sneaking into these guys shows and stealing their material everything I have ever written or produced has been sole created and if I find that I missed crediting someone I have always and I mean always done the right thing. I'm an artist in every aspect and I treat each one of my effects with a magnifying glass to make it as perfect as I can.

Reviews good and bad are fine from my perspective and it's an opportunity to learn from them when your on the recieving end but this review was demeanoring in every aspect so I have to live with it but before you judge a book by its cover maybe you should get to know me first before we resort to name calling. I'm done with this thread it's a revolving door I'm damned if I take a stand for my work and I'm damned if I don't.

Bottom line I fixed the issue and your trying to pour gas on a fuse thats already been lit and put out, great job.

Shane

[Brad Henderson]

Shane,

this is not about you. I don't need to get to know you. YOU are irrelevant to this discussion.

What is relevant is your work and your response to Tom's review. That is the only thing on which I can judge you, and the only thing on which I SHOULD judge you.

I think you miss the point re: the Al Baker credit. Again, it's not that Al had a "take on" the effect.

Are you aware of Al Baker's role in the Haunted Deck effect?

And I did not call you ignorant. I said, egregious crediting errors suggest laziness, ignorance, or callousness. When reviewers (and people who care about these things) see these behaviors, this is what it suggests.

Clearly Tom thought Baker should be mentioned. I know why he feels this way. You chose not to mention him. Why? Maybe you didn't know - ignorance; or maybe you didn't have time - laziness; or maybe you didn't care - callousness.

Perhaps you have a better reason?

As to your statement: "I'm not sure where you got the idea I run around sticking my hands in peoples faces but nothing could be further from the truth."

I got that idea from Tom's review where he says: "Mortified, he whips out a bottle of Elmers glue, pours some into his hand and rubs his hands together. He says, 'Sometimes magic smells like lavender.' He thrusts his hand into the patrons faces and urges them to smell it. "

I was simply clarifying to you that - based on what Tom wrote - I don't think anyone would doubt the notion of using Elmer's in an atypical setting to be unfunny. In fact, as I pointed it, Goldman got laughs for years doing exactly that. The point Tom made, that you seem to have missed, had to do with the invasion of space and asking them to smell your hands.

Also, It seems wrong to me that you have no problem expressing YOUR opinion about the his review ("murderous", "demeanoring in every aspect" [sic], "not needed") but yet fault him for expressing HIS opinion about YOUR product.

Finally, I was really hoping you would list a few of the "top names." I ask you this not to put you on the spot, but I am curious as to whom you (and others on the scene today) feel are the knowledgeable, experienced, performers whose opinions should be privileged.

Am I defending Tom because I am a reviewer? Clearly I do have an interest in reviews. But I would hope I would have defended Tom simply because he did his job - which was to offer his opinion of a product sent to him - - - FOR HIS OPINION.

Seeing someone fault him for doing his job seemed worthy of comment.

But admittedly - that's JUST my opinion.

[Shane.Black]

Brad,

Yes I'm aware of Al's take and but the mechanics are different but the fact he is the root for the plot your right I slipped on that one and that was just a pure mistake it happens. As far as going into names thats irrelavent but I will be more than happy to PM that information to you.

Yes Tom is titled to his opinion as am I which is why I responded the way I did, in fact I despise that I had to do it since it's not my style. (Usually)

I have never seen Goldman do this in fact I took it out of the book completly but I have used this for almost eight years in my close up act and out of many I have showed it to noone has brought it to my attention it was Goldmans. Also my routine goes a little like this....There are two outs one when you drop a card the bottle is removed and drizzled on the hands and it gets it laugh, sometimes magic smells like lavender and "I" smell it and I mimmick my hand to them if they would like to smell it.

That is clearly stated in my book never do I say put your hand in their face. There is a second phase I state where you should take heed and if your set is going right and everyone is having fun I sometimes do the same thing but I mimmick placing my hand on their shoulder and then I say my line.

Very misleading.

I fail to see what else could be added to this post it's been diluted enough if you have anything you need feel free to PM me.

Shane

[Brad Henderson]

Brad,

...out of many I have showed it to noone has brought it to my attention it was Goldmans.

This brings me back to the question of WHO are those "many." (more on that later)

Also my routine goes a little like this....There are two outs one when you drop a card the bottle is removed and drizzled on the hands and it gets it laugh, sometimes magic smells like lavender and "I" smell it and I mimmick my hand to them if they would like to smell it.

That is clearly stated in my book never do I say put your hand in their face. There is a second phase I state where you should take heed and if your set is going right and everyone is having fun I sometimes do the same thing but I mimmick placing my hand on their shoulder and then I say my line.

Very misleading.

As someone who has written a bit (notice, I did not add the word 'successfully') I can attest to many times when I thought my words were succinct and clear, only to have my readers point out (accurately) that they weren't. Tom, whom I believe to be at least competent in his reading skills came away with the impression that you stuck your hand in their face. Perhaps this is the fault of Tom, perhaps it is the fault of the writing. But my point still stands - the issue has nothing to do with the use of Elmer's but with the idea of invading someone's space. Exactly how was it phrased in the book?

Yes Tom is titled to his opinion as am I which is why I responded the way I did, in fact I despise that I had to do it since it's not my style. (Usually)

Why did you feel you "had to do it?"

I guess I am still confused about what Tom did exactly that was apart from what a reviewer is SUPPOSED to do.

And yes, please PM me the names. It actually serves a discussion I have been having about magic role models/experts/fame, etc.

[Richard Kaufman]

Well, unless we see the actual text from the ebook, we can't tell exactly how Shane stated you deal with the business of your hands, the glue, and the spectator's face. All we have is the reviewer's perception of what was described, and the author's defense of it, as well as the latter's action of removing it from the manuscript.

I would say that whenever a creator has something reviewed, and reacts to criticism in a positive way by making changes not only to this ebook, but also to the items he may well put out in the future, that he is doing the right thing.

Getting in a written pissing match with someone is never a great idea, and most people who have items reviewed avoid it for that reason. However, by actually making changes to the ebook I think Shane is taking the right road, and will be more careful in the future. That's all we can expect, and better than we often get.

[Brad Henderson]

I appreciate that you are willing to learn from this and make changes as needed. I just hope you can see how and why it was worthy of comment.

And, in case it got lost, I do think it is a good thing that the author is making changes. I simply felt that rationalizing away mistakes with the "you can't catch everything" excuse was inappropriate given the nature of the particular credit under consideration.

[Shane.Black]

Point taken Brad and rest assure I will make every effort to make sure this doesn't happen again. And yes when you write sometimes what seems clear and to the point to you can be unclear to others so I went back to re-read this section and I can see how it could possibly be mistaken for its true intent. I will get with you within the next few days to discuss the other subject.

Shane