The Christian Thing to Do

Discuss the latest feature articles in Genii.

Postby Matthew Field » 10/06/07 02:29 AM

Anyone know where I can find any information about Christian Chelman?

:D

Matt Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/06/07 07:54 AM

hahahahaha. Very funny, Uncle Matt.
Christian who?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/08/07 07:34 AM

You missed your chance for The Circular Matt..... he only does October interviews.... :-)

John
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/08/07 08:15 AM

I loved the article on Mr. Chelman. It made me want to see him in performance, hear more of what he has to say, and read his books and other writings.

It was a wonderfully laid out piece as well. But, I struggled to read it - I wanted to read it in one sitting, but could not - my eyes were taxed to the max.

Despite the hard-on-the-eyes factor for me, it was another grand slam for Genii.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/10/07 10:14 AM

Unfortunately, I haven't yet received my copy of Genii this month, but while Christian wasn't looking I temporarily 'liberated' his copy - so I've had a chance to read and enjoy the feature article.

I really must compliment Richard and his team for doing a fantastic job of accurately conveying - by text, images and graphics - the 'feel' that surrounds Christian and everything he does.

Christian and I meet up weekly at his Brussels flat, truly a modern day Ali Baba's cave. The treasures - a few of which are pictured in Genii - are seemingly endless. Also endless are the treasures that Christian reveals to me every time we talk, every time he instructs me in any aspect of magic technique and performance and every time our discussion veer into other areas which, on the surface, have little to do with magic, but in reality are closely tied. One key example being contemporary art.

Everything he does is a labour of love. No detail is too small or insignificant. He is, quite simply, an artist.

I feel privileged to be the one who translates his writings into English. Hopefully, there will be much more to come. His latest book in French, Compendium Sortilegionis, is a masterpiece of design and content. I for one would love to see it appear in English, although the task of translating it would, I'm afraid, give me many sleepless nights!

As you can all imagine, he is very pleased with his twin sweep in this month's Genii and Magic. As a true magician, he is a keeper of secrets. But sometimes it's nice to get a little recognition from one's peers! :)

I know he checks the Genii Forum from time to time, so hopefully he'll come by and visit soon.

Cheers,

Carl
Guest
 

Postby NCMarsh » 10/18/07 06:56 PM

Great article, horrible typesetting...I understand the aesthetic, but I had to take a break every few paragraphs to rest my eyes...please, please steer clear of the razor-thin white copy on a black field...
OrlandoCorporateMagician.com Orlando Magician
User avatar
NCMarsh
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: 02/16/08 01:00 PM
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/19/07 01:49 AM

It's not horrible typesetting: hundreds of magazines run white type on colored backgrounds all the time. We do it very rarely--perhaps twice a year--because of comments we've had from a few readers.

As far as Chelman being pleased with his "twin sweep" of being on the covers of Genii and MAGIC in the same month, good for him. Neither Stan Allen nor myself were remotely pleased at being lied to. I don't think you'll see Mr. Chelman in either magazine again for decades.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/19/07 06:24 AM

I am one of those who have already complained about extended reversed type on a colored background. But I found a few pages of the Christian Chelman article especially difficult to read. I wonder if there was a production issue -- in my copy only some of the pages were very difficult and eye-strain-inducing to read.

The rest of the article was merely difficult and eye-strain-inducing to read. Because reversed type on a colored background is difficult and eye-strain-inducing to read. I'm sorry to say, the fact that other magazines make the same mistake does not make my eyes feel any better.

Great article, though. Shame the overall experience ended unpleasantly for Richard.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/19/07 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
... I wonder if there was a production issue -- in my copy only some of the pages were very difficult and eye-strain-inducing to read. ...

I suspect that must have been the case - in my copy the first couple of pages of the article were all but unreadable - but I looked ahead and decided that the balance was merely difficult <grin>

Like you I wish magazines wouldn't do this - at best it makes it hard to read - but when there is a color registration problem then it becomes unreadable.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/20/07 08:50 AM

Speaking of printing errors, my October issue of the Linking Ring arrived yesterday. Instead of Chelman on the cover, it was Mac King! How did this happen? :p
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/20/07 12:37 PM

A few full pages of the Chelman piece were pretty unreadable in my copy due to a very slight mis-registration in the printing process (or at least that what it looks like)

The other pages were better, but the reversed out text was still a lot less readable than I'd prefer.

I don't mind this sort of thing in a sidebar or in smaller bites, but used in a longer feature story, it kills my middle aged eyes.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/21/07 09:06 AM

Hi Richard. A bit tardy, but wish to reinforce those who carped about the type. As an old (and who would argue with that?) Editor by trade, we always used to say that the farther away from black-on-white you get with type, the more undesirable. I realize that it's now considered 'graphically hip' to do these things, but it still makes 'em tough to read; and that, after all, is why we get GENII. And to you, Matt Field, a belated 'wish-I'd-said-that' award, old buddy! -jim
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/21/07 10:08 PM

I haven't seen the issue (don't have a subscription) but from what I've read here, here is some help.

This seems to be a trapping problem. Whose fault it is depends on the printing contract: if the printer is supposed to trap the job in the RIP, it's their fault. If not, it's production's fault (i.e.; whoever prepped the pages).

Things to avoid:

1: Never knock fine small serif type out of a process background; use a spot colour background and eat the extra cost for the fifth plate.

2: If you choose to ignore the above, and the type is lighter than the background in colorimetric terms, spread it. If darker, choke it. Never butt fit a knockout against a process background.

3: Never screen type. Ever.

A beautiful page need not have any colour at all. Tasteful, purpose-built layout and rigorous typography can be a pleasure to read.

In practice, it's a lot more complex than these simple rules but they're good general guidelines.

And Jim Alfredson is right; black type, white background is the way to go. When a subject may be difficult to comprehend, making it difficult to see as well is less than pointless.

This is from thirty years of high end print production.

Best,

Geoff
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/22/07 12:22 AM

He don't post often, but when he does it's worth reading...

Welcome back Geoff!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/22/07 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
As far as Chelman being pleased with his "twin sweep" of being on the covers of Genii and MAGIC in the same month, good for him. Neither Stan Allen nor myself were remotely pleased at being lied to. I don't think you'll see Mr. Chelman in either magazine again for decades.
What exactly has Christian "lied" about and what evidence do you have to support such an allegation?
Guest
 

Postby Ian Kendall » 10/22/07 09:50 AM

The obvious thought would be about being interviewed by each magazine.

Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/22/07 10:29 AM

Well Carl (aka "Sweet"), I'm not the least bit surprised you'd take that approach. You can wait and read Stan Allen's editor's notes in his November issue.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/22/07 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Well Carl (aka "Sweet"), I'm not the least bit surprised you'd take that approach. You can wait and read Stan Allen's editor's notes in his November issue.
Thanks for your reply, Richard.

In case it wasn't clear, I did not take an "approach". I asked you a question.

It is hardly surprising that I would challenge you to substantiate your allegations when you call Christian a liar. I know him as a man of integrity.

Am I biased? Of course! After all, he is a friend of mine.

I'll see Stan Allen's comments in due course. In the meantime, I would like to hear what you have to say.

Is anyone else surprised? Or is it just me?

- Carl
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/22/07 03:59 PM

I think it's just you.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/23/07 08:36 PM

I'm spartacus..... I mean I'm not surprised I think it is just you Carl.

J
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/24/07 12:24 PM

If, as an author, I would have sell my story to both the magazines, I can see a problem.
Both ethical and legal.
But, what is the problem with a performer giving two different interviews to two magazines, and without signing an exclusive?
I don't know how an interviewed subject can know or must care about when the magazines wishes to publish their articles.
The world press is full of actors, celebrities, politicians, etc. having a cover story in the same week on different magazines on the same markets, ever in microcosms as the magic "fraternity".
I think that the fact of having sometimes a performer portrayed on both the leading magic magazines is not a bad thing at all. This can just improve the information, without affecting the business side.
Can we please know what fault is precisely attributed in this case to Mr.Chelman?
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/24/07 12:40 PM

Neither MAGIC nor Genii would have put Chelman on the cover if we had known he was going to be on the cover of the other magazine. Period. And we certainly would't have done it in the same YEAR ... forget about the same month.

Chelman, in this case, was asked specifically if he was going to have a feature story in Genii when MAGIC approached him. He said "No."

The idea that he would knowingly allow both magazines to develop cover stories simultaneously while very carefully keeping that knowledge to himself (and his friends) stinks--it's selfish and deceptive. No one cares if they're different stories, or if one is an interview and the other isn't. He may be amused by it, or think it's a triumph of some sort, but it isn't. It just tells us that he can't be trusted.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Dustin Stinett » 10/24/07 01:45 PM

Magic is such a small cottage industry that to compare it to the general entertainment, political, or sports worlds where the same person might end up on the cover of industry magazines is ludicrous.

However, I think I can make an analogy using one of those larger worlds that might bring the issue into focus: Sports.

Let us say (and this burns in my throat) that the Boston Red Sox win the World Series. After the game, a freelance photographer snaps an incredible photo of the player celebration. Say he sells that photo to Sports Illustrated magazine. Unbeknownst to SI, he also sold the same photo to ESPN Magazine, and both magazines hit the newsstands with the same exact cover shot.

That photographers work would probably never appear in any sports magazine again.

Dustin

PS: Yes, I know that there are contracts, etc. that help prevent such occurrences; this is just a for-instance to make a point.
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5781
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 02:16 AM

Mr.Kaufman wrote:
Chelman, in this case, was asked specifically if he was going to have a feature story in Genii when MAGIC approached him. He said "No."

...

In my humble opinion, the truth is simple: the parties are here victims of a B-I-G misunderstanding.

Knowing for decades Mr.Chelman's moral integrity, I simply find impossible for him to say such a ridiculous lie. Many peoples knew at the time that he was going to have soon the "Genii" story.

As far as I know, Mr.Chelman was never asked by "Magic" if he was going to have a story in "Genii". Instead, Mr.Chelman considered good ethic to confirm by himself to the "Magic" reporter that he WAS going to have a story in Genii.
A proof is in the fact that this reporter asked for some specific routines to include, and Mr.Chelman explained that those was scheduled for the "Genii" story, so giving him other ones...



Seeing the reactions here, I imagine (but I hope to be wrong) that the editors of both magazines never called or spoke to Mr.Chelman before to express their judgments or accusations.
Eventually, I don't think is too late to approach him.
If my suppositions will be confirmed, I think that some apologize is due to Mr.Chelman.
Otherwise, I will be the first one to call Mr.Chelman a liar.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 07:26 AM

Richard,

Raffaele de Ritis is very restrained in his reply. I will be more blunt.

Christian did not lie to you or to Stan Allen. You and Stan were well aware that both magazines were producing articles on Christian.

Christian did not tell you otherwise.

Christian did not state, promise or imply that either magazine would have any kind of exclusive or special deal.

Christian is under no obligation whatsoever - legal, moral or ethical - to tell you or Stan what the other's plans are.

In your Genii Speaks column in the November issue of Genii you write that you and Stan "try very hard" to avoid a situation where the same person appears on the covers of both magazines at the same time.

Looks like you didn't try hard enough. Perhaps you and Stan could have simply asked each other. Surely that can't be too hard.

And now you're angry?

It simply sounds like you're blaming Christian for your own incompetence.

If you have evidence that he lied to you, then produce it.

In other words, put up or shut up.

If you or Stan can show me a letter or e-mail written by Christian in which he lies, then I will be happy to apologise immediately and grovel accordingly right here on this forum. Unless you ban me in the meantime.

You have been called on your [censored].

I look forward to your response.

Carl
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Geoff Latta:
Never butt fit a knockout against a process background.
Is it just me, or does that qualify as one of the best quotes ever on Genii (or any other forum)?

No idea what it means, but it sounds darn cool..... I'm gonna use it every chance I get :)

Bob
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Sweet:
Christian did [b]not lie to you or to Stan Allen. You and Stan were well aware that both magazines were producing articles on Christian.
[/b]
So you believe that both Stan and Richard knew that the other was working on a story, and they both put him on the cover anyway? I don't know all the facts in this case, but I know that's false. Neither editor would have put the article on the cover had they known.

Both editors take this kind of thing pretty seriously (obviously). I remember when I was going to send a trick in to David Acer for Magicana, which I had created with Paul Harris. I emailed Paul, to make sure it was okay, and he told me that he couldn't, because he had an agreement with Stan that Paul would not appear on the cover of another magic magazine for 6 months before or after. So, even though this was not a cover or article or interview, Paul -- whose ethical standards are quite a bit higher than most other magicians -- asked me to hold it back. Actually, I think it's going to be in David Regal's next book, which, oddly enough, features a picture of Christian Chelman on the cover.


Carl, do you really think that the only way you can accuse someone of lying is if you have a written copy of the lie? Have you never heard of speaking?

Meanwhile, you make three assertions:
1) Christian did not lie to you or to Stan Allen.
2) Christian did not tell you otherwise.
3) Christian did not state, promise or imply that either magazine would have any kind of exclusive or special deal.

Where the hell is your evidence for these statements? Unless you are Christina Chelman, how could you possibly know any of these things were true? If you have some evidence, please provide it. Otherwise please take your [censored] somewhere else.
Guest
 

Postby NCMarsh » 10/25/07 10:51 AM

You and Stan were well aware that both magazines were producing articles on Christian.
I am a neutral observer and care very little about this...but this claim really stretches the imagination...

Richard has been very clear in the past that he has no interest in having the same cover as MAGIC(there was a thread quite some time ago where Richard asked who we would like to see as future cover subjects, and this issue came up).
OrlandoCorporateMagician.com Orlando Magician
User avatar
NCMarsh
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: 02/16/08 01:00 PM
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 11:00 AM

Peter McCabe wrote:

If you have some evidence, please provide it. Otherwise please take your [censored] somewhere else.
...........

Exactly. But this for everybody.

Speaking of evidence, I wish please somebody to answer the following questions, and to answer them soon and clearly:

-Did ever the editors of the two magazines approached directly Mr.Chelman in any form, before or after the publishing of the stories?

-Did the "Magic" reporter reported to his editor that Mr.Chelman forbidden him the publishing of some trick because he alredy gave them for an already planned Genii story?

-When and how exactly "Magic" learned about the Genii story?

-When and how exactly "Genii" learned about the Magic story?

I'm neither happy at all that my Chelman "Genii" story appeared at the same time as the "Magic" one, and I'm certain that the responsible is not Mr.Chelman.

I don't think ther are any liars in this story, bit just some superficial attitude.

To admit it will be a great proof of being professional, humble and intelligent.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/25/07 11:06 AM

I will repeat that neither Stan nor I were aware that an article on Chelman was being produced for the other's magazine.

We certainly wouldn't have put him on the cover the same month, or the same year, if we'd known.

The mere fact that he appears on the covers of both magazines in the same month is evidence enough that he lied or concealed the truth, because every person who's ever spoken to Stan or myself about doing a story knows that you can only be in one place at one time. (The only exception is if someone like Jay Marshall or Channing Pollock dies.)

And here's the kicker, which makes it plain what arrogant [censored] Chelman and his friends are, to quote from Sweet's post: "Christian is under no obligation whatsoever - legal, moral or ethical - to tell you or Stan what the other's plans are." Well, he obviously felt he was under no moral or ethical obligation and the result is that he'll never appear in either magazine again.

So, Sweet's (aka Carl's) post is simply [censored], and the plain evidence of that is that Chelman is on the covers of both magazines at once--something that should never have happened and only happened through deceit.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 10/25/07 11:36 AM

Originally posted by raffaele de ritis:
-When and how exactly "Magic" learned about the Genii story?

-When and how exactly "Genii" learned about the Magic story?
I think it's apparent from the reactions that the first each of them became aware of the situation was when the other's magazine landed on their doorstep.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Bob Farmer » 10/25/07 11:42 AM

Chelman also appears on the October covers of both GUITAR PLAYER and GUITARIST -- and he doesn't even play the damn guitar.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/25/07 12:05 PM

Not quite: Genii goes in the mail first, and Stan Allen called me when he received it. So, he knew before I did.

Needless to say, I was just as shocked as he was.

He was only a few days from going to press, but if he had another week, I'm certain he would have pulled the cover story and substituted another.

We both had a good chuckle over how we'd been hoodwinked.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 12:48 PM

Originally posted by raffaele de ritis:
Exactly. But this for everybody.
I agree. But the problem is, we do have evidence for the facts in Richard's post: Richard's eyewitness testimony. We will soon have Stan's testimony as well, which will confirm Richard's. Does Christian Chelman refute any of these accusations? If he does, then that counts as evidence too. If Sweet or anyone else denies the accusation, that counts for nothing.

It is my understanding that Christian was directly asked by at least one person at Magic Magazine if he was to be the subject of an article at any other magic magazine, and he said "no." Richard's version of the same conversation is public knowledge. Now I can not confirm that these facts are true. But this is what Christian is being accused of, and if he did it, then people are justly upset. It would not just be a matter of omission or incompetence, but a deliberate lie.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 01:54 PM

Mr.McCabe wrote:
It is my understanding that Christian was directly asked by at least one person at Magic Magazine if he was to be the subject of an article at any other magic magazine, and he said "no."

...........

Are you sure of that? And on what proof?
Until somebody can finally answer to my precise questions, I adress more.

So:

1)WHO at Magic Magazine asked Chelman about other articles?

2)Can this person swear that Chelman answer N0?
Because, as far as I know, he answered YES.

3)Did this person reported to the Magic publishers that Chelman refused him some routines because scheduled for an upcoming Genii special?


I WISH THOSE THREE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED SOON.

We are all speculating on a conversation between Mr.Chelman and a "Magic" reperesentative that we still ignore who is.
We are speculating about it on the basis of third parties reports.
And we are just calling "liar" or worst ("a-----e") one of them on the basis of those third parties reports.
And editorials are written on the basis of third parties reports.

This is just horrible.
Guest
 

Postby Roger M. » 10/25/07 02:45 PM

These third party posts DEMANDING this and DEMANDING that from Richard Kaufman and Stan Allen are pointless.

If Mr. Chelman has a case to make for a rebuttal, he must make it personally.
Roger M.
 
Posts: 771
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 04:26 PM

Originally posted by raffaele de ritis:
Mr.McCabe wrote:
It is my understanding that Christian was directly asked by at least one person at Magic Magazine if he was to be the subject of an article at any other magic magazine, and he said "no."

...........

Are you sure of that? And on what proof?
I'm not sure if English is your native language, which would account for your question. Otherwise, it's pretty asinine.

Here's what I wrote:

"It is my understanding that Christian was directly asked by at least one person at Magic Magazine if he was to be the subject of an article at any other magic magazine, and he said "no." Richard's version of the same conversation is public knowledge. Now I can not confirm that these facts are true. "
[Emphasis added.]

The answer to your question is in boldface. It was in my original post, immediately following the part you quoted. Did you not read it, or deliberately ignore it?

You know what? Don't bother answering.

[Edited to fix my misspelling of asinine -- PM]
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/25/07 04:46 PM

There's no mystery about who asked Chelman if he was doing a feature article with Genii--it was Joshus Jay, who was about to write the article for MAGIC. Chelman acknowledged to Josh ONLY that he had given some tricks to Genii, nothing whatsoever about a feature article (which was already in my files). This was last November (2006). Stan Allen notes this in his editor's notes in MAGIC.

In the spring of 2007, I received a note from Marco Pusterla asking me not to use Chelman's trick "Cap and Pence" (which had already been given to me) in the Genii cover story, but without giving any reason. Of course I can see the reason now--it appears in the October issue of MAGIC!

E-mail is really a lovely thing--it's very easy to go back and see exactly what dates things were written, sent, etc.

Here's what you have: my word, Stan Allen's word (and these are both identical and in agreement), against Christian Chelman's word. So, I guess this means that the editors of both Genii and MAGIC are lying and that for some unknown reason we purposefully ran stories about the same person on our cover in the same month, and decided to complain about it after the fact.

Does that make any kind of sense to anyone? No, because it's idiotic. The only thing that explains the whole business is a sneaky little plot by Chelman and his friends to get him on the cover of both magazines without telling me or Stan Allen.

Anyway, the only loser here is Christian Chelman.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20539
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/25/07 08:27 PM

Raffaele's (sp?) comments remind me of this line from Casablanca:

"I'm shocked, SHOCKED do you hear, to discover that gambling has been going on here."

Your winnings monsieur..

Wait...wait...I'm feeling a prediction coming on. I see...it's fuzzy but I think...I see future advertisements from Christian saying "The only living magician to appear on the covers of Genii AND Magic in the same month.." /swoon. Sorry, my anima is exhausted....
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/26/07 01:25 AM

Thank you Mr.Kaufman to answer some of my questions. In fact, there are more elements now.

I don't think that Mr.Kaufman or Mr.Allen are liars, I have no reason to. The same for Mr.Chelman. And the same for Mr.Jay, of course.
As I said in my first mail, I don't think there are any liars at all: i think is a big case of misunderstanding.
Mr.Allen and Mr.Kaufman are third parties.
Mr.Chelman and Mr.Jay are first parties.
To clear a misunderstanding, is necessary to double-check both the voices.
Here, it seems that everybody appeals to how the facts have been dealt with and reported by Joshua Jay, but nobody consulted Mr.Chelman to double-check: he is instead insulted at every turn.

Is this that I find horrible.

"Magic" left alone his younger collaborator with the delicate task of negotiating a cover story with a 40-years international artist.
I repeat: is not a matter of liars here, but of superficiality and/or unexperience.
Everyone of us can fall one day or the other in those mistakes: we're humans, it just can happen. The best is always to admit it, search carefully the truth and not recurring quickly to the fabrication of "liars".
I don't think that Mr.Chelman is a loser here, disconnected how he's always been from the magic community. And I don't think, knowing his kind of career and markets, that he can have a great utility or "advertisement" (?!) because the two covers. Losers are, more than him, the two magazines showing a case of unability to manage a professional circustance, after all not so complicate.
This would not have happened in the case of even the simplest, direct professional contact between the two publishers and the artist.
And all that have been completely missing.

To Mr.McCabe: thank you for insulting me for my English, and with a so squalid humour. I repeat, we're humans. The bottom of the post indicates the provenience of every member here.
Guest
 

Next

Return to Feature Articles