A question to pros about magic theory books

[Aldo Romano]

Mr Bishop is right. I have always thought that show business was a very hard way to make an easy living.

Years ago an agent told me that show business was probably the toughest business in the world. Often all show and no business.

You would be amazed to hear the names of certain magicians who are struggling to make a living. Good ones too. They are big names in the magic community but that is about it. I could probably reel off a dozen names but of course I won't.

And of course we all know that a lot of bragging goes on about how much work an individual magician gets. And the fees. I usually divide by half what anyone tells me.

And of course I think the biggest downside of being a professional magician is that the fun tends to go out of magic. When you need to put food on the table it tends not to be fun any more.

Pros often look down on amateurs yet it is often the amateur that is better off.

Mind you I do remember a distinguished amateur magician looking down on pros! It highly amused me at the time! I asked him if he had ever thought of becoming a professional magician and he snorted in great disdain, "Certainly not. All professional magicians seem to do is talk about themselves!"

He wasn't wrong.

[Cugel]

I agree with Donal, this is a fun thread.

No, the talent sets required do not overlap. A person who has developed an interesting character and charisma as a close-up performer has no head start on anyone else in learning to work on stage. It's easy as hell to make contact with someone standing a few feet away from you when doing close-up magic. It's extremely difficult to make contact with hundreds of people when they're far away from you when you're on stage.

No question it's easy to make contact at close range, but that doesn't mean the performance will be great. There are many, many, many bad close up magicians pro and am, who make contact - but don't often seem to realise the negative nature of that contact. Look at Scotty York's videos when he uses all of his sleaze and innuendo and touches a lady on her arm. A second later she moves her arm off the bar and into her lap because she is not enjoying that contact. York is oblivious to this. He has some great tricks, but no idea about the effect his personality has on an audience.

Similarly, there are many stage magicians who have the stagecraft to project their act to an audience, but the act is not always worth projecting.

I've never performed traditional magic on stage, but I have performed in the theater in several genres and worked regularly as a comedy MC for groups of up to 600 people. I had no problem getting across and maintaining audience interest (even when doing some close up items such as a bill switch and some David Harkey stuff, etc). I've also worked as a mentalist for rooms of from 500 to 600 people and had no problem holding those people in the palm of my hand. And I don't consider myself a great performer when it comes to mentalism.

My point is that the personal characteristics that make the very few great stage magicians become great stage magicians, are the same personal characteristics that make the very few great close up magicians become great. People like Rene Lavand, Del Ray and so on.

Stagecraft is just stagecraft and can be acquired by almost anyone except the tragically inept. Tommy Wonder was a great close up magician for the same reasons he was a great stage magician: he was Tommy Wonder and he worked his ass off at achieving his objectives.

Michael Kamen put it far more succinctly than I.

[Cugel]

I will say in a brief aside to Cugel that the skill sets required for a close up magician are indeed vastly different than those required for a stage magician. There can be no argument about this I would have thought. They are entirely different mediums altogether although I do take his point that there are certain qualities that would benefit both mediums.

I wouldn't say vastly different but yes there are certain specific stagecraft techniques that are more applicable, more refined or more common to one than the other. For example, it could be argued that stage misdirection can tend to be broader and less subtle than close up misdirection (though that is taken to superlative levels by people like Tommy Wonder in both contexts). With close up magic, a great performer makes more use of human psychology in an interpersonal, interactive sense, as opposed to human psychologically from the perspective of passive observation which is relied upon more in a stage context.

[Aldo Romano]

I can do both reasonably successfully. However I must say that they are very different skill sets. On balance I found the stage more difficult to master as Mr Kaufmann states. Of course other people may well find the opposite according to their natural talents.

[Cugel]

I can do both reasonably successfully. However I must say that they are very different skill sets. On balance I found the stage more difficult to master as Mr Kaufmann states. Of course other people may well find the opposite according to their natural talents.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. But the idea that mastery of one form is inherently harder than mastery of another is incorrect.

[David Alexander]

Ah, Glenn Bishop...how true his words ring.

[David Alexander]

[quote=Cugel

That's pretty much what I'm saying. But the idea that mastery of one form is inherently harder than mastery of another is incorrect. [/quote]

Since you're a screen name without published qualifications, your opinion comes from what experience?

[Aldo Romano]

I personally am not concerned with Cugel's experience or identity. He writes intelligently about the matter even if his views do not fit 4 square into mine. I do tend to think that stage magic is harder in some ways that close up magic at least for me.

However he does have a point; close up magic is a highly skilled operation and I may indeed be wrong when I tend to think the stage is harder. It may be for me but not someone else.

Some people have a natural knack for one type of entertainment over another. Thus not everyone can do kid shows effectively yet some take to it like a duck to water. Same for hypnotists. Many magicians just can't hack it where this is concerned and there is no shame in that. Yet others can do it as easily as pie.

The moral of the tale is that you do what you are suited to and find easiest for you personally to learn.

[Glenn Bishop]

I found more success - faster with close up magic because there were more opportunities at the time to do it for people. This included doing close up in a magic shop (The Marshall Brodien Magic shop - Later Bishop's Magic Shop) as well as doing close up magic in restaurants.

The live short close up shows at each table night after night week after week and in the magic shop were an opportunity to learn how to entertain people with magic.

The success came faster for me just because of the opportunities I had to perform close up magic "live" for people.

Stage magic was different. Because there was less opportunity to do it - less of a grind - the success was slower for me. The stage magic had to be scripted and rehearsed "more" than the close up magic for me. Or what I call re-scripting - because I had to make changes after listening to the audience - re-scripting and editing was needed.

And to this day I still re-script and re-edit my show because it is a work in progress. Part of the reason is that I listen to my audience. And I try to get the strongest audience reaction I can and if that makes me have to shorten or edit my favorite routine - so be it. Because in my opinion audiences have only the time or interest in the highlights.

Just my opinion.

[Aldo Romano]

Glenn. I think you are correct. Stage magic is harder merely by dint of there being less opportunities to practice it befor live audiences.

With regard to close up magic I think the hardest part is not the technical side or even the presentational side. No. It is the psychological side. It is hard to explain but I do believe it is more important to manipulate the people rather than manipulate the props. It is a rare performer than can do that. I am still working on it. One day I will get it.

Of course you have to do this on stage too but it is actually harder to do this close up because you are dealing with individuals rather than en masse. If you are a good stage performer the audience becomes as one. A close up magician should be able to manipulate the people individually.

[Cugel]

That's pretty much what I'm saying. But the idea that mastery of one form is inherently harder than mastery of another is incorrect.

Since you're a screen name without published qualifications, your opinion comes from what experience?

I've mentioned some of it in my posts. How about addressing the points I've made rather than raising the tired old issue of anonymity on magic forums? Richard allows members to remain anonymous and, frankly, I develop my understanding of others on this board by reading their posts rather than searching out the known names and ignoring the rest. If you have experience as a performer, you soon identify who speaks from experience and the amount of experience they have. While your name is known to me as someone who has some experience, that doesn't necessarily mean your posts are any more valuable than those of others who I am not familiar with, or who use pseudonyms. I don't know anything at all about Michael Kamen, for example, but his posts seem reasoned and perceptive and I always read them.

If you decide to ignore what I posted because I choose to remain anonymous, that's your decision.

[Cugel]

Just a follow up, as I'm not sure some realize what it is that I'm saying.

It is true that there are many more opportunities to perform close up magic effects. But most of those performances are more akin to demonstrations of a cool trick - not an actual performance. There is a vast gulf that separates a truly great professional close up performance (Lavand, Wonder, Malone, Del Ray, Kaps) and the majority of what passes as hobbyist magic - even good hobbyist magic.

There are perhaps less opportunities for classic, formal close-up magic (Ricky Jay's Broadway shows for example) than opportunities to perform stage magic. But why quibble? If you want to believe that succeeding as a top professional stage magician is harder than succeeding as a top close up magician, tell it to the ghosts of Tommy Wonder, Fred Kaps and Del Ray.

[NCMarsh]

If you want to believe that succeeding as a top professional stage magician is harder than succeeding as a top close up magician, tell it to the ghosts of Tommy Wonder, Fred Kaps and Del Ray.

I'm not sure what the point here is...all three names cited were highly, highly accomplished stage performers as well as close-up workers...

And no, there are not simply more opportunities for hobbyists to perform close-up...there are more opportunities to get flight time performing close-up as an emerging professional than there are to get stage time...that was certainly my experience, and I think its supported by this: go into almost any city in this country and there is at least one person performing close-up magic for the public on a regular basis at a restaurant or similar venue...you're going to have a much tougher time finding a regular public magic show...and I guarantee that anywhere but Vegas (and maybe even there), the folks who have restaurant gigs are going to outnumber the folks with a regular public stage show

It is an issue of venue...the people who filled theaters where there was a real, breathing performer now get the same "show fix" watching a screen in their living room, going to a movie theater, or -- far more rarely -- catching a broadway or vegas show...

Restaurants -- on the other hand -- cater to a much bigger crowd, and they also don't work for a formal show...people are coming and going, eating at different times throughout the night...a close-up magician is able to tailor his work organically to this envirornment...

logistical issues aside...one reason it is much easier to convince a venue to take on a developing close-up performer: they're taking less of a risk...if he's bad, people aren't sitting through a show; it's just a fleeting interruption

I was lucky to have found a comedy club owner who liked what I did and was willing to give me good chunks of stage time...but, if that hadn't happened, I don't know where I would have gone...and it was much easier to get my first walkaround job than it was to find that venue...

N.

[Richard Kaufman]

As a close-up magician:

you don't have to learn about lighting,
you don't have to learn about makeup,
you don't have to learn about music,
you don't have to learn about acting,
you don't have to learn about vocal projection,
you don't have to learn about the development of stage presence,
you don't have to learn about how to be directed,
you don't have to learn about movement on stage,
you don't have to learn about stage misdirection,
you don't have to learn about working as part of a team,
you don't have to learn about ... so much.

[Cugel]

As a close-up magician:

you don't have to learn about lighting, [color:#FF0000]agreed[/color]
you don't have to learn about makeup, [color:#FF0000]agreed[/color]
you don't have to learn about music, [color:#FF0000]that depends. Agree that most don't[/color]
you don't have to learn about acting, [color:#FF0000]disagree[/color]
you don't have to learn about vocal projection, [color:#FF0000]disagree - depends on the venue[/color]
you don't have to learn about the development of stage presence, [color:#FF0000]absolutely disagree [/color]
you don't have to learn about how to be directed, [color:#FF0000]agreed[/color]
you don't have to learn about movement on stage, [color:#FF0000]but you have to learn about movement[/color]
you don't have to learn about stage misdirection, [color:#FF0000]true, but you have to master a more subtle form of misdirection[/color]
you don't have to learn about working as part of a team, [color:#FF0000]agreed[/color]
you don't have to learn about ... so much. [color:#FF0000]disagree[/color]

Again, bear in mind I'm drawing a distinction between the majority of what passes as close up magic (doing tricks for friends and family or table hopping) and the upper echelons of close up magic performance by top professionals in theatre shows and corporate venues.

[Cugel]

If you want to believe that succeeding as a top professional stage magician is harder than succeeding as a top close up magician, tell it to the ghosts of Tommy Wonder, Fred Kaps and Del Ray.

I'm not sure what the point here is...all three names cited were highly, highly accomplished stage performers as well as close-up workers...

The point is, the same personal qualities that made them great stage performers made them great close-up performers and vice versa. In any genre there are endless things to master. A stage magician might have to master stagecraft, working with lighting, music cues, etc. But a close up card magician might have to master an endless array of sleights and finely hone their ability to deal with a close range, interactive and unpredictable audience. That is necessary, but it's detail. My issue is that it's equally as hard to become a top-flite performer in any genre. I don't see why it's controversial and drawing up lists of things that a stage performer might have to do that a close up performer doesn't is nugatory effort. Does anyone who knows anything about Del Ray believe that he had any less work to do in devising, preparing, mastering, maintaining and fine-tuning his act than Roy Benson or Lance Burton or any other magician?

[NCMarsh]

Does anyone who knows anything about Del Ray believe that he had any less work to do in devising, preparing, mastering, maintaining and fine-tuning his act than Roy Benson or Lance Burton or any other magician?

No...he didn't have any less work to do...my point is not that the work itself is easier, my point is that it is easier to have the opportunity to do the hard work when you are a close-up performer than it is when you are a stage or stand-up performer.

Without audiences to work in front of regularly in either genre, you can only do half the work.

And, yes, mastery comes from hard work in any genre

[Glenn Bishop]

This may sound wacky to some but I look at close up magic as two different performing stages. There is the formal close up show that is done in a more formal theater setting. And the table hopping or strolling magic close up show done at a restaurant or at a cocktail party.

The formal close up show like what Ricky Jay did in his "52 Assistances". Was done at a table. The stage was set and looked like an old time "Drawing Room".

Back in the night club days many of the magicians did magic close up but it wasn't the table magic close up. Many of the night clubs were very small. I remember my Dad talking about some of the hot night clubs that everyone wanted to go to only had seating for around 100 people.

He said the "Blue Angle" had a stage - a platform about a foot off the floor at the end of the room. It had a grand piano on the stage and there was room for little else. Less than 150 seating and from the stage he could reach out and pat the people that sat at the first table on top of their heads. When he performed there he walked out - two steps from off stage. Put his top hat on the piano and went into his act. It was a very small room.

With the smaller night clubs I could see Paul LePaul doing close up magic - stand up. Like his card fans and his cards to envelope. According to my Dad Chop Chop did the chop cup in this situation and Roy Benson did the Benson Bowl as a stand up - close up trick.

Performing in the magic castle in the close up gallery is like this. A formal close up show. They wanted when I was there a 20 minute show.

Bert Allerton was doing magic as a table hopping magician at the pump room in Chicago. But he also did formal close up shows from what I have heard from Jay Marshall.

Then again there are larger stages and other techniques to make the magic work and be seen by the larger audience.

Just my opinion.

[Michael Kamen]

Glen's comments are moving. I wish I had the opportunity to see the people he mentions, in those venues. Paul Rosini is another name that comes to mind. My view is that it is an unnecessary, annoying comparison to try to rank, in value terms, closeup magic vs. stage magic.

[David Alexander]

Often theory is written about by people who have little to no performing experience and write about performing as they think it should be rather than how it actually is. Sometimes the writer's performing experience is in a very narrow field of performing which means that what they write may be applicable to other types of performing and sometimes not. It takes experience and knowledge to understand the difference.

Too often, amateurs take these books on theory to be words that reflect the real world of performing. Without the experience and education to discern the difference, they can be mislead.

This is analogous to beginning writers who spend enormous amounts of time preparing to be writers. They buy endless numbers of books, attend seminars, workshops, classes, weekend retreats, etc. Many spend years preparing and never write a thing. The real "secret" of becoming a writer is to write, learning the craft by doing, to the point that they can edit their own material as if it were written by someone else.

Absent qualified directors (of which there are scant few in magic), magicians end up being self-taught or, worse, copying someone else who may or may not know what entertainment is about.

In my experience of being both a professional close-up magician and a stage performer I found that my years of close-up work were not that valuable when I learned stage craft, but that my close-up greatly improved when I knew how to successfully work a stage.

In other words, it is easier to go from the stage to close-up than the other way around, as so many other pros have found over the years.

[Michael Kamen]

. . .it is easier to go from the stage to close-up than the other way around, as so many other pros have found over the years.

Clearly, it was easier for you to go from stage to closeup. Maybe that direction applies to most -- I do not know for sure, though I appreciate your depth of experience. I do stand by my observation that for some, closeup is the more challenging and even frighening arena.

I am not going to argue that there are not, usually, many more complex details to be managed in the stage setting. It is a no-brainer. One either has mastery of all the elements of stagecraft, (that's a lot of work) or must hire experts in each area to contribute. Who manages all these people? If you are the performer-director, probably you (now you're a manager - yet another skill set). Or, you may be one performer in a larger production. The precise mix of skills you need depends a lot on your professional and artistic goals.

Is stage harder than closeup? Is my Dad stronger than your Dad? Are we really grownups here? :tired:

[David Alexander]

Over the years I found I always had a bit of "concern" (I don't want to use the word "anxiety" because that's not accurate) when I went on stage since nearly everything I did in later years (as opposed to what I did in night clubs) involved volunteers from the audience. There was always a lot to manage and be aware of especially when one is working club dates in a different venue for every show.

Perhaps it's easier to say that there was far more that could go wrong on stage than working walk-around. If something goes awry in walk-around you've only screwed up in front of a handful of people. On stage is a different story.

As far as doing close-up, I never had a moment's concern after my restaurant experience. For years I never really thought of walk around as work, until I hit the third hour on my feet. As I age, the time shortens. ;-)

Early on I understood that "less really is more" in that one can do a few strong effects well for a small audience and leave them wanting more as opposed to trying to drown them in a tsunami of effects. Thanks to Frakson I learned how to make what I do seem important, something I believe is little understood.

I do understand how some would see doing close-up as frightening because one is "right there" with the spectators instead of at a "safe" distance. In my experience of doing close-up, I've found that audience proximity is the best part, that mis-direction is easier when one is aware of sight lines and can manage them appropriately. The closer they are, the easier they are to fool.

Of course, one must select the appropriate effects and be able to make the imperceptible-to-the spectators adjustments that one must make when performing. I think that might be the thing that scares beginners the most.

That is best overcome with mastery of the physical requirements of the effect, familiarity with the prop or props, and lots and lots of experience doing the same thing for different audiences. Too often the amateur wants to do something new when he hasn't truly mastered what he already has.

[Glenn Bishop]

This is analogous to beginning writers who spend enormous amounts of time preparing to be writers. They buy endless numbers of books, attend seminars, workshops, classes, weekend retreats, etc. Many spend years preparing and never write a thing.

This reminds me of a lot of magicians that I have known that used to come into the magic shop to get - that next trick. And they would talk about how one day they were going to do a show.

In my opinion some magicians are in a continuous mode of "getting ready" for that one day.

The real "secret" of becoming a writer is to write, learning the craft by doing, to the point that they can edit their own material as if it were written by someone else.

I think that this is a great formula for becoming a magician - professional or not. Magic in my opinion is learning a craft. But learning to use the craft in a performance art is in the doing in my opinion. In my opinion it takes as much on-stage time to learn the performance part of performing magic in front of different audiences as it takes to - learn how to do magic when magicians learned magic as a craft.

Absent qualified directors (of which there are scant few in magic), magicians end up being self-taught or, worse, copying someone else who may or may not know what entertainment is about.

The thing is that magicians learn magic but often have little education in theater and stage - craft. An education of how to take the craft of magic and then use it as a performance art to entertain people.

One of the best video tapes I ever watched was a set I got from our local library. The set was about how Charles Chaplin worked when he made movies.

The Chaplin estate found a bunch of movies of the same movie - each movie was a little different. It was concluded that Chaplin filmed a movie - watched it - added bits - filmed the same movie with the added bits - watched it - added bits - filmed the same movie again with the added bits - and continued this until he was satisfied that he had a good movie product to sell to the movie theaters.

With this in mind I have found that having a video camera is a great thing - to video tape shows and practice - because in watching myself - I find that I can think of little bits of business that add entertainment to the show. But more importantly I also see things I need to edit and take out.

In my experience of being both a professional close-up magician and a stage performer I found that my years of close-up work were not that valuable when I learned stage craft, but that my close-up greatly improved when I knew how to successfully work a stage.

In other words, it is easier to go from the stage to close-up than the other way around, as so many other pros have found over the years.

In my experience I went from a stand up performer - if you can call a kid (from eight years old to about 17) that did birthday parties - cub scout shows - and moose lodge Christmas parties a stand up performer.

Then I did close up magic in the magic shop - as a table hopping magician in restaurants and bars. (My 20's - 30's)

Then later I got into stand up magic again - then added some illusions to the show - and later comedy hypnotism. (30's and so on).

I would say that I learned a lot from the experience of doing all of the different performing stages I did over the years. And doing shows in the different and non-theater style venues that I am booked to do shows in - in this non-theater - privet party and festival world today.

And I continue to learn new things and apply it to what I already do. For me - stage magic helped close up and close up helped the stage act - because I have used some of what could be considered to be close up magic on the stage. And I have used some of what could be considered to be stage magic in my close up work from time to time.

Just my opinion.

[erlandish]

Often theory is written about by people who have little to no performing experience and write about performing as they think it should be rather than how it actually is. Sometimes the writer's performing experience is in a very narrow field of performing which means that what they write may be applicable to other types of performing and sometimes not. It takes experience and knowledge to understand the difference.

Would you be able to expand upon which books of theory fall into this category? Do any in the list above have this fault?

This is analogous to beginning writers who spend enormous amounts of time preparing to be writers. They buy endless numbers of books, attend seminars, workshops, classes, weekend retreats, etc. Many spend years preparing and never write a thing. The real "secret" of becoming a writer is to write, learning the craft by doing, to the point that they can edit their own material as if it were written by someone else.

I don't believe that this analogy is perfect. Sure, one of the best ways to learn how to write is to write. On the other hand, no responsible course on writing would neglect to mention that a fledgling writer should read voraciously. I'm not talking about books about writing, I'm just talking about books in general. We don't really have this in magic -- forcing a wannabe magician to watch 50 different shows and develop an eye for what he likes, what he thinks works, and what he thinks doesn't -- and I think it would be great if we did.

[JimChristianson]

>>>Does anyone who knows anything about Del Ray believe that he had any less work to do in devising, preparing, mastering, maintaining and fine-tuning his act than Roy Benson or Lance Burton or any other magician?>>>>

Well, of COURSE he had "less work to do." In Lance's case, for example, there are several dancers, stagehands, lighting and sound technicians, etc. who all have to be just as precisely choreographed and thoroughly rehearsed as Lance, himself.

And behind it all is a stagemanager who is calling the cues.

And if any of those people are even tad bit off in their precision, it's Lance who has to make the onstage adjustment.

[JimChristianson]

Here's my book of theory...

1)Decide what kind of magic you want to perform, and, more importantly, WHY.

2)Write and rehearse your show.

3) Find a place, or places, where you can perform every single day for strangers. (Did he say "every single day"? YES. Do you want to be a professional performer, or not?) Find a place where you can be bad, and start learning.

4) After two or three years of this, read some theory books.

But damn, if you HAVE to read a book, start with the autobiography of Gus Rapp. There's more practical advice on performing in that book than most all of the books on your list.

Ken Weber's book is good, too. It's the one I wish I'd had when I started, but even that is no substitute for what you can learn on your own.

[Cugel]

Another sensible post from Michael Kamen...

. . .it is easier to go from the stage to close-up than the other way around, as so many other pros have found over the years.

Clearly, it was easier for you to go from stage to closeup. Maybe that direction applies to most -- I do not know for sure, though I appreciate your depth of experience. I do stand by my observation that for some, closeup is the more challenging and even frighening arena.

Personally, having performed on stage and close up, I didn't find either more challenging than the other. It's all performance, with differences in the detail. I think it's great that David Alexander can write frankly about the fact that he found one form more difficult than the other. It speaks to the fact that all of our experiences and abilities vary.

I am not going to argue that there are not, usually, many more complex details to be managed in the stage setting. It is a no-brainer. One either has mastery of all the elements of stagecraft, (that's a lot of work) or must hire experts in each area to contribute. Who manages all these people? If you are the performer-director, probably you (now you're a manager - yet another skill set). Or, you may be one performer in a larger production. The precise mix of skills you need depends a lot on your professional and artistic goals.

Is stage harder than closeup? Is my Dad stronger than your Dad? Are we really grownups here? :tired:

Bravo.

[Aldo Romano]

I think we have veered off the original topic..................

[Glenn Bishop]

But damn, if you HAVE to read a book, start with the autobiography of Gus Rapp.

I just wanted to jump in here and add that I agree with your post Jim and what David has been saying.

The Guss Rapp book is a great classic that also talks about the time he had trouping a show. I would also like to add a few books on the list that I have enjoyed - All written by Professional magicians. Illusion Show By David Bamberg, Okito On Magic, Willard The Wizard by Bev Bergeron, The Card Magic Of LePaul - so much for theory for me I have enjoyed reading the real life adventures of men that made their living in magic.

I would also add the Tarbell Course and Greater Magic and the two Germain the Wizard books to this list of must reads.

For me my choice has been because I wanted to become a professional magician so I read the books "Professional magicians wrote" because they were "in" the business and in my opinion - they were the magicians that had something important to say about the business of magic.

In my opinion speaking as a business-man that makes a living off magic and performing magic shows.

Magic theory is a great hobby.

Just my opinion.

[David Alexander]

In one sentence Glenn has given one of the inside secrets to being successful as a performing magician.

And thanks for the words of support.

[Richard Kaufman]

I pity the close-up magician who steps on stage and doesn't know what he's getting into, and doesn't understand how much more difficult it is.

And cut the crap about who's Dad is bigger ... it's moronic and it doesn't even make a suitable analogy.

[Michael Kamen]

I pity the close-up magician who steps on stage and doesn't know what he's getting into, and doesn't understand how much more difficult it is.

No argument -- stage is literally more "difficult" than close up. Stepping either way though without knowing what one is getting into would be pitiable.

Agreed also, my analogy was not perfect.

[Bill Duncan]

An observation: it seems that the folks who suggest that you need to work thorough a bunch of shows (find a place to be bad) before you read any theory all did just that. I havent heard from anyone who studied theory first and then started performing.

Is this a case of I turned out alright so it must be the right way?

Are there any folks out there who studied theory before working for laymen who can offer some perspective?

[Cugel]

I pity the close-up magician who steps on stage and doesn't know what he's getting into, and doesn't understand how much more difficult it is.

No argument -- stage is literally more "difficult" than close up. Stepping either way though without knowing what one is getting into would be pitiable.

Agreed also, my analogy was not perfect.

For what it's worth (three fifths of f#@k all, I guess) I didn't think your analogy was "crap" or "moronic". I thought it was an apt descriptor of the way some people behave when defending their favored genre of magic, and certainly appropriate to the discussion.

I am not trying to challenge the fact that stage magic skills are very difficult to acquire, but it seems perhaps that what I am saying is too nuanced for some, so I'll bow out of this thread.

[Glenn Bishop]

An observation: it seems that the folks who suggest that you need to work thorough a bunch of shows (find a place to be bad) before you read any theory all did just that. I havent heard from anyone who studied theory first and then started performing.

Is this a case of I turned out alright so it must be the right way?

Hey Bill - That is one way of looking at it. I would like to add a little more to my opinion on reading magic theory. And that is that I think it is important to keep things like that in check.

Magicians that do shows and I am not talking about just professional magicians. There are a lot of magicians that do great live shows that don't make a living off magic. And perform a great number of shows as part time - or just for fun.

But as I said I wanted to do shows for a living and what worked for me - because I can't speak for others and I can only speak for me. If I wanted to be a professional magician - then it was important to be around professional magicians. So I could learn from them. And it was important to read books that professional magicians wrote because they were in the business and had important things to say.

Please don't think that just because my Dad was a pro that that made it easy for me to learn. To get to know magicians I would carry props and wash their cars when they came over to my Dads house for a visit. And when they took time with me I appreciated them taking the time - I wouldn't say that any one of them taught me a magic trick - but they sure improved what I learned on my own - when I showed it to them.

I used to shovel the snow on Jack and Ann Gwynnes sidewalk. They tried to pay me money - but the time I got with them was priceless.

This leads me into something David Alexander said above "Often theory is written about by people who have little to no performing experience and write about performing as they think it should be rather than how it actually is."

This reminds me of some of the text in Erdnase wrote about card magic in the Legerdemain section - that said something like - "The artist is always sure of a comprehensive and appreciative audience"

Well guess what?

In my opinion in the real world the there are some in the lay audience that are not - a sure comprehensive and appreciative audience about watching a magician do card tricks or even magic.

As a magician that is being paid money to perform magic - sometimes the audience isn't into it. When performing at cocktail parties there are groups that rater talk than watch magic. The good magician through experience learns how to sense this and then not force the magic onto people that don't want to watch and move on to another group.

In my opinion - having performing experience helps in digesting magic theory in books.

Here is another thing David Alexander said that I agree with "Absent qualified directors (of which there are scant few in magic), magicians end up being self-taught or, worse, copying someone else who may or may not know what entertainment is about."

In my opinion - if a magician wants to be a professional magician I think that there is value in spending time with professional magicians - and learning from them - whatever they give - and reading books that professional magicians wrote.

Also I would like to add that I agree with Richard and his opinion of close up and stand up. Being a table hopping magician or a strolling magician - does not a stage magician make in my opinion. There is a big difference in doing strolling magic or table magic and then taking close up magic and scripting and doing a formal close up show - like Don Alan did.

Just my opinion.

[Michael Kamen]

Professional actors often have a university education in acting or theater before they begin their careers. Several come to mind. In this way they study theory, and get performance experience.

They do not just walk into the "Acting Shop" and come out with a bag of "roles you can play with no skill and no practice."

[JimChristianson]

Glenn...How wonderful for you! You had what must be one of the very last old-style magic apprenticeships we are likely to see.

Richard, there's a Genii column there, if ever I saw one. "The Suburban Socerer's Apprentice" No need to pay me for my genius idea...a year's comped subscription will do nicely, thanks! ;-)

Erlandish, quit sitting around thinking. Get off your (can I say "ass" here?) and get going. EVERYONE'S advice here has merit. Choose your path and get going.

[erlandish]

Thanks for the advice Jim. I actually chose my path a long time ago. I'm more interested in knowing what paths others have taken.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Getting back to the subject at hand;

Can someone recommend a good book on reviews and criticism of books on theory of performing magic, or perhaps a book on how to read a book about magic performing theory so beginners have a place to start reading?

[JimChristianson]

Yes. Read Eugene Burger's books. They are a great place to start thinkiing about magic.