Disappointed with On the Slant

Discuss the views of your favorite Genii columnists.

Postby hgebeaux » 08/27/09 02:29 PM

I found Jon Racherbaumer's discussion of "Gifts" rather interesting. Until, that is, the very end. If he had indeed felt that Eddie Fields deserved credit for the "Princess Card Trick" being published in The Jinx 75th anniversary tribute, then he should just have included his name in the "billing" of the effect. But to claim he was showing love and gratitude by giving him the "gift" of conferring "all credit to him," and THEN letting everyone know in his column that the effect was really his and his name was being left off because he was being nice - well that just didn't hit me right.
If, indeed, it was a gift, then just let it be a gift. Let Eddie Fields have the billing and step out of the picture. Let him accept the applause. But to make sure everyone knew that it was really his effect, to me, tarnished the gift idea completely. Smacks of egotism for sure. So disappointing.
Howard Gebeaux
hgebeaux
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 06/14/09 04:08 PM
Location: Northern Neck, Virginia

Postby Jon Racherbaumer » 08/27/09 02:50 PM

I agree with Howard up to a point; however, I apparently did not make myself clear in SLANT? What follows is not meant to be a mea culpa as much as it is an explanation. What many of us fail to mention when crediting anything are our POINTS OF INSPIRATION, which, without them, the rest probably wouldn't have happened.

"Surprising the Princess" (original title) was definitely inspired by something Eddie Fields suggested. I then figured out a way to do it. I also contributed this method in the 70s when I was more naive about such things. These days I'm completely uninterested in receiving credit for MYSELF. Frankly, I'm not that creative when itcomes to inventing tricks or devising methods. I'm more like a parrot. When Harry Anderson suggested putting this trick in the JINX TRIBUTE pub, I decided to credit Fields because I now hold INSPIRATIONAL POINTS in much higher regard. Besides, I still have not sufficiently repaid Eddie Fields for what he "gifted" me. Better late than never.

Regardless, I thank the poster for his observations and I hope that readers at least understood the underlying messages about GIFTS rather than focus on my failings to practice what I'm preaching.
Jon Racherbaumer
 
Posts: 812
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Orleans

Postby Nikodemus Siivola » 08/28/09 03:09 AM

I have yet to receive the issue, but I for one am glad that true background is revealed.

While I'm certain the trick is an excellent one that Mr. Fields would have been proud of, in general undisclosed misattributions are called forgeries -- and I'm pretty sure you would not credit a trick to Hofzinzer without making it clear that you are the actual author and the venerable Viennese an inspirational source.

So: hooray for pulling back the curtain on this one.
Nikodemus Siivola
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/28/09 01:22 PM

As Racherbaumer explains quite clearly, this is a trick he'd published under his name in the past, and decided that the changes he made were not worth the full credit to him, and so he changed the credit to Fields.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 19991
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC


Return to Columns