Magic in BoingBoing

[Bill Mullins]

I haven't bought Frauenfelder's book, but from looking at the website devoted to it and from reading the sample available on Amazon, I can tell you:

There are 6 "trick decks" described:
1. Marked deck
2. Stripper deck
3. Invisible deck
4. Brain Wave deck
5. Oil and Water deck
6. Nightmare card

Marked and stripper decks are old, and fairly widespread. The marking technique is to take a red bicycle deck and a red sharpie, and mark values on the rosette and suits on the partial rosette on the other side of the cherub. The idea of marking the rosette is in print at least as far back as 1905 (Ritter). Bob Farmer could tell you a better pen to use (Sharpie ink is shinier than the red ink that the cards are printed with). The method used for trimming cards for a stripper deck is essentially described here (I don't know if he gives Riser credit).

The invisible deck is Eddie Fields's presentation of Joe Berg's Ultra Mental Deck. I don't know if he gives credit to Fields or Berg.

The Brain Wave Deck is an enhancement to the Ultra Mental Deck by Dai Vernon. I don't know if the ebook credits Vernon, but I suspect it does, as Frauenfelder mentions Vernon on the web site.

Oil and Water is Marlo's approach to a color separation problem that goes back at least as far as Hofzinser. This usually is a packet trick; the version described by Frauenfelder is the one where four cards of alternating colors are bolted together near one end, and as the cards are rotated around the bolt, the colors seperate. This is, I believe, Angelo Carbone's "Out of Order" -- a packet trick which Carbone released in 1995, and which still is on the market. Neither the online material nor the sample chapter give credit to Carbone. I suspect most of us would believe that Carbone should have exclusive rights to make and market this.

The Nightmare card is a deck which forces a card by riffling. You deal through the deck and the card is missing, and it is revealed from the magician's pocket or somewhere else. I suspect the method is that the forced card is short and is glued at one end to the back of an indifferent card. I don't know who invented this prinicple, or if it is considered "public domain" at this point (I suspect it is).

So Frauenfelder has come up with a short book for beginners, the "hook" of which is that you construct gaffs on your own to accomplish the trick. The nominal price is a small barrier to entry, but it does limit the readership to those who are taking steps on their own to become magicians. It isn't near as bothersome as the revelation of secrets on the Boingboing blog. My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with selling a magic book of common effects to the general public.

So the question is "are these common effects"? While most of them have a provenance and are the creations of specific magicians, the magicians in question released them broadly and the effects are now part of the common heritage of magic. One would hope that Frauenfelder names those creators as part of his book. The exception is "Out of Order" (a trick which had knock offs in print soon after release). Our customs require us to get the permission of creators before sharing tricks like this, and I don't know if Frauenfelder did so.

P.T., as you read the book if you see anything I've mischaracterized, please update this post.

[Bill Mullins]

why exactly are more people in magic good for magic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCKK9Rt4WKU

I'm not sure this is the best answer to the question. Moritz is an example of an excellent magician (which Brad would probably agree is good for magic). But most people who take it up aren't excellent magicians. Is the trade off worth it?

[Jonathan Townsend]

why exactly are more people in magic good for magic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCKK9Rt4WKU

I'm not sure this is the best answer to the question. Moritz is an example of an excellent magician (which Brad would probably agree is good for magic). But most people who take it up aren't excellent magicians. Is the trade off worth it?

I disagree. Remember the story about the painting contest. What's behind the curtain?

To who$e intere$t$? Magic requires not knowing the methodology in context. When you do know the methodology in context you are measuring and critiquing rather than being engaged and surprised. The Steinmeyer article in genii about the aerial suspension and the stool comes to mind. The story about Kaps and the giant coin steal/load at the end a coin routine also comes to mind.

[Brad Henderson]

Bill, the principle behind the force deck you mention is Fred Rogers and was later expanded into the Franklin v Taylor peek deck. As of just a few years ago one noted german card maker assured us that this was a brand new principle. After much fighting among the cafe lumpen the true history was finally conceeded, though he still managed to sell someone else's routine and concept without permission. all that aside, There is at least one popular trick on the market using this principle.

seems like all of these trick decks take a lot of work to make. when one buys the deck one has a chance of performing the trick for others. Seems to me this is a case of selling secrets. I can't imagine anyone going through the trouble of making a stripper deck without a machine, or gluing all those cards together. My guess is most people will read the book and never once make a deck - just like most serious nagicians do when they buy magic books. (assuming They bother to open and read them)

So this guy seems to be falling prey to not understanding or not caring about his audience. He is giving them information they cannot use without great effort and has no guarantees they will take that effort at all. basically he is telling people how a bunch of trick decks work.


I would have more respect for the project if he bothered to send premade packs.

maybe he will do an Ebook of illusion plans next.

[Brad Henderson]

why exactly are more people in magic good for magic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCKK9Rt4WKU

did he get involved in magic through boing boing? if not, I'm not sure your point.

[Bill Mullins]

Bill, the principle behind the force deck you mention is Fred Rogers and was later expanded into the Franklin v Taylor peek deck.

Thanks for the background. Ford Rogers died in 1950 and his pack is mentioned in The Sphinx in 1912, so Frauenfelder doesn't seem to be stepping on any proprietary toes here.

seems like all of these trick decks take a lot of work to make. when one buys the deck one has a chance of performing the trick for others. Seems to me this is a case of selling secrets. I can't imagine anyone going through the trouble of making a stripper deck without a machine, or gluing all those cards together. My guess is most people will read the book and never once make a deck - just like most serious nagicians do when they buy magic books. (assuming They bother to open and read them)

So this guy seems to be falling prey to not understanding or not caring about his audience. He is giving them information they cannot use without great effort and has no guarantees they will take that effort at all. basically he is telling people how a bunch of trick decks work.

Two thoughts --

1. Frauenfelder is the editor of "Make Magazine" and he is a big name in the "maker" community, and as such his audience might be more inclined than normal to actually go ahead and make these decks.

2. It seems this argument generalizes to most all books about magic. Is it a requirement that to give someone a secret they be inclined to actually put it to use in performance? I'm no performer (as you well know), yet many magicians have happily taken my money for their books, tapes, notes, DVDs, etc. (and I'm not complaining here -- I've happily spent it). Yes, he is selling secrets. If you are an absolutist that doing so is a bad thing, then he is wrong. But magic won't survive as it exists now if people don't sell secrets. (and whether or not it should so survive is a different question).

To me, the issue is: "Is this dissemination of secrets gratuitous?" The Camel cigarette ads are the classic example of gratuitous exposure. This book is not that (but some of the Boingboing posts are). Does this book book have a high enough barrier to entry? Reasonable people can disagree. It's hard to see, however, how any arguments against this book don't also apply to Mark Wilson's Course in Magic, or the Bruce Elliot books, or any other popular entry level books on magic.

[Brad Henderson]

my point had to do with the alleged idea that this is a good way to get people involved in magic. (which we still haven't concluded is something we want or need). if seriously interested magicians usually just buy secrets with no intention of using them, why would we expect lay people to do so? he is selling secrets to people who will never likely use them. How is that good for magic?

[performer]

I don't like internet exposure but once something is offered for sale and people actually go to the trouble of ordering and paying for something as is the case here I become far less critical over the matter. At least they now have showed serious interest. What I don't like is someone either trying to find out a secret because they have been terribly impressed and looking it up on google or in the case of this website in question happening on a secret by chance.

Once secrets are known widely they are no longer secrets. And no matter the charisma or showmanship of the performer or how funny or theatrical he is once people know the secret your effectiveness as a magician is vastly diminished.

[P.T.Widdle]

is (he) selling secrets to people who will never likely use them(?)

That question is insulting to both the author and the intended audience.

I have just read the introduction and paged through the book, and I can say unequivocally it is time to put to rest the ridiculous notion that Frauenfelder is simply "selling secrets" for financial gain, like some fly-by-night salesman. His introduction is thoughtful, respectful, interesting, and most importantly, non-condescending.
He shows as much love for the craft as anyone has on this forum.

As Bill stated before, this book is indeed intended for the Maker crowd, as the building of the props is detailed, thorough, and intended for people with tools. It reminded me of the special magic issue of Maker Magazine:

http://archive.makezine.com/13/

How wonderful it is when these two interests come together! I just returned from the New York Maker Faire this weekend, and it was filled with inspirations for magic, including potential robotic ideas (like the Sphero discussion on another thread). The so-called magic community should welcome the interest from this talented and like-minded community.

Who's to say the next John Gaughan will not be a reader of Frauenfelder's book ?

PS - Frauenfelder does some crediting (there's a nice re-print of the Jinx cover with Vernon and the Brainwave deck), but he does not get into specifics that Bill described. However, he warmly thanks all magicians responsible for these techniques/principles, etc. at various places, and I'm sure he would be happy to receive notice about any corrections or big misses.

[MagicbyAlfred]

The individual selling the books on how to make a trick deck is selling it for $2.99. Obviously neither I, nor anyone else, can, nor should we be able to, lawfully stop him from doing so, given freedom of speech and free enterprise. That doesn't mean that, as a professional magician, I must approve, or like it, and I do not approve, and I do not like it. It seems magic is becoming more and more and more exposed with the passage of time and the progression of technology. Personally, I do not want some kid, or even some adult who comes into the bar to say, especially in front of other spectators, “I know how you did that; it’s a trick deck,” particularly when it’s an ordinary Bicycle Rider deck, and I spent 50 or more hours of my life trying to master the trick or routine. So someone can sell a book for $2.99 or buy a book for $2.99, or even pay nothing – just read the ad for the book online, and become an instant exposer, worse yet, attribute a well done trick that requires skill and mastery to “trick cards,” thus not even exposing the real secret, but still cheapening or even discounting altogether the effect. I see a dichotomy between that and the books written by Richard and other luminaries, which by and large are going to be purchased only by magicians or ardent students of the craft, one of the reasons being that the cost of such books will separate the wheat from the chaff. Magic is unique from all other art forms in that the central commodity is the secrets; the more exposure the less wonder there will be, the more dilution, the less magic, and I find that distressing both for the sake of the art of magic, and for my and others' profession as a magical entertainer.

[Brad Henderson]

is (he) selling secrets to people who will never likely use them(?)

That question is insulting to both the author and the intended audience.

Show me I'm wrong. Let's compare the sales of the book with the number of people who are making their own stripper decks. Heck, as Bill pointed out, look at the number of "serious magicians" who buy instructions and never do the work required to perform the secrets explained there in. Why should these people be any different?

Who's to say the next John Gaughan will not be a reader of Frauenfelder's book?

or the next masked magician.

To be clear, as this is a product he is selling and not just slipping into articles on spray mount, I feel less negative toward it. I do think including Angelo's trick is a major faux pas.

Tell me - as there is no information in this book likely to be relevant to anyone reading this forum, why did you bother posting it?

[Bill Mullins]

The individual selling the books on how to make a trick deck is selling it for $2.99. Obviously neither I, nor anyone else, can, nor should we be able to, lawfully stop him from doing so, given freedom of speech and free enterprise. That doesn't mean that, as a professional magician, I must approve, or like it, and I do not approve, and I do not like it. It seems magic is becoming more and more and more exposed with the passage of time and the progression of technology.

There is the general problem of exposure, and there is this particular book. With regard to the book, a little perspective might be in order. It's doubtful this book will sell more than a few thousand copies, tops. OTOH, there are youtube videos about the Invisible Deck with over a million views. Frauenfelder's book is the mote, while youtube is the beam.

[performer]

I feel ill at the very mention of one million views of the invisible deck. Particularly if these are exposure videos. I was performing at an outdoor event last week and some lay person said he had purchased an Invisible Deck from a magic shop.

Magic is going down the drain and I do not approve.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Yeah, I guess technology is the proverbial blessing and curse. The YouTube thing is a runaway freight train. I have never been an inventor of tricks, but maybe it's worth a try at this point. Of course, even if I were lucky enough to come up with something really good, I wouldn't try to market it because it would no doubt be revealed on YouTube within days...

[performer]

I swear I am going to write to the CEO of You Tube and ask her to put a stop to it. She has five children so perhaps some waffle about taking the wonder away from youthful minds might do it.

[P.T.Widdle]

You all are a sad, pathetic lot (Mr. Mullins excluded).
None of you have read the book, yet you let fly with the criticism.

You trot out that old horse, the Masked Magician, whenever you ring the "exposure!" alarm. You can't be serious about that, can you?
You worry that some kid will yell "trick deck!" when you perform a card trick? How unfair to you. I guess you better stick with sponge balls.

Tell me - as there is no information in this book likely to be relevant to anyone reading this forum, why did you bother posting it?

How would you know there's no information that is relevant to Genii forum readers, when you haven't read the book? Do you not think beginners read this forum? Or people that have a knack for using tools and working with their hands? Are these people beneath your level of acceptance?

In the recent Vanity Fair article, Teller says,

"There’s an aesthetic rule in magic that to allow the audience to be amazed, you don’t explain your trick. That part of your job is to withhold and conceal certain pieces of information in order to bring the audience to a level of astonishment. It is an aesthetic rule, not a moral rule. However, it has gradually seeped into magic lore as being a moral rule. “Giving away a trick is an evil deed.” No it’s not! The person who wrote the magic book that got you started in magic gave away a trick. Was that an evil deed? No!"

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/ ... ing-tricks

I stand with Teller and Jim Steinmeyer on the issue of "exposure." The rest of you can cower in a corner afraid of your own shadow, paranoid of the next Masked Magician or some kid that yells out "trick deck!"

[Brad Henderson]

Widdle. have you ever had an original thought of your own, or do you only appeal to authorities whose words you don't really understand?

[Brad Henderson]

the kid who yells out trick deck doesn't hurt the magician. he hurts himself. we don't keep secrets for
our benefit, but for the benefit of the audience

you don't understand that because you perform magic selfishly - for your own pleasure. Not your audiences. You assume what you think is good for you, what you want, is good for the audience, what they want.

To paraphrase Crandall, you are a Rotarian.

[MagicbyAlfred]

A member of this Forum wrote: "You are all a sad, pathetic lot..." I don't think comments like that are appropriate, tasteful, or within the rules and protocols of this Forum as I understand them, and I protest.

Second, to add insult to injury, said member implied that those of us who have merely rendered an opinion that it was not good for magic to have widespread exposure of secrets, are somehow accusing the author of the book in question of having performed an "evil deed." I never said or implied that, and in point of fact, while I said I did not like the fact it was happening, I defended his constitutional right to do so. Hence, if I am to be excoriated and the subject of a scathing personal attack (which I don't think is ever justified), it should at least be for something I actually did or said.

Third, I don't think that I would first need, as suggested, to read a $2.99 book on how to make a trick deck to know what it's about, anymore than I would need to read a book entitled, "There Is No Such Thing As Santa Claus" to disapprove of the fact of its publication. I stand by my opinion that the more the secrets of magic become widely known, the more the art of magic will suffer. No matter how desirable someone might feel it is that we should welcome, embrace with open arms, every kid on the block, anyone and everyone to learn the secrets, because it is "wholesome," or whatever the so-called justification might be, when all the secrets are out, there will be no more magic. Now that would be sad and pathetic.

[P.T.Widdle]

I don't think that I would first need, as suggested, to read a $2.99 book on how to make a trick deck to know what it's about, anymore than I would need to read a book entitled, "There Is No Such Thing As Santa Claus" to disapprove of the fact of its publication. I stand by my opinion that the more the secrets of magic become widely known, the more the art of magic will suffer. No matter how desirable someone might feel it is that we should welcome, embrace with open arms, every kid on the block, anyone and everyone to learn the secrets, because it is "wholesome," or whatever the so-called justification might be, when all the secrets are out, there will be no more magic. Now that would be sad and pathetic.

Well, yes, I DO think you need to read a book to be able to criticize it (or at least comment intelligently about it). Otherwise it's ignorance.

If you're so afraid of "all the secrets being let out" (paraphrased) of the safe, let me remind you of two things:

1. The safe is empty - Jim Steinmeyer
2.

It's hard to see, however, how any arguments against this book don't also apply to Mark Wilson's Course in Magic, or the Bruce Elliot books, or any other popular entry level books on magic.

Shall we ban all beginner magic books not sold on Vanishing Inc. or other "accepted" magic retail outlets?
And what about libraries? Lord knows, no magician EVER got started in magic from reading a magic book in the library.

[Brad Henderson]

you still don't get it.

it's ok. A lot of people don't.

[P.T.Widdle]

you still don't get it.

it's ok. A lot of people don't.

Yep. Like Teller and Steinmeyer.

[Brad Henderson]

appeal to authority much???

I don't think you understand what steinmeyer means. What do you think he means? (bearing in mind that I have yet to see him post drawings of any of his illusions online).

and tell me what teller would say about assuming there should be a monolithic approach to presenting magic - which you seem keen on forcing. Why should all of us follow the choices of Teller? How is that sort of apeing good for magic? Heck, I'm sure Teller would LOVE for all of us to start doing his shadows routine. Probably would love for someone to start making and selling that to other magicians. Heck, he probably sells that on his own website. Do you have that link?

[performer]

Quite right, Alfred. Widdle has been very naughty. He should go and stand in the corner. Perhaps Teller and Steinmeyer should join him. But then perhaps they don't mean what Widdle thinks they mean. If so then they can be excused.

[Jonathan Townsend]

So it's okay because it's cheap but not free
And it's okay because it's not selling any of your performing script work?

And it's okay because it's been done before.

[P.T.Widdle]

appeal to authority much???

Don't we all do that in order to learn? Isn't Vernon an authority? Is it wrong to quote him?

I don't think you understand what steinmeyer means. What do you think he means? (bearing in mind that I have yet to see him post drawings of any of his illusions online).

Steinmeyer's Alan Wakeling book was sold in general bookstores. I bought it at Barnes and Noble.

Teller's Shadows routine has nothing to do with this conversation about so-called exposure. That has to do with stealing, crediting, etc.

[P.T.Widdle]

So it's okay because it's cheap but not free
And it's okay because it's not selling any of your performing script work?

And it's okay because it's been done before.

Like so many beginner books available to the general public.

[Brad Henderson]

how many of Jim's tricks were in the wakeling book? And what do you think he quote about the safe means?

just because someone famous said it, doesn't make it true. We are dealing with magicians and artists, not the pope. And how do we know you are applying what might be a true statement correctly? After all, you are nobody famous. the only 'defense' of your position is to quote people who we are to defer to because they are famous. You are not. So why should we take any of your unsubstantiated claims at face value?

and how is the teller trick different? Exposure is exposure. Or is it only exposure when it's a trick YOU perform? If more people in magic is good for magic, why isn't more people doing Shadows not good for shadows? I thought all arts benefitted from more people? Didn't you say that?

[MagicbyAlfred]

Widdle wrote: "Well, yes, I DO think you need to read a book to be able to criticize it (or at least comment intelligently about it). Otherwise it's ignorance."

Sir you are arguing against a straw man. I haven't seen one person on here, including myself, "criticize" the book. It's a book about making a trick deck - what's to criticize? And why would I want to waste my time reading it since I have no interest in making a trick deck? There is a difference between criticizing a book and lamenting that it exists. You are so intent on defending this book?. Have you yourself, read it? I think you just like to argue. I don't subscribe to your definition of "ignorance." My definition is more along the lines of "someone who insults other people, and then when called on it, refuses to acknowledge it, and apologize like a gentleman would."

[mr_goat]

[P.T.Widdle]

I'm about halfway through the book, and I've leafed through the rest (checking for credits, etc.). Satisfied?

So let me get this straight:

You have a problem with the "existence" of a book you have not read.

Brad, you believe this book is an act of gratuitous exposure (like the Masked Magician), committed by someone who's motives are purely financial at best.

You also question the validity of the intended audience (both whether they will actually utilize the book or simply ruin their own future magic experiences by exposing themselves to the secrets within).

Furthermore, you question the wisdom of beginner magic books for the general audience because you believe less is more when it comes to people learning magic (what is the cut off point there, in terms of numbers by the way?).

Finally, you question my use of quoting Teller in Vanity Fair, even though the quote I gave seems pretty clear in terms of his discussion about exposure.

My head is spinning.

[jlw]

Hello! I'm one of the authors responsible for the posts you are discussing. Thought I'd share our pov, best I can.

This has been an interesting discussion! As you can guess, there are a number of magic enthusiasts at Boing Boing. We are also a community of makers, artists, creators, scientists and thinkers -- just like the folks here at Genii.

We never intend any of our posts about magic to hurt the art, its practice or appreciation. We are merely sharing our joy and wonder about things that interest us. We do hope to encourage more people to get involved with magic, and we also encourage and support the folks we see making/creating/devising neat stuff in the space. To that end, we believe we are successful.

That this thread exists lets us know Boing Boing is having an effect on the magic community, and as such we are flattered. We are listening and sensitive to finding the correct mix of marveling at magic vs what we expose. We are happy with what we are doing. We will always listen to well reasoned, non-angry or screaming, criticism. We may not always respond.

The best place to quickly get our attention on a post you feel has ripped someone off, credited the wrong person, or needs any attention is our own Boing Boing forums, directly on the thread attached to the post. We read those quickly.

The trick to getting your own stuff posted on Boing Boing is... sorry, can't reveal that.

Jason Weisberger
Publisher, Boing Boing

[mr_goat]

The trick to getting your own stuff posted on Boing Boing is... sorry, can't reveal that.

Jason Weisberger
Publisher, Boing Boing

I know that one Jason! It's pretend to be a pigeon called Brian who lives in London and writes a blog.

You published that for me.

And sent ALL THE TRAFFICS at me. I was thankful.



Also, smart reply, kudos.

[P.T.Widdle]

Also, smart reply, kudos.

I second that.

[Bill Mullins]

I contacted Frauenfelder directly about the Carbone trick. He said he got it from a source that didn't make clear the origins (Make Magazine), and was unaware that it was Carbone's, and asked for contact info (I gave him Carbone's email from his profile on the Cafe).

So it looks like he's trying to do the right thing.

And I appreciate Jason's post as well. The magic posts I've seen on Boingboing do all reflect an enthusiasm that is good to see. If the posters on the blog don't always conform with the customs that the (secretive, to be sure) magic community has developed over the years, maybe that isn't surprising -- they are coming at magic from a different direction.

[Jonathan Townsend]

appeal to authority much???

Don't we all do that in order to learn? Isn't Vernon an authority? Is it wrong to quote him?

...

Ask his son.

Learning? Or playing trumps? Learning means finding out what is.

Attempting to persuade someone about something... try ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos here is the community is usually forgiving about publishing stuff - including other people's stuff. Pathos is that everyone imagines they can teach stuff. Logos would be that if even one student gets useful information then putting all of that material in easy access for all would be justified.

Enjoy the book.

[Jonathan Townsend]

you still don't get it.

it's ok. A lot of people don't.

Yep. Like Teller and Steinmeyer.

Their working material is in a $2.99 ebook? Where's the link? Been wondering about some of the design on Jim's recent illusions. And getting the full plans/writeup for Teller's tricks too. What a bargain! Thanks for the heads up. So no problem with folks making a Shadow setup for that Teller trick, right? Empty safe?

Being nice and not asking P.T.Widdle whether his stuff is all online for free since he likes to see folks learning tricks. Maybe he'd feel differently if it was his work.

[performer]

I have never been an anti exposure fanatic so I am perhaps a little more flexible over this than Brad and others. I suppose if someone gets a book out of the library (that is how I started after all) or buys a svengali deck from me or perhaps buys a book on the internet then that is fair enough. Beginners have to start somewhere. What I object to is gratuitous unnecessary exposure particularly on the internet.

Unlike Richard I do NOT want to encourage more people doing magic. There are enough bad magicians as it is without adding any more. Still, if someone pays for a book or makes the effort to get one out of the library then I think that is fair enough.

But letting people know how tricks are done on You Tube or on some website or other for free crosses the line for me.

[Brad Henderson]

I'm about halfway through the book, and I've leafed through the rest (checking for credits, etc.). Satisfied?

So let me get this straight:

You have a problem with the "existence" of a book you have not read. .

Nope. Never said that. Show me where I said that.

Brad, you believe this book is an act of gratuitous exposure (like the Masked Magician), committed by someone who's motives are purely financial at best..

Nope. never said that either. You said that the next Johnny Gaughan would come from these boing boing materials. I have another option that is equally likely, if not more so. I mean, boing boing and resources like this have been around a while, and there is still only one Johnny. But there are oodles of videos on YouTube of people exposing secrets they were also exposed to.

And if making money weren't an issue, why charge for it?

You also question the validity of the intended audience (both whether they will actually utilize the book or simply ruin their own future magic experiences by exposing themselves to the secrets within)..

And when one has seen both happen in real life it's reasonable for that to factor into one's observations. I base my opinions on real observed phenomena. You conclude exposure such as this is good for magic but cannot demonstrate a single case there of.

And whose the skeptic between us?

Furthermore, you question the wisdom of beginner magic books for the general audience because you believe less is more when it comes to people learning magic (what is the cut off point there, in terms of numbers by the way?)..

Nope. Didn't say that either. You don't read good do you? Are you feeling ok? How's your head?

Finally, you question my use of quoting Teller in Vanity Fair, even though the quote I gave seems pretty clear in terms of his discussion about exposure. .

Uh huh. and Tell me, I've asked this if you before, when did we vote to make Teller law giver? I remember when you were ordering us to not do psychic tricks because penn and teller don't like them.

Again, where have penn and teller published all their tricks? Do we see Teller applauding people who are following his example by doing his tricks? Or does he sue them?

Never gave us your interpretation of the steinmeyer quote, either.

My head is spinning.

That may explain why you keep imagining that people are saying things that no one is saying.

lay down. .

[P.T.Widdle]

you still don't get it.

it's ok. A lot of people don't.

Yep. Like Teller and Steinmeyer.

Their working material is in a $2.99 ebook? Where's the link? Been wondering about some of the design on Jim's recent illusions. And getting the full plans/writeup for Teller's tricks too. What a bargain! Thanks for the heads up. So no problem with folks making a Shadow setup for that Teller trick, right? Empty safe?

Being nice and not asking P.T.Widdle whether his stuff is all online for free since he likes to see folks learning tricks. Maybe he'd feel differently if it was his work.

If you read the Teller interview you'd see exactly what he's talking about. This e-book is not selling anybody's professional routine (Carbone excepted, and if that's the case, the author's response has already been documented here).
Steinmeyer's Wakeling book "exposed" some pretty significant and professional stuff to the general public. Have a problem with that? Contact him.