Berglas interview

Discuss the latest feature articles in Genii.

Postby Guest » 04/21/07 06:02 PM

I knew nothing about this man other than the Berglas effect.

This interview is great! What an interesting man he is. Thank you Richard and Genii for opening my eyes to his wonderful world of magic.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/29/07 08:31 AM

I'm going to go against the grain and say that the entire time I was reading the article (I'm going to separate the article from the man, as the article itself was a monumental task) I couldn't help but think how much Berglas sounds like John Scarne.

The man has a lot of bluster, and doesn't offer up very many of his more unblievable stories that can, or have been confirmed by others. Things like the healing on the ship to South Africa come to mind as so over the top as to be rather a stretch.

Berglas's slag on Tony Corinda seems highly out of place and to me indicates a guy who just can't seem to accept that he actually had contemporaries throughout his career. Berglas seems unable to accept that it was Tony Corinda who wrote the bible of mentalisim, so Berglas has to imply that a huge percentage of the material within the book was stolen from him by Corinda, and that it is HE...Berglas, who should receive accolades for 13 Steps.

Berglas seems a man who has spent his career believing his own press kit.

His explanations regarding how his term as President of the Magic Circle, and how his board somehow opperated independantly of him resulting in many unpopular decisions was interesting. How the President of a Board could not be aware or involved in something like purchasing a new clubhouse shows eiether gross neglect of his job, or a man not bothering to pay attention to what his Board is doing, but signing off on things anyway.

In the end I found that not only did Berglas sound like Scarne, but many of his stories seemed obviously only partly true. His motivation apparently to clean up the overall image of some of his less shining moments. The Magic Circle comments beg to hear the other side of the story, the side from the Board of Directors themselves regarding how THEY saw Berglas as President and what his shortcomings were.

In any article if there is obvious doubt on one portion of a persons ability to recall the facts, there is instantly doubt on all the rest of the facts presented to the reader as well.

In a career retrospective like this, Berglas shouldn't have strayed into territory like he did with Corinda and the Magic Circle Board, the fact that he did only makes one want to see the other side of the story, and ALL the facts for many of the stories Berglas related in the article.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 04/29/07 08:38 AM

silverking, unlike John Scarne, Berglas can prove everything that is stated in our interview.

It is well known in London what was going on with the council on the Magic Circle. We only printed a single story as an example, but could have published many more. I have confirmation from others.

We don't blindly publish things without doing research, and we could have written a lot more about Corinda that was even less flattering. We published enough, however, to make David's point.


If you wish to read a magazine with absolutely no controversial statements in it, then The Linking Ring is for you.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20833
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 04/29/07 11:15 AM

I thought it was a great interview with an amazing and interesting man.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/29/07 11:47 AM

I wasn't aware that I was suposed to share the authors opinion on their subject or be sent off packing to the Linking Ring!

Richard, I don't know where the Linking Ring comment came from, but for the record, I have long opted out of receiving the Linking Ring in my IBM membership for very close to the reasons mentioned in your post.

I subscribe to Genii by CHOICE, and do so because I think it's an outstanding magazine, most every month the very best of the lot......an important point if you're going to suggest I head off to read other magazines if I don't happen to agree with any particular article in Genii, or get impressions as a result of reading an article in Genii that differ from those of the author's impressions of their subject.

I'll just say that claims of healing the lame on a ship to South Africa cry out for wittnesses, regardless of WHO is making the claims.

I also made it quite clear in my post that the article itself deserved accolades for the huge undertaking it obviously was.

Just because the drift I get from Berglas's OWN comments differ from your own doesn't mean my opinion of the man as a result of reading the Genii article is any less valid than anybody elses.

That the man himself, in his own quotes sounds to me like John Scarne is an observation, and as unlikely as it is that I was the only reader of the article to feel that way, I supose that it is possible I stand alone with my opinion.
As for the attack on Corinda, sorry, I need more than just somebody telling me it's true to support the attack in the first place.
If it IS true Corinda used material without permission, I want to hear Corinda's side of the story as well. If you're going to lay a charge, you'd best be prepared to be asked for the evidence.
I don't doubt you researched the story deeply, but the findings aren't in the article, and I find their omission causes me to take Berglas's claims with at the very least, a grain of salt.

Even if one stands alone with their opinion, it remains a valid opinion nonetheless.
Not wishing to turn this into a back and forth exchange, I shall say no more on the subject other than, if anybody has an opinion to share about the article I'd like to hear it......however if anybody feels compelled to register an opinion on MY opinion ONLY, they clearly miss the point.
Guest
 

Postby Bob Farmer » 04/29/07 01:08 PM

I was doing graduate work in London in 1975 and 1976. During that time, I saw David Berglas perform on several occasions. He was the only magician of the many magicians that I saw who consistently fooled everyone, magicians and laymen, alike.

He always had great effects, original presentations and damn effective methods (at least, I couldn't figure them out, so they were effective for me).

The only relevant comparison with Scarne is that Berglas, like Scarne, knows how to promote himself.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 07:14 AM

I think that all the comments that have been made in this thread about David Berglas are more or less correct. I have known David Berglas for at least 30 years. I have visited his home at least four or five times and have always received wonderful hospitality from him. Sadly for about ten years we ceased to speak or have anything to do with each other. Some time in 2001 I asked David if I could record some material on tape with him for a second Magicassette recording with him. The deal on the first recording was that I made it. I edited it and I put it out without having first to seek David's approval. In any case David liked the recording and especially the part of it that related to his live performance with me as a spectator on Any Card at Any Number. And there is quite a story relating to that as well!
When I returned to make tape number two there were no conditions laid down with regard to the need to seek David's permission for the release of the final MagicCDAudio. I have never ever allowed any of the people I have interviewed to impose conditions that could halt the final release of any recording. After I had interviewed Edwin of Supreme Magic he didn't like the material that he had released on the recording and did his best to stop me putting the tape out but despite his solicitor's letter I eventually put it out. I thought that the story of the UK's biggest and most successful magic dealer was fascinating but it was the least popular recording that I have ever made.

I recorded David and quizzed him a little on Any Card at Any Number as that is where the greatest interest lies for most magicians anxious to be able to duplicate this effect. I wonder how many magicians bought David's book and turned straight to the pages dealing with that effect and how many of the them put the book down feeling that on that effect they had learnt little. David was very free with information that he revealed and I was thrilled with the recording and sent him a copy on CD. He rang and told me that it was good but that he would like me to return to "add some more material to the recording". I didn't want to do that and suspected that what was interesting to listeners would be removed and more of the puffy type of stuff that David likes to perpetuate would be added .. in effect I believed that David would be attempting to use his great power of psychological manipulation on me and that I would end up with a recording that would have been essentially an advert for the major book that was forthcoming. In fact before we started work David had the kindness to allow me to be the only outsider to page through the proofs of the big book.

I recently wrote to David and sent him a cheque in payment for the recording and told him that I had been sitting on the recording for far too long and that it would be released very soon.

I was shocked at the reply I got which told me that I would be infringing his intellectual property and how dare I put it out without his approval AS HAD BEEN AGREED AS A CONDITION PRIOR TO MAKING THE RECORDING!!! There was no such condition agreed and for sure if David had made that stipulation in advance of the recording I just wouldn't have bothered at all to visit and record his words.

The tape obviously reveals more than David wished to be revealed about Any Card at Any Number. In fact I was planning to say in my advertising already written that with the information on this recording combined with the information in the book any competent magician would be equipped with sufficient knowledge to perform an excellent performance of Any Card at Any Number.

The interview started (at David's request) with me reading aloud the citation on his certificate of the Special Fellowship that he received from the Academy of Magical Arts. David glowed with pleasure as I read through the words of praise. He glowered with displeasure when he heard from me that I had also received much earlier A Special Fellowship from the Academy of Magical Arts. He asked me what contribution I thought I had made to magic to contribute to such recognition.

Anyway I have received clear instructions from David that the tape is not to be released and unless some highly qualified magical lawyer has some good advice to offer me it will remain stored away and unheard for ever. I would rather spend my time creating magic material than entering into a tedious legal battle. Now what has this got to do with the article on Berglas in my favourite magazine. Well, the magazine arrived on the same day as David's nasty letter and I just couldn't bring myself to read all about the good and wonderful things that David has done in life - and he has done many good and wonderful things in his life - when he had just done something pretty horrible to me.
I should add that I think that David is a brilliant performer, highly creative and imaginative and deserves every success that he has ever received. I saw him perform at the Labia Theatre, Cape Town when he was about 26 and I was just a teenager and his hypnosis show was the best that I have ever seen. He invited a spectator on stage right at the beginning of the show and "put him under a trance" and instructed him to stand to one side of the stage on one leg only. The poor man stood in that position for the entire show and to this day I do not have a clue as to how it was done. Unless of course he was a one-legged stooge used to standing on one leg. When David claims that he doesn't use stooges I can only add that once he asked me if my brother-in-law could give him a hand with a show and he did. Tony Camp, my brother-in-law, told me a few days later that he hadn't been invited to help set up the show but simply to be a stooge with a known credit card number for use when David did his brilliant sightless vision act. So I know for sure that David has used a stooge in his life and Tony Camp would be happy to verify that. Probably that was the only time that David used a stooge .. that just has to be the case, doesn't it.

Everyone in magic I would think wants to know more about Any Card at Any Number and unless I publish and be damned then no-one other than me and David will ever know. Does this sound rather bitter? Yes it does ... and that is because I am bitter about the attempted suppression of my recording.
Guest
 

Postby Ian Kendall » 04/30/07 07:55 AM

Wasn't this all dredged up last year?

Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Jim Creighton » 04/30/07 09:33 AM

Once again, congratulations on a great issue and a fascinating interview. How I would love to have seen Berglas perform!

However, I don't see how any unbiased reader could help but feel that the interview made Berglas seem just a bit self-serving. I suppose that someone as accomplished as he is can be excused for tooting his own horn, but like "silverking," I would like to have seen those he criticized given some opportunity to make a response. That's kind of basic, isn't it?

And what's with the shot at the poor ol' Linking Ring? The comment was true enough, but it seemed a little gratuitous.
Jim Creighton
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 01/25/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 09:41 AM

No Ian. I haven't looked back but I believe that what I had to say in my diatribe today was not a rehash of what was said last year. There was little or no reference to my new recording I am sure and it was more to do with David accepting a deal to make his own cassette revealing all on the ACAAN effect and then backing out because he thought that I would me making more money than him.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 11:41 AM

The second-most amazing fact in this thread is that there is a venue in Cape Town named the Labia Theatre.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 12:07 PM

Great interview. It is a welcome addition to the massive book.
The book itself is a treasure trove in terms of delivering off beat ideas and methods, and that in itself is quite wonderful. Mr Berglas may not be beyond a little self-publicity - after a lifetime of it, it becomes habit, I guess - but he passes the public test:

- If the general public thinks that you are a magician, then you are -

... And Mr Berglas is a Man of Mystery for millions of people. Across continents.

Thanks for the publication.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 01:48 PM

I must agree with Mr. Breese that the information of ACAAN in the Britland book isn't at all near to the real effect.
Too little is told.
The book is great, but the Any Card at Any Number section in the book offers only clouds and smoke.
Just an opinion.
I hope one day the recording of Mr.Breese will come out.
Guest
 

Postby Tom Ladshaw » 04/30/07 03:29 PM

Steve Hook writes:

"The second-most amazing fact in this thread is that there is a venue in Cape Town named the Labia Theatre."


You should see the wings.
Tom Ladshaw
 
Posts: 157
Joined: 01/21/08 01:00 PM
Location: Covington, KY

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 03:34 PM

Mr Berglas may not be beyond a little self-publicity - after a lifetime of it, it becomes habit, I guess - but he passes the public test:

- If the general public thinks that you are a magician, then you are -
Fine when talking to muggles.
Why blow smoke and vagaries around here?
Guest
 

Postby Pete Biro » 04/30/07 04:20 PM

Many think the professionals in magic are and should only be talking to the muggles. :eek:

A second thought... I wonder if this wasn't the same way Mr. Houdini spoke/acted?
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Guest » 04/30/07 04:29 PM

Many think the professionals in magic are and should only be talking to the muggles.
Something about cutsie ellipsis, vagaries and missing critical instruction when the "how to" of things is discussed gives me the feeling of being talked down to.

If Mr. Berglas wishes to discuss his ACAAN, fine. Or if not... also fine. But why the teasing?
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 04/30/07 08:56 PM

Two notes.

First, David has letters and news clippings in his scrapbooks to support the story of the hypnosis "cure" on the boat to South Africa.

Second, David has never explained Any Card at Any Number to anyone in detail for for publication (either in printed or aural form)--he told me this himself on the phone an hour ago. The interview to which Martin Breese is referring contains methodology for card locations, card cutting, and things of that nature, but there is no detailed description of Any Card at Any Number.

Obviously all the details for performing Any Card at Any Number are not in the book Britland wrote--no one is pretending they are. But the basics are there. It's David's material and if he chooses to explain it, or only part of it, that's his decision.

I don't know any performer who doesn't have an ego that is larger than most non-performers possess--you need that to go out on stage and command the audience. Considering the titanic egos I've dealt with over the years, David was a pleasure in all respects and happily submitted to my repeated questions without fuss. I asked to see news clippings or photos to back up stories and he happily dug through his archive until he found them.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20833
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 02:27 AM

I don't personally know Mr.Berglas, and so i'll not say any opinion on him.
Neither i've seen him ever perform, and so obviously also i'll never express an opinion on his professional and magic abilities, which all aside, seem great.
The only thing i repeat, is that i don't like effects half explained.
I prefer if they are explained.
And i even prefer if they're not explained at all.
Things half explained like Any Card at Any Number are only smoke and mirrors!
So i'd cut out that part from the very good Britland book.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 08:23 AM

The Britland book (which I purchased and sold immediately after reading) contained a great many empty pages, devoid of tips or explanations for those who would pay $200.00 for a mentalisim book.

It wasn't just ACAAN that wasn't tipped or explained, there were many other examples of the same type of treatment of a routine or effect.

The book was marketed to mentalists and magicians, but it really wasn't written for them.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 09:20 AM

I read the Berglas book and think it is probably the best book ever written on mentalism. Corinda's 13 Steps is also a great book. The difference.....Corinda provides technique and presentational foundations.....The Berglas books tells you how to sell it, how to be a showman and how to create a sensation with simple means. It also spells out the secret to great mentalism.....having steely big ones and being able to think on your feet. And it doesn't hurt to have a great imagination!

The card at any number is a worthless effect unless you have the presentational skills to sell it. Without it, it is just a card trick, not a miracle. It seemed pretty clear to me after reading the description in the book that card at any number is a "multiple out" method, and not every contingincy was explained. The more you know about card magic, the more possibilities are open to you. Think Vernon's "Trick that Cannot be Explained".

Berglas is a brilliant and bold guy, and not everyone is capable of getting the effect he can get from the tricks described in the book. But there are many valuable lessons in those pages.....worth more than 10,000 "card tricks". Berglas teaches how to present miracles!

I'm sure many mental magicians could fool me with Card at any Number.......but I don't think I would care. They are just puzzles. ........Berglas creates astounding effects on people. He's a master showman. Most mentalism leaves me cold. But Berglas is a miracle man.

Pass that horn and I will toot it as well. Berglas rules!

carney
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 09:37 AM

Silverking,

This has all been hashed over before. I will repost part of something I wrote five years ago when a few complained in similar vein:

Simply put: If you are looking for a simplistic instruction book that holds your hand, the Berglas book isnt for you. If you are an amateur who simply wants to collect secrets, then the Berglas book isnt for you. If you dont like being forced to think and analyze what youve read, then the Berglas book isnt for you. As it says in the front matter, the book is published in a limited edition of one-thousand copies for distribution to professional performers.

Theres the key. The true value of the book can only be realized by those with extensive stage experience because only with that level of experiential education can you understand what Berglas is saying: his insights, subtleties, and approach to performing. The amateur, absent this experience and education, might as well be reading ancient Greek or Swahili.

If you are a working professional and want routines that will add immeasurably to your repertoire; if you want to be exposed to the thinking that goes into the creation of a successful career; if you want a number of presentations that extract the absolute maximum in mystery and entertainment from the routine, then this is the book to buy. On that basis, the book priced far below its actual value. There are numerous items that are, easily, worth the price of the book, but they take stage presence and address to carry them off. This is high level material, not for the faint of heart.

There are several highly valuable secrets that he has left in plain sight including one that obviously made him hundreds of thousand of pounds. That Berglas was as generous as he was is amazing to me.yet people complain about the lack of clarity in a silly card trick when other, far more valuable information is spelled out in detail.

The idea that the book is not definitive only exposes the short comings of the reviewer. This is nicely covered by a line delivered by Gene Hackman, playing Lex Luthor in the first Superman film: Why is it that some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it nothing more than a simple adventure story and someone else can read the ingredients on a gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the Universe?
Guest
 

Postby Larry Horowitz » 05/01/07 09:42 AM

John Carney is one hundred percent correct!

I met Mr.Berglas just after the book was out and the controversy regarding ACAAN was on the internet. We discussed that magicians didn't "get" what the book was about.

If you can't figure out how ACAAN is done from the available material, (John just GAVE it to you!), then you probably could not perform the effect with any worthwhile results.
Larry Horowitz
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: L.A.

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 10:02 AM

Is there a gap between what one wants to learn and what has been offered?

What specifically is the purpose of writing and offering to magicians a description of a magic performance from a purported muggle's eye view?

As to how to manage fifty two decks of cards... a mnemonic would do. To word-play with Mr Knepper... or do another one. It can't really all be about the methods can it? Or should it?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 10:30 AM

It doesn't take long for the illuminati to attempt to portray any poster who doesn't agree with them as a bumbling amateur lacking in skills and/or of a diminished mental ability.

David, I do a great ACAAN and have done for 30+ years. I'm also fully aware of what the Britland book 'was' and what it 'wasn't', I owned it and read it twice before selling it.

I'm really not as stupid or uninformed as you would have me be in order to fit the mold you offer explaining WHY I didn't understand the Britland book.

I didn't like it! (can I say that here?)....it's no deeper than that.

done and peace.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 10:59 AM

Okay, I've a question that maybe someone can answer or Richard has knowledge of. [censored] is out of the UK and he met David Berglas for the first time when he was 16 (when Mark was 16) so they go back some 45 or 50 years. Mark said there was a trick that was David favorite that he doesn't like to discuss and will never publish and it isn't the any card at any number. Anyone know about this trick? Mark, who had some instruction from Berglas, doesn't know the trick.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 11:10 AM

As to how to manage fifty two decks of cards... a mnemonic would do.
Not sure what 52 decks has to do with anything. If the trick was: A Card at Any Number, that would explain it, but the trick is: Any Card at Any Number. The math goes much higher.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/01/07 11:16 AM

Don't know it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20833
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 11:17 AM

Not sure what 52 decks has to do with anything. If the trick was: A Card at Any Number, that would explain it, but the trick is: Any Card at Any Number. The math goes much higher.
Are the "other" 51 cards supposed to be blank?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 11:38 AM

So the man wants to keep one for himself. Good for him. End of story.

Since the book came up again, I'll tell you this: the pickpocket routine described in the cabaret act - in which 5 watch steals are announced under test conditions - is impossible. Yet I appreciated reading about it, as it open one's eyes to other presentational approaches. That, beyond the historical perspective of the book, is what made it interesting.

But there was a fair dollop of B.S. within the pages, no doubt about it.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 11:42 AM

Are the "other" 51 cards supposed to be blank?
I don't understand what you mean by that or what blank cards would have to do with anything. Your original post seemed to imply that the method for ACAAN was to have 52 decks set up, and I was pointing out that 52 decks don't begin to cover the possibilities when the effect is ANY card at ANY number. You would need 2704 decks. Of course, that number can be reduced by using ruses such as counting face up or face down, and psychologically limiting the choices, but I don't think 52 is the magic number.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 11:59 AM

Your original post seemed to imply that the method for ACAAN was to have 52 decks set up, and I was pointing out that 52 decks don't begin to cover the possibilities when the effect is ANY card at ANY number. You would need 2704 decks.
Retraction in 5...4...3...

:)

Edit: Sorry, that wasn't so helpful. Look at the numbers again, John. 52 decks covers all possibilities for any named card to appear at any given position.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 11:59 AM

I haven't yet had the opportunity of reading the article - but have been fortunate enough to spend time with David and see first hand just what a remarkable showman he is.

He is without a doubt one of the great performers the art of magic has ever known. He is a true man of mystery - a wonder worker ... and somebody who fulfills the role of master showman to a tee. Living legend comes to mind.

Personally, I find most magicians boring ... seldom do I find them entertaining and once in a blue moon I find them mystifying. David, however, is a breed apart. To see him perform - is to understand the instinctive element of astonishment that is so often lacking in today's arena. As with most things - we don't truly appreciate something until its gone.

IMHO, these petty squabbles are in poor taste.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 12:02 PM

You would need 2704 decks
I don't think so.

Assume deck 1 is in new deck order. For deck 2, take a new deck and put the bottom card on the top. For deck 3, take a new deck and put the bottom card on the top and then take the next card on the bottom and put it on top. Continue like this through deck 52.

In each of the decks, each card appears at a unique number. In the next deck, it is at the next consecutive number. If it is in position 52, it is in position 1 in the next deck.

It only takes 52 decks.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 02:24 PM

Sometimes it helps to look at a simpler example. So, let's try a new effect:
Any Ace at Any Number!

But the numbers are 1 through 4 (not 1 through 52). So in this case would I need 4 packets of Aces or would I need 16 packets (4 X 4)?

I'll call my Aces 1, 2, 3, and 4. Packet 1 is in this order, from the top:
1
2
3
4

I'll move one card from the top to the bottom three times to arrange three more packets. So, left to right, those four packets have my Aces in the four arrangements shown (packets are left to right, order of cards is top to bottom):
1 2 3 4
2 3 4 1
3 4 1 2
4 1 2 3

So, Ace #1 is the first card in packet 1, the 4th card in packet 2, the 3rd card in packet 3, and the 2nd card in packet 4. Similarly, each Ace occupies each position in each of the four packets.

So only 4 packets are required. Amazing. But not that great of a trick.

Gene Taylor
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 02:54 PM

I haven't yet had the opportunity of reading the article - but have been fortunate enough to spend time with David and see first hand just what a remarkable showman he is.

He is without a doubt one of the great performers the art of magic has ever known. He is a true man of mystery - a wonder worker ... and somebody who fulfills the role of master showman to a tee. Living legend comes to mind.

Personally, I find most magicians boring ... seldom do I find them entertaining and once in a blue moon I find them mystifying. David, however, is a breed apart. To see him perform - is to understand the instinctive element of astonishment that is so often lacking in today's arena. As with most things - we don't truly appreciate something until its gone.

IMHO, these petty squabbles are in poor taste.
Great performer or not, David Alexander's dismissal of a thread participant's honestly held opinion on the rank assumption the poster doesn't know how to perform and thus "doesn't get it", and the concommittant conviction demonstrated by Alexander that Alexander is a superior creature because he does know how, is pretty distasteful and petty.

Still, he was merely following the lead of others.

Joe E. Pike
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 03:30 PM

Actually Joe, had you read the post you would know that it was from a post I made in 2002 as an answer to the whining then extant about the lack of detail on the Berglas Effect.

Richard Kaufman liked it so much that he asked permission to attach it to the Genii review of the Berglas book. David Berglas must have found merit in what I said because he sent me a nice note thanking me for my observations.

The point I was making, which seems lost, is that Berglas wrote his book for professional performers, not amateurs. To understand what he wrote requires a degree of performing experience that most amateurs never have. If you bought the book and failed to understand that, too bad.

As I said, to the working performer, the book is solid gold for a variety of reasons that require professional performing experience to understand. Every professional I respect thinks highly of the Berglas book, so I'm in good company.

Apparently I'm considered "petty" when I point out that not all opinions are equal and that some, because of experience and education, are worth more than others.
Guest
 

Postby Bob Farmer » 05/01/07 03:41 PM

Some footnotes for posterity:

I explained a very good Ace At Any Number in my Genii column (though I don't remember which one -- Richard?).

I will be marketing in the very near future, "The Bammo Dekronomicon," one of my takes on the ACAAN plot, but one you can do immediately (and the deck is on the table BEFORE the card and number are named and the magician does not touch the deck after this happens).

Interested ACAANers can email at Trickmail@sympatico.ca and I'll add you to the notice list when the trick is released.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 03:54 PM

I agree with you on many things David, but the concept of the 'superior opinion' isn't one of them.

An opinion is an opinion bro.... and everybody has one.... and each one of those opinions is as valid as the next one.

David, here's a quote from a post you made earlier today in another thread:
"The simple solution is to treat people the way you want to be treated, with respect and dignity".

Might this include respecting their opinions?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/07 04:21 PM

The idea that all opinions have equal weight is nonsense and something that you don't believe in yourself because you don't apply it in your own life.

You don't apply that concept when you visit a doctor or a lawyer or your accountant, paying them for their time, advice, diagnosis, tax information, etc. If all opinions have equal weight, why not just ask someone on the street or a relative when you need information about health, or taxes?

I respect opinions that have weight precisely because of education, experience, and a host of other things.
Guest
 

Next

Return to Feature Articles