Crimp Crib Notes

Discuss general aspects of Genii.

Postby Guest » 11/15/05 04:48 AM

Editoilet (The Crimp issue 32 page 280).

Those whacky Americans! They talk and talk and talk Usually loud enough to hear six streets away
Until they see something good that they want to rip off, then theyre as silent as mice. Then BANG!!! They rip it off.
There wasnt a murmur from anyone about issue:17 which exclusively dealt with the F.U. Bottom Deal. A year later..BANG!!! Out pops GENE MAZEs new book on bottom dealing which describes Follow the Leader as mentioned on p.145 of this magazine.
In the end note to Oh No Not Another Oil and Water Routine I said:-
With a modicum of imagination, the above method lends itself to a follow the leader routine. Naturally, I did not insult the readers intelligence by describing what would amount to be the same method for a different trick.
There is not a hint of credit in the maze book. Of course, to get away with such an obvious theft, Maze back-dates his routine as one he did Twenty years ago.
For how long are these ****s going to get away with such a transparent lie?
It is a great insult to Charlie Miller, Peter Kane and myself who have put a great deal of thought into this area. For Gene Maze to have come up with the same end result would be too much of a quantum leap. To be believable. And I hardly think he could have held on to it for twenty years without creating a stir about it. Furthermore, there are enough people associated with the book who subscribe to the crimp, to make the whole thing pretty disgraceful.
Its just as well that the Americans are so disgustingly insular, because they only fool themselves.

The Crimp Replies (The Crimp issue 33 page 290).

To Jerry Sadowitz, Editor, The Crimp,

While I had been warned by Peter Duffie about your ravings in issue 32 of the crimp, I was unprepared for your psychotic tirade regarding Gene Mazes alleged theft of a card sleight. [Here it appears that RK has misunderstood why JS wrote the above. The issue was regarding an entire trick, not a single sleight Barry Johnson] I am sickened by what you have written. Who do you think you are? You must be out of your goddamn mind. How can you write about this type of thing without asking me about it first? Gene Maze would sooner walk off a cliff than steal anything from anyone.
To quote you, For Gene Maze to have come up with the same end result would be too much of a quantum leap to be believable. Well, [censored], enclosed you will find a photocopy of Genes notes for his original version of follow the leader which he dated june 1973. I have further photocopied the envelope in which he sent them to me two years later, and you will note the post mark 1975. Thats twenty quantum leaping years ago. He send them to me twenty years ago. I received them twenty years ago. He showed me the tricks twenty years ago. He showed the trick to at least four other people in New York twenty years ago.
So, are you accusing Stephen Hobbs, Gene Maze, and myself of lying? You say, There are enough people associated with the book who subscribe to the crimp to make the whole thing pretty disgraceful. You can kiss my ass. The only thing thats disgraceful here is your psychotic outburst that is based on some insane fantasy you have. See a Psychiatrist.
How about the video tape which Gene sent Peter Duffie in 1985 containing follow the leader? Are you also denying that the videotape exists, or that your good friend Peter Duffie is lying to you?
is the whole world lying to you? Is there some massive conspiracy to cheat you of this idea?
You owe myself, Stephen Hobbs, and most of all Gene Maze a sincere apology in the next issue of the crimp. Your statement: For how long are these ****s going to get away with such a transparent lie? Is one of the most reprehensible accusations Ive ever seen.
Ive met you, Gerry, and you seem like a nice enough guy, what the hell is on your mind here? I demand an apology immediately. Immediately, or youre going to be one sorry lad.

Richard Kaufman

P.S. It seems to have escaped your notice that the face up bottom deal is not even the same thing that Gene developed when you were still sucking your thumb. You dont even have your facts right! [Again, here RK seems to be misunderstanding the whole issue- Barry Johnson]

Copies to: Stephen Hobbs, Gene Maze, Peter Duffie, J.k.Hartman, Jon Racherbaumer, Jack Avis, Roy Walton, Donald Bevan, Stan Allen, Erika Larsen, Max Maven, Ron Macmillan, Phil Willmarth and David Goodsell.

The Crimp replies

The following quote is taken from Genii magazine, p. 259, vol 51, No. 4 1987. The subject is Joe Givan who had published a variation of someone elses trick without credit

I pointed this out to Givan, and he said that he had come up with his routine prior to seeing Roths trick, and that he didnt se why he should mention someone elses name when it had nothing to do with the creation of his routine. In all disciplines it is standard ethical practice to cite printed precedents, whether they have influenced you or not. Not only is it common courtesy, but it prevents you from looking like a thief.
I do not wish this to be misinterpreted as a personal attack against Joe, whose company and conversation I generally enjoyed. His attitude toward credit, however, alarms me.
In out modest craft, often the only compensation one receives for an idea is the credit,. Giving credit is such a simple thing to do, too. You merely need the humility to mention another persons name before your own.
- Richard Kaufman P .259 Genii, vol. 51, no. 4, 1987.

It appears that Richard Kaufman has decided to ignore his own advice. To add insult to injury we are now supposed to believe that a photocopy of an envelope addressed to Kaufman and dated 1975 contained Gene Mazes trick. For all I know it could have contained crayons to keep Richard busy at summer camp. Even if it did, the trick was not put into print until last year, over a year after issue:17 of the crimp. Therefore, credit should have been given. Why did Kaufman not respond when issue:17 was published and was seen to contain the same trick about to be published in the Maze book? Kaufman says that Peter Duffie had a copy of a video which contained the trick. I couldnt give a flying ***k if the Queen of England had a copy of a tape made in 1875 with the trick on it. Until it is made available to all magicians then it does not become part of the established record and credit cannot be awarded.
Regarding Peter Duffie To the best of my knowledge, he received a video two years ago (not 1985) but in any case I knew of no tape prior to last months issues delivery to the printers. Incidentally why did Maze not send me a copy of his video? Is it for the same reason that Kaufman failed to send a copy of his letter to Peter Kane?
As for hysterical threats and accusations of psychosis, I wouldnt have thought it terribly clever to threaten someone you consider to be a potential psychopath.
If.. and I do mean if Maze worked the trick out independently then I apologise to him sincerely. Indeed, I feel sorry for him if its true, because by omitting credit, his own friend Richard Kaufman Let him down.
The bottom line however is that it was not just me who was ignored here. Charlie Miller originated the concept of the F.U. Bottom deal and Peter Kane developed it brilliantly in his classic ace assembly in 1967 28 years ago! Both were denied the credit they rightly deserved in the Maze book. Mazes trick was published with no credit whatsoever.

Copies to: noddy, postman pat, dai Vernon, mark chapman, Edwin t, the great Gatsby, Linda mccartney and the legendary charlier.

CRIMP OPINION

Each of us follows a different path. Some of us like to play politics with the yanks in order to pursue ego fulfilment Some of us even under the threat of death refuse to play games or indulge liars, hypocrites and bullies.
When Scottish magician Gordon Bruce decided to go around telling magicians that your editor was a thief, nobody had the guts to stand up to him.
When Margaret Thatcher divided a country up with a political hatchet, there was no solidarity displayed to stand up to her.
The Americans must steal its in their blood and bully the rest of the world with their might equals right; policies, But not everyone will remain silent, or cower down to these dangerous thugs, or indulge their spoilt, corrupt egos.
There is no question that these ***kers will try and discredit me, but I take consolation in the fact that in order to do so, they will have to lie. Myself, I have always hated games and politics, and I always will.
And unlike certain other magicians, I can look in the mirror without the need of a stiff drink, or the constant re-assurances of wee sycophants Scottish or American.

[There then follows a large well though-out essay on proper crediting and the immoralities of the backdating of material, see The Crimp 33 page 291 for details The most important line reads The backdating of material is immoral unless the claimant can refer to an official source. This statement cannot be refuted by any magician of sound mind, or else any man, anywhere could lay claim to anything by referring to a private notebook.]
Guest
 

Postby Matthew Field » 11/15/05 05:17 AM

Whoa! Who is this Barry Johnson with one posting here to his name and a Hotmail address?

At any rate, I edited the Maze book and was a Crimp subscriber (until Jerry nixed me from the subscriber list). I wrote to Jerry that, frankly, his credit escaped me and I apologized for that.

But all the arguments Jerry makes about whether he should have received a credit dim in the face of the outrageous racial stereotyping he makes and the sad fact that Gene Maze originated the move and all the rest is blather regarding his own ego and the fact he feels he shoulkd have received som,e credit.

A similar situation arose with Jerry and a move he felt he should have received credit or, a Double Deal off the top of the deck. erry attacked Darwin Ortiz, who blithely pointed to the fact that Darwin had it in print first. Jerry refused toi acknowledge this.

Jerry is a massively talented card magician. He also has badmouthed many magicians, in the US and Europe, who he feels are conspiring against him. There is a name for this feeling: paranoia.

The appearance in print of a move which another magician has invented and established by showing it to other magicians but has chosen not to publish, such as Ken Simmons' claim to the Stuart Gordon Turnover, does not make it the property of the latter magician simply because it appeared in print, Marlo's claims to the contrary.

I regret not remembering Jerry's Crimp reference, but I'm only human.

I've attempted, as I've written elsewhere, to discuss this with Jerry, but he'll have none of it. This does not diminish my admiration for his considerable talent. It does make me sorry that he chooses to castigate others by calling them very nasty names, which they do not deserve. He seems to me to be a very unhappy human being.

I hope Barry Johnson will enlighten us about his own background.

Matt Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Steve Bryant » 11/15/05 06:02 AM

It surprised me to note this weekend, while thumbing through some old Geniis, that the "Jerry Sadowitz" issue of Genii mentions that Jerry, who attacks "those whacky Americans" and says "the Americans MUST steal," etc., is from New Jersey. There is a brief interesting bio at
http://www.comedy-zone.net/standup/come ... -jerry.htm


and even moreso at

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/mar04/god.html


(Disclosure: I thought The Crimp was brilliant and very funny and subscribed until Jerry's threats to subscribers became more than I was willing to risk.)
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby NCMarsh » 11/15/05 07:21 AM

Matt,

Richard had requested to have this material from the crimp posted (cf. the "new trick columnist" thread -- which is now closed).


best,

N.
OrlandoCorporateMagician.com Orlando Magician
User avatar
NCMarsh
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: 02/16/08 01:00 PM
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby Matthew Field » 11/15/05 07:35 AM

Thank you Nathan, and apologies to Barry Johnson.

Matt Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Terry Screen » 11/16/05 09:29 AM

FWIW . . .

Mr. Jerry Sadowitz has at long last set up his own website . . .

http://www.jerrysadowitz.com

I must admit, I'm a tad surprised this topic hasn't been locked down already . . .

Funny ol' world

Terry
Keep passing the open windows.
User avatar
Terry Screen
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 03/13/08 03:00 PM
Location: China

Postby Guest » 11/16/05 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Terry Screen:
I must admit, I'm a tad surprised this topic hasn't been locked down already . . .
Terry, the "Chief Genii" himself posted I never raised the issue of Sadowitz's credibility as a card man. He's clever, but that is trumped by his psychotic rantings in print.
I'm waiting for someone to display some of it here ...
.

Since the forum's owner welcomes Jerry's writing, I wouldn't expect the thread to be locked.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby El Mystico » 11/16/05 10:29 AM

Part of the problem here is that there are several issues involved.

1) Jerry has had mental problems - that seems to be public knowledge. The extent to which that influences his writings over the past few years is a moot point

2)The Crimp was/is a curious combination of outrageous humour and solid card magic. That also needs to be taken into account

3) Jerry, as a previous post shows, was born an American - so - the racial stereotypying of Americans is partly ironic, since he is one himself

4) Yes, Jerry rants and raves; and, frankly, I am glad I have not yet been the target of one of his diatribes. I'm not surprised Richard is so critical of him. Jerry's criticisms of Peter Duffie embarrass me. In trying to establish credits, such an approach may make Jerry feel better, may make entertaining reading (for some) but is unlikely to help resolve issues.

5) Jerry is a fine card man. There are few close up card men who have had their own TV series and their own West End shows.

6) The heart of this problem is an important one for magicians - if for no one else - the question of crediting. I think Jerry's point - however agressively expressed - is that being first in print is the best proof of originality.
But it is a flawed concept - some of Marlo's riffle shuffle work, first in print, but likely to be based on seeing Daley work - is a good example.
This is something I'd like to see discussed.
Richard says, "In all disciplines it is standard ethical practice to cite printed precedents, whether they have influenced you or not. Not only is it common courtesy, but it prevents you from looking like a thief."
Wheras Matthew says "The appearance in print of a move which another magician has invented and established by showing it to other magicians but has chosen not to publish, such as Ken Simmons' claim to the Stuart Gordon Turnover, does not make it the property of the latter magician simply because it appeared in print"
Now, without doubt these are not contradictory - but together illustrate the difficulty of establishing precedence. It is no wonder thsat creative egos can get buised.

7)I think Matthew oversimplifies the double deal question; there is a distinction between any double deal and the specific double deal handling in question. I'd be interested to see the letter Matthew wrote to Jerry on this matter; I appreciate it is private correspondence, but since Matthew has raised the topic, he may be willing to share the letter Jerry didn't reply to.

Me; I've met Jerry a few times, and seen his show. While I have a lot of his material, I don't perform any of it. Jerry has published a few of my effects in The Crimp.
El Mystico
 
Posts: 879
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Leamington Spa

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/16/05 10:48 AM

Jerry Sadowitz was born in New Jersey, USA. His father is an American, and he hates his father's guts. Therefore, he hates all Americans.
Not only is he a ranting psychotic, but he's a racist bonehead as well.

To say that his ranting in the Crimp is unrelated to the mental stew going on in his head is silly--nuts write nutty things. The Crimp is a perfect example of that.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20662
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 11/16/05 01:44 PM

Those of you unfamiliar with Mr Sadowitz's work, or his magazine The Crimp can get an online flavour of it here .

Please note: not for the easily offended, and Richard, you may want to stay clear of the 'Magicians only' section as it may upset you.

Oh dear .... but then, that's Jerry.
Guest
 

Postby John LeBlanc » 11/16/05 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Graham Nichols:
Those of you unfamiliar with Mr Sadowitz's work, or his magazine The Crimp can get an online flavour of it here .
An anti-capitalist who laments the fact he doesn't have any merchandise for sale. You know, given the context within which this paradox is found, it makes perfect sense.

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby PapaG » 11/16/05 03:20 PM

Logically it is possible to be against a system but have to survive within that system. That is not paradoxical, it's ironic.
PapaG
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 03/13/08 02:57 PM

Postby John LeBlanc » 11/16/05 03:48 PM

Originally posted by PapaG:
Logically it is possible to be against a system but have to survive within that system. That is not paradoxical, it's ironic.
"Logically" it's possible to do lots of hypocritical things.

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/16/05 04:30 PM

I long ago stopped reading anything written by Sadowitz. Just like Busby, I see no reason to read things that libel me which are written by people who are in the throes of mental illness.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20662
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby NCMarsh » 11/16/05 05:30 PM

From Matt Field:
...outrageous racial stereotyping...
From Dom:
...the racial stereotypying of Americans...
There is no racial stereotyping in Jerry's editorial (as it is quoted here); "American" is not a race.

Best,

N.
OrlandoCorporateMagician.com Orlando Magician
User avatar
NCMarsh
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: 02/16/08 01:00 PM
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby John LeBlanc » 11/16/05 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:
"American" is not a race.
But Native American is. It just keeps getting worser and worser.

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Guest » 11/17/05 01:22 AM

A race which is not mentioned once in the above editorial or letters.

The bottom line, is that Jerrys follow the leader routine appeared in print issuing the correct credits a year prior to Gene Maze's routine which offered no credits; both routines using the same methodology.

I believe all those involved with the Gene Maze book have a moral obligation to acknowledge this and correct the oversight. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot RK et al would be quick to ask/demand the same thing.
Guest
 

Postby Matthew Field » 11/17/05 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Dom:
I'd be interested to see the letter Matthew wrote to Jerry on this matter; I appreciate it is private correspondence, but since Matthew has raised the topic, he may be willing to share the letter Jerry didn't reply to.
I honestly don't have any idea where that correspondence is now; it was written several years ago.

The point Jerry made was about Double Deals. The one in Expert Card Technique deals one off the top and one off the bottom as a single card. Jerry dealt both off the top. I don't remember which book of his this was in. He accused Darwin Ortiz of stealing his idea, in one of Darwin's books I edited. I responded.

Darwin took me to task for answering Jerry, since he said that not only was the move an old gambler's move (invented long befor Jerry was born) but that Darwin had it in print many years earlier in his "Gambling Scams."

Barry Johnson may feel that everyone owes Jerry an apology for the Gene Maze book, but I certainly do not agree. I would have preferred it if I had remembered Jerry's work on the move and referenced it, but Jerry did not invent the move first -- he invented it independently, and I congratulate him for his creativity, as I've said many times.

For him to resort to name-calling and insults is just too bad.

Jerry has reinvented other things, such as the "Thanks to Zarrow" idea which was, it was pointed out to him, Derek Dingle's. I understand Jerry made a correction in later editions of his booklet, but that publication is a slender thing. Including something new in a large, hardbound book is much more difficult, especially when all that might be added is that Jerry came up with the idea after Gene, and I doubt even that would satisfy him.

Matt Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Guest » 11/17/05 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Matthew Field:
Barry Johnson may feel that everyone owes Jerry an apology for the Gene Maze book, but I certainly do not agree. I would have preferred it if I had remembered Jerry's work on the move and referenced it, but Jerry did not invent the move first -- he invented it independently, and I congratulate him for his creativity, as I've said many times.
Excuse the redundancy, but it was not the invention of a 'move', but the invention of a routine. Neither was it independant reinvention. Sorry.

Baz
Guest
 

Postby El Mystico » 11/17/05 07:27 AM

Baz; why do you state categorically that it was not independent reinvention? Even Jerry allows that might be a possibility.
El Mystico
 
Posts: 879
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Leamington Spa

Postby Guest » 11/17/05 07:42 AM

"Jerry did not invent the move first -- he invented it independently, and I congratulate him for his creativity, as I've said many times."

This infers that that idea was already established before its appearance in the crimp. This is not the case. If anything, it was Gene Maze who came up with it independently, not the other way around.

Baz
Guest
 

Postby El Mystico » 11/17/05 08:14 AM

I'm sorry, I had misunderstood you.

My reading of the story - without all the slanging and accusations is:

Charlie Miller came up with the face up bottom deal idea.

Richard, among others, say they saw Maze perform a Follow the Leader routine using the idea 20 years ago.

Jerry published the idea of performing Follow the Leader using the face up bottom deal first.

Maze published a routine without mention of Sadowitz's write up.

Jerry is upset and says either it is theft, or at minimum he should be given credit for being in print first. He also says that if Maze really did come up with the idea independently, he apologises. That's the point - if Maze did come up with the routine independently, the likelihood was it was years before Jerry put his in print.
In which case, Jerry is allowing for the possibility that his routine was an independent reinvention.

Matthew who edited the Maze book has apologised to Jerry in letter, and openly here that, as a Crimp subscriber, he missed the credit for Jerry being in print first. I'm not sure what else can be done.
El Mystico
 
Posts: 879
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Leamington Spa

Postby Ian Kendall » 11/17/05 10:00 AM

I think it's simpler that that. Re read the Genii quote about crediting when a move was in print earlier.

It seems Jerry was upset by the apparant double standards. RK seems to have taken Joe Givan to task for the same 'sin' as appeared in the Maze book. And then the unpleasantries started...

Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Ryan Matney » 11/17/05 10:15 AM

I think the difference is being aware vs unaware.

Matthew said that he overlooked or missed the credit to Jerry who had the item in print first. He apologized.

Now, if you put together a book and you ARE aware of the fact that a certain routine is 15 or more years old. You have letters, tapes, whatever proving it to you and people you know. Are you going to ignore this fact and credit someone else because they published it a year ago independantly?

Outside of this nonsense, think of the question. Are you supposed to ignore what you know to be true in order to give someone else sole credit because they got to print first?

The happy medium is to give a nod to the ones in print first. Matt says as much. The Crimp is almost as limited as a private notebook. Anyone publishing could duplicate something in it accidentally.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/17/05 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Matney:
... Are you supposed to ignore what you know to be true in order to give someone else sole credit because they got to print first?...
Interesting question. Much hurt and anger come from how we make such decisions.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6665
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Matthew Field » 11/17/05 10:48 AM

Originally posted by BJohnson1:
"Jerry did not invent the move first -- he invented it independently,..."

This infers that that idea was already established before its appearance in the crimp. This is not the case. If anything, it was Gene Maze who came up with it independently, not the other way around.
Baz
Baz, we're playing with semantics, in this case the word "established." Gene Maze came up with the move and application more than 20 yeas ago and showed it to respected magicians, and it's on film. It wasn't something in a private notebook, alhough it certainly was not available to Jerry.

Both guys came up with the thing independently, but Jerry persists in branding Gene a thief, and that is not just wrong, it's horribly cruel.

A less vitriolic person would acknowledge that two people had the same notion, but Jerry, a loose cannon, paints everyone involved as a conspirator, out to get Jerry. I've been a Sadowitz supporter from the days of his first book with Peter Duffie. I was an original subscriber to The Crimp (before Jerry nixed me from the subscriber rolls). I have tried, in person, in letters and through intermediaries, to soothe the troubled waters. As I said above, I give up.

Gene Maze is simply not the sort of person who would ever steal anything from anyone, and everyone who knows him would agree with that statement. Jerry has blown this up into some kind of conspiracy theory, with Richard Kaufman at the helm and Peter Duffie his special agent in Scotland, all conspiring to keep Jerry Sadowitz from being as successful, commercially, as he wants to be.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but when you have someone who is unreasonable, you will never be able to convince them of something using reason. That's why I gave up.

Enough about this, already.

When I see Jerry I say hello to him. I consider that a mark of a civilized person. Beyond that, I leave him alone whenever possible. I am not interested in antagonizing him -- as I said, I am a great admirer of his work.

Matt Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Ryan Matney » 11/17/05 10:51 AM

Jonathan,

You are right and it would be an interesting debate.

Point being, being the first in print might not be the best way to judge ownership.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby pduffie » 11/17/05 11:43 AM

Point to note: The Gene Maze routine does NOT use the Charlie Miller Face-up Bottom Deal Concept.
pduffie
 
Posts: 383
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: UK

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/17/05 11:43 AM

Don't bring Jonathan's Fingertip Coins Across (which will appear in Genii as soon as Jonathan gets some photos he likes) into the picture: it's not the same and I don't want the thread to go down that road again.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20662
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Ryan Matney » 11/17/05 12:20 PM

Richard,

Sorry. Just trying to make a point as Matt did that you can't go by what's printed first. It's not the same though. I'll edit my post.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Ryan Matney » 11/17/05 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Peter Duffie:
Point to note: The Gene Maze routine does NOT use the Charlie Miller Face-up Bottom Deal Concept.
Then Jerry has a moot point, eh.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/17/05 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Ryan Matney:
...it would be an interesting debate.

Point being, being the first in print might not be the best way to judge ownership.
I'm more concerned about HOW we discuss the issues and items when they come up. Not every discussion or debate needs to start the way Dan Akroyd began his rebuttal to Jane Curtain on the SNL skit "Weekend Update".
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6665
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby John McDonald » 11/17/05 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Originally posted by Ryan Matney:
[qb] ...it would be an interesting debate.

Point being, being the first in print might not be the best way to judge ownership.
But it is the ONLY WAY we have at the moment that gives a date. How can we say that a video is proof of a date? Or that a dated envelope is proof of what it contained?

Jerry has said that ""If.. and I do mean if Maze worked the trick out independently then I apologise to him sincerely.""

Jerry allows for working out the trick independently, what he is saying as it appears to me is that proof of ownership goes with publication date and if you don't even credit stuff that is in print already you are indeed claiming it as your own... if you are made aware of this should you not credit then??

The whole thing seems simple enough to me.
Best John
John McDonald
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chester, UK

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/17/05 02:21 PM

Originally posted by John McDonald:
...But it is the ONLY WAY we have at the moment that gives a date. How can we say that a video is proof of a date? Or that a dated envelope is proof of what it contained?...
As I understand the matter in general, the artifact itself is not so much the evidence as its chain of custody and known place among people who are willing to publicly state their recollections. Perhaps a lawyer can help on this one.

I find it almost funny how some here take the printed word over the word of those about whom much is written. Take the Vernon quote about John Ramsay I reported back in 1987. I was surprised to the point of being stunned silent. When I reported his words here, the report was met with denials from those were not present at the time.

What makes the history books is what seems to suit the author, and such things stay there till those who know different and are willing to say so in public come forward... and then only when the rest of the culture is ready to listen and consider the matter.

I still think it's almost entirely about HOW we discuss the issue. Unlike academic work, magic is also about secrets which make the scientific model of full disclosure and almost open access to underlying data and principles awkward. Perhaps we cold use the writing style of scientific papers to format our citations?
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6665
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby John McDonald » 11/17/05 02:32 PM

As it seems to me there is a big difference between a history book and the publication of a card move.

If I was writing a history book I might give my recollection of events. I might say that I had the idea first. I spoke to so and so about it etc...

A published effect/routine is not the same. It gives a factual account, a description. It should also credit where the move has been seen before, shouldn't it?
Best John
John McDonald
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chester, UK

Postby Ryan Matney » 11/17/05 03:18 PM

Originally posted by John McDonald:

A published effect/routine is not the same. It gives a factual account, a description. It should also credit where the move has been seen before, shouldn't it?
Keep in mind that in this particular case, Matt Field said he WOULD have mentioned Jerry's move had he not simply missed it.

Also keep in mind that the Maze move and the Charlie Miller move are not the same so what is due Jerry?

But, Yes, in a general sense I agree with you. If I were writing about a magician from, say, the 1940s and there was a lot of his unpublished material to be written up. I might say, "this or that was never published, however several others have discovered the sleight or move over the years and published it (and mention names) What follows is the original handling."

But I don't see how you can ignore what someone showed you or what you know is true just to cite the first printed source.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby John McDonald » 11/17/05 03:21 PM

For Clarity, consistency, fairness.
Best John
John McDonald
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chester, UK

Postby Guest » 11/17/05 03:31 PM

Originally posted by John McDonald:
A published effect/routine is not the same. It gives a factual account, a description. It should also credit where the move has been seen before, shouldn't it?

Keep in mind that in this particular case, Matt Field said he WOULD have mentioned Jerry's move had he not simply missed it.
Then why was this not done in print after the event rather than the letters in private and posts in public calling the man a mentally ill psychopath, etc?

Also keep in mind that the Maze move and the Charlie Miller move are not the same so what is due Jerry?
Again, the issue is the ROUTINE which uses the move, not the move itself. Therefore an apology and correction of the credit is due. IMO

But, Yes, in a general sense I agree with you. If I were writing about a magician from, say, the 1940s and there was a lot of his unpublished material to be written up. I might say, "this or that was never published, however several others have discovered the sleight or move over the years and published it (and mention names) What follows is the original handling."
No, if it's already been published and established, this is morally wrong.

But I don't see how you can ignore what someone showed you or what you know is true just to cite the first printed source.
Because that is morally, the right action to take.

Baz
Guest
 

Postby John McDonald » 11/17/05 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Ryan Matney:

But I don't see how you can ignore what someone showed you or what you know is true just to cite the first printed source. [/QB]
Truth, what is that? Is it true for you or true for me or true for someone else. Is it what they percieve to be true? Is it what they believe is rumoured to be true?

Is it what they rememeber? Is it what they think they remmeber? HAVE THEY GOT THEIR DATE ACCURATE?

No, the truth is objective. The only way that we can be consistent and fair is the public printed record especially if we are discussing a routine and not a move.

There has to be a consistent approach, anything else means that everything is up for grabs.

Let us be realists.
Best John
John McDonald
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chester, UK

Postby Pete McCabe » 11/17/05 08:18 PM

My position on credits is quite a bit different from most of those expressed in this thread, although the end result is pretty similar: I credit everything I can.

But I believe that the primary point and purpose of credits in magic literature is to help the reader who may want to learn more about the move/routine/etc. in question. Say I publish a routine that's based on John Bannon's "Heart of the City" and uses a Gordon Bean switch. I will include these credits because if the reader likes my trick, they'll probably want to check out John's original version, to see if they like it better. And if they like the switch, they'll want to read Gordon's original write-up, to see if it includes any handling tips I didn't include, other applications of the move, etc.

Giving "credit" or acknowledging primacy or "ownership" of the move or routine is of secondary importance in my book.

The end result, again, is the same -- I credit everything I can.

However I am baffled by the idea that the printed record is the only possible way to arbitrate a credit. I wonder if Baz created a trick, and used it in a performance, and a magician in the audience saw it, and published it, would Baz then give credit to the thief? I don't know who Baz is, but I've never in my life met a magician who would give credit to someone who stole something from them and rushed it into print.

I guess what I think is that whoever publishes a trick first deserves credit for publishing the trick first, and the person who first invented the trick deserves credit for inventing it. Those don't have to be the same person.

Just to pick one example, would Baz or anyone else credit Frank Garcia with creating Wild Card? Every magician I know and respect who knows anything about the subject credits Peter Kane with creating the trick. Garcia's action of publishing it before Peter is not considered a credit but a discredit.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Next

Return to General