Ennobling Magic

[Jackpot]

"Silly" to have real rather thsn feigned integrity?

While you are entitled to your opinion, I find it "silly" to label a person as dishonest or lacking strong moral principles simply because they tell "lies" to enhance a conjuring effect.

[performer]

I would have thought that deception is integral to a magic effect and that audiences expect it. I don't really see a problem with miscalling a page number in a book. Miscalling is an old principle in magic after all. What about miscalling cards? There are several tricks that may require this artifice. Or how about the one ahead Question and Answer act where you appear to be claiming you are reading one slip of paper but in reality are reading another.

What about an implied lie rather than an outright one? Does the performer actually have to utter the offending words or is the mere implicatation enough for him to be condemned?

I would really like to defend you here but alas it is a bit like defending the Alamo!

[Tom Gilbert]

Have you watched Slydini's Paper Balls over the Head? He continually tells the spectator that he's putting the ball in his hand as the ball is flying over the spectator's head. Sure looks like a lie to me...

[Ted M]

POLONIUS: Oh, I am slain.

Shhh! The actor is not dead. He is pretending his character has died! He has lied! Bad actor! He lacks integrity!

Would you edit Polonius' line too, in the name of ennobling the art of theater?

[Rick Franceschin]

A performer who falsely misrepresents him / herself, uses magic as a ruse in which to unwittingly sell somebody something or put across some agenda always runs the risk of upsetting the unfortunate souls generous enough to share their time. I would strongly agree that a performer should come to his / her audience with a sense of honesty, integrity and an understanding of what that audience expects them to do.
I would say that a magic performance devoid of lies can also be called a non-fiction performance. A magician, such as Richard Turner, who specializes in gambling demonstrations offers a generally lie free performance. Manipulators like Cardini and Jeff Sheridan put across work which clearly demonstrates great skill and ability. Still another approach is one where you tell the audience that what they are seeing is not real, a product of sleight of hand and other trickery. Jamy Ian Swiss has a mentalism act where he does just that.
Of course, if there is non-fiction magic, then there is fiction magic. There is an implicit agreement between the artist and the audience. He / she will offer them the experience of feeling like they are seeing real magic and they, in turn, will TRY to suspend their disbelief. The better the entertainer (Rob Zabrecky, Chris Hannibal, and oh so many others) the more willing audiences are to go with the fiction. Even further, there are audiences that thrive on the idea of the magician as a liar. Ricky Jay’s On the Stem is all about hustles and lies. Movies like The Sting and House of Games are intriguing if anything because of the unique nature of the way we lie.

Is a manip act more noble than a mentalism act? I think they are different things Mr. jkeyes 1000. From an audience point of view, all that matters is what they are into and how well the artist puts across their work.

[jkeyes1000]

"Silly" to have real rather thsn feigned integrity?

While you are entitled to your opinion, I find it "silly" to label a person as dishonest or lacking strong moral principles simply because they tell "lies" to enhance a conjuring effect.

My query was not so much about professional (or even personal) ethics, but about public perception.

I hate being redundant, but perhaps I should succinctly reiterate.

Regardless of our careers, I think it is beyond doubt that our fellows admire us more for honesty than deceit. Anyone here that believes their audience favours their aptitude for lying is either deluded or simply yapping to contradict me.

Are there throngs of humanity that respect duplicity as a virtue?

I say their admiration is predicated on their assumption of your honesty, and thus your apparent ability to wotk miracled within that context.

You must know that The Truth Will Out. You can't hide your lyin eyes indefinitely.

The problem I am addressing is the difficulty of restoring your dignity after losing it. Can a lier hope to convince the crowd that NOW he is teling the truth? That bit about the perfectly empty hat was kind of phoney, but seriously! You gotta believe me, I've never resorted to camera tricks or stooges in my life!

[performer]

If the audience knows that somewhere in your act you are telling lies but not really sure where does that justify the lies in Mr Keyes's mind or does he feel that it is still verboten?

There might possibly be a way out of his ethical dilemna if the former is the case. He could announce at the beginning of his performance that he is about to tell lies somewhere in his demonstration but he can't say where. Since the audience is told upfront that some lies are going to be told I wonder if that would make it easier for him?

I keep thinking that I am trying to arrange a plea bargain for him.

[performer]

Alas and alack I don't think he would make a very good svengali pitchman where telling lies is part of the job description.

[Jackpot]

Anyone here that believes their audience favours their aptitude for lying is either deluded or simply yapping to contradict me.

The problem I am addressing is the difficulty of restoring your dignity after losing it. Can a lier hope to convince the crowd that NOW he is teling the truth? That bit about the perfectly empty hat was kind of phoney, but seriously! You gotta believe me, I've never resorted to camera tricks or stooges in my life!

The people who disagree with you are neither deluded nor simply yapping.

If magicians perform magic well they cannot lose their dignity. If they perform poorly their may or may not lose their dignity, but they will ruin magic for others.

To those of us who love magic this should be our greater concern.

[Brad Henderson]

again, we have magicians thinking like a magician. Take richard turner. does he offer a non fiction approach to magic? is a center deal always a center deal?

what of the mind readers who claim they are reading body language? i suppose the classic force which precedes their demonstration is just for fun?

the only way the audience knows what is real and what isn't is if they know what is real and what isn't.

to a non magician is jamy's mind reading any more of less effective if he uses peeks and forces instead of nlp and hypnosis? is the impact of turners demo any less if he is using marked cards?

it's only less if the audience can tell the difference - and if they can, then you have problems larger than wondering if magic is based on lies

it appears the jkeyes doesn't know what magic is or how it is different from juggling or a scientific demonstration.

he won't respond to this.

because he can't.

[jkeyes1000]

Mark, I appreciate your objective stance in this argument. Yes of course if you are an "honest lier" you can get away with it.

You can even make sport of it. "Catch me if you can".

But I think it is risky for yourself and your fellow magicians to solemnly swear that you are truthful when you are not.

[Anthony Vinson]

Magic, at least as defined by those of us who haunt this forum, is deception. False transfers, double turnovers, and paddle moves are all lies. To argue otherwise is to troll. I congratulate Mr. Keyes – His theme song should be Troll Over Beethoven Let Me Troll It!

[jkeyes1000]

Magic, at least as defined by those of us who haunt this forum, is deception. False transfers, double turnovers, and paddle moves are all lies. To argue otherwise is to troll. I congratulate Mr. Keyes – His theme song should be Troll Over Beethoven Let Me Troll It!

Bad logic. A lie may be a deception, but a deception is not necessarily a lie. The ART of deception is in knowing the subtle differences.

[Ted M]

Why are you afraid of theatrical lying?

It has a frame around it. It's bounded by the frame of performance, acknowledged by the audience.

The "psychics" who lie without that frame of performance are disapproved of.

Do you see no difference?

If not, why?

If a child says, "Tell me a story," do you require that it be nonfiction?

[performer]

Aha! I think I have found a point with which to defend JKeyes! Brad mentions mentalists who lie about body language and NLP. I actually detest that! I think it is a dreadful lie because it has wider implications. The fact that it is a lie more readily believed than saying you are a real mindreader somehow makes it very icky indeed for me. It makes loads of daft people believe in NLP which of course is also a load of old cobblers and I am not sure that is good for society although it must be marvellous for NLP trainers. I have always thought that NLP stands for "Not a Lot of Plausibility"
And it gives body language (which I believe IS a credible thing) a bad name.

No. Just say you are a real mindreader on stage and anyone that is daft enough to believe THAT deserves to be lied to in the first place!

[jkeyes1000]

Why are you afraid of theatrical lying?

It has a frame around it. It's bounded by the frame of performance, acknowledged by the audience.

The "psychics" who lie without that frame of performance are disapproved of.

Do you see no difference?

If not, why?

If a child says, "Tell me a story," do you require that it be nonfiction?

My concern is simply that if you are known to lie once in a while, your listeners may very well doubt every thing you say, even when it is true.

As most of a given routine is "above board" it seems a pity to cast aspersion on every aspect of it.

The only posible advantage to this might be ADDED CONFUSION, sort of misdirecting your audience by making them overly suspicious.

In short: if you are known to be a liar, don't be surprised if the only thing anybody believes is your confession.

[Anthony Vinson]

Magic, at least as defined by those of us who haunt this forum, is deception. False transfers, double turnovers, and paddle moves are all lies. To argue otherwise is to troll. I congratulate Mr. Keyes – His theme song should be Troll Over Beethoven Let Me Troll It!

Bad logic. A lie may be a deception, but a deception is not necessarily a lie. The ART of deception is in knowing the subtle differences.

Bad definition, sir. Based on common usage lies are synonymous with deceptions and vice-versa. The ART of language, sir, is found in its precision.

If it is logic you are concerned with, then perhaps presenting your argument in the form a syllogism might alleviate some of the confusion among contributors and readers? It would certainly make it easier to support, defend, or reject your argument.

[jkeyes1000]

Magic, at least as defined by those of us who haunt this forum, is deception. False transfers, double turnovers, and paddle moves are all lies. To argue otherwise is to troll. I congratulate Mr. Keyes – His theme song should be Troll Over Beethoven Let Me Troll It!

Bad logic. A lie may be a deception, but a deception is not necessarily a lie. The ART of deception is in knowing the subtle differences.

Bad definition, sir. Based on common usage lies are synonymous with deceptions and vice-versa. The ART of language, sir, is found in its precision.

If it is logic you are concerned with, then perhaps presenting your argument in the form a syllogism might alleviate some of the confusion among contributors and readers? It would certainly make it easier to support, defend, or reject your argument.

Bad bluff. You suggest that the Common Usage of a word is preferable to the established definition. And then you have the gall to tell me "the ART of language is in its precision".

I will match your wits in both logic and letters, Mr. Vinson. Care to go another round?

[Brad Henderson]

Mark - my point was in relation to this notion of nonfiction magic - or what is essentially juggling, the demonstration of skill.

it becomes problematic because so often those that claim to be doing one thing are doing something else - and even magicians are unaware of that deception.

the problem with jkeyes is he is not only a coward but also incapable of consistent thought - as he admits on this thread he defended the use of camera tricks, which is in effect lying to the audience. it is not an illusion but an illusion of an illusion. it is no different from the sleight of hand expert who uses a trick deck or the body language expert who uses a forcing book.

his position is so ignorant of key concepts that he chooses to ignore the simple questions i have asked of him

when you know your position is so thin you have hide your eyes and stick fingers in your ears when challenged, well that says everything, doesn't it?

[Brad Henderson]

anthony - notice that our cowardly friend refuses to define lie, or give examples of an illusion presented with them, or artists to be admired.

he is the child who has been exposed as not being ready for the adult table. he knows he doesn't belong. and realizes to say more will only demonstrate that to everyone else.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Tom Moore wrote: "A magician with terrible BO who forces his performance on a group of spectators who just want to be left alone; performs old material with terrible cliched patter whilst also hitting on the spectator he has a crush on but who is literally telling the truth in everything he says does nothing to enoble the art."

Uh-Oh. Looks like I have been deluding only myself! Now I am going to have to revamp my entire act, persona, hygiene, and approach!

[jkeyes1000]

Mark - my point was in relation to this notion of nonfiction magic - or what is essentially juggling, the demonstration of skill.

it becomes problematic because so often those that claim to be doing one thing are doing something else - and even magicians are unaware of that deception.

the problem with jkeyes is he is not only a coward but also incapable of consistent thought - as he admits on this thread he defended the use of camera tricks, which is in effect lying to the audience. it is not an illusion but an illusion of an illusion. it is no different from the sleight of hand expert who uses a trick deck or the body language expert who uses a forcing book.

his position is so ignorant of key concepts that he chooses to ignore the simple questions i have asked of him

when you know your position is so thin you have hide your eyes and stick fingers in your ears when challenged, well that says everything, doesn't it?

Mr. Henderson, I never advocated camera tticks. I recal stating nimerous times in the course of that debate that I personally despise them. Our dispute was about the definition of the wotd "magic" and what technically qualifies. Are you merely mis-remrmbeting, or are you showing us one of the many uses for lying?

[Brad Henderson]

but a camera trick is merely an illusion. if the magician never says it's not a camera trick then you have to accept them as what you have defined as magic - an agreeably created illusion.

but now know you can see my posts. how about answering the simple questions posed to you?

i'm most curious to the artists you admire and whose work you think we have the most to learn from.

but i'd settle for an example of one of these illusions you say exist, accompanied without lying and conveying the experience of magic

shall i hold my breath?

[Bob Farmer]

I really enjoy lying to my audiences, it's part of the fun of doing magic ("This deck is made of solid deceptinium, and is only one of three such decks in the world."), though it's not a good policy elsewhere except when you're buying a car.

[jkeyes1000]

but a camera trick is merely an illusion. if the magician never says it's not a camera trick then you have to accept them as what you have defined as magic - an agreeably created illusion.

but now know you can see my posts. how about answering the simple questions posed to you?

i'm most curious to the artists you admire and whose work you think we have the most to learn from.

but i'd settle for an example of one of these illusions you say exist, accompanied without lying and conveying the experience of magic

shall i hold my breath?

Mr. Henderson, I see no point in discussing portrait painters. The quote you cited initially is flawed by the very same tautology that a lot of you have mentioned. To say that "all art is a lie" is a pretty poetic sentiment but iy doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

"All art is an illusion", I would accept. But by confounding ilusion with lie (which it is not), we rather stray from the truth than reveal it.

I have already defined a lie as a "false assertion". A verbal or written statement meant to deceive.

Further, I have distinguished an ilusion as a "visual phenomenon". Which is why I argued that filmed representations of magic tricks and llusions belong in essentially the same genre of entertainment.

It is not I who contradicts himself, but you. I still say a mute illusion is not a lie. You however, rejected camera tricks because they FALSELY REPRESENT a magicians live peformsnce. Because they are lies.

If lies are acceptable, then on what basis do you rationally discriminate?

[Bob Farmer]

Jerry Andrus claimed he didn't lie when performing, so if he said he was putting a card in the middle of the deck, he really was putting a card in the middle of the deck.

[Jack Shalom]

Jkeyes, you are confusing logical types. See Bateson on schizophrenia.

Real life is not equal to a play is not equal to the play within the play is not equal to the play within the play within the play.

[jkeyes1000]

Jkeyes, you are confusing logical types. See Bateson on schizophrenia.

Real life is not equal to a play is not equal to the play within the play is not equal to the play within the play within the play.

I have no idea what "logical types" you are referring to. As I am quite the adept at logic, I eagerly await your contribution to the subject so we can settle this.

[performer]

The most astonishing thing I find about this discussion is that it has actually pushed the Erdnase topic down to second place! Jkeyes should be proud of himself!

[Brad Henderson]

your issue isn't with lying but with certain kinds of lying. a visual lie (slydini looking into his hand and pretending to see a coin there when it isn't) is no different from a verbal lie wherein the magician states there is a coin in his hand. They convey the exact same information and with the same intent. They also both misrepresent the 'reality' of a situation.

you seem to want to claim you have defined lie. but according to other sources lies are defined as "something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture". in other words your restriction of lying to verbal statements is unfounded.

the reason i ask about your opinion of artists (not painters, let alone those of portraits) is because magic is an art. Though i don't think you agree with that statement - at least not based on what you think magic is meant to be. Your definition of magic relegates it to perceptual jugglery and demonstrations of illusion. Your opinion stems likely from a fixation on craft i.e. method and not aesthetics, the feelingful response conveyed. To you picasso is a bad painter because his pictures don't look like what they say they are. But they convey the essence of the thing better than mere representation. ergo all art is a lie. A truth that we can establish as true and not poetry. But then you would have to be conversant not only with picasso but duchamp

are you?

and it is you who are asserting that all visual illusions are magic. they are not. this is why i can exclude camera tricks from the domain of magic and you are saddled with them. if a successful visual illusion is magic then star wars is magic.

is star wars magic? has anyone on the planet ever confused star wars for anything ever performed by a magician?

why not?

likewise you ignore all the other types of illusions other than visual. why are visual illusions magic and tactile illusions not? auditory? olfactory? michael weber even has a great piece about taste. according to you that isn't magic because it isn't visual.

and when a car besides me pulls into reverse and i think i'm moving forward, so i applaud their amazing magic trick?

if not, why not?

it's because you can't define an art solely by the media employed. otherwise the guy who painted my house is an artist for both he and da vinci used paint.

finally, can you provide an example of a successful illusion presented without lies which convey the feelingful response of magic?

if your theory were true we should have oodles of examples. In fact, if your theory were true we would have more examples from our history of what you claim than examples of inferior work.

the fact you can't show us an example belies the validity of your position.

[performer]

I am annotating the Royal Road to Card Magic at the moment and am in the middle of one particular annotation. To my utter horror the variation I have been describing depends entirely on an outright lie of the sort that would probably make poor jkeyes cringe! I hate to do this to him but alas I have been doing this particular stunt for about 50 years and it is too late for me to do anything about it.

Some of you will know Gray's Spelling Trick which is a really, really good spelling trick which I have been making great use of for decades. However, years and years and years ago I figured out something which DOUBLES the effect and have decided to put in the annotations. I would be highly tempted to post it here but alas I do not want to raise Jkeyes blood pressure too much.

Alas there is utterly no way to perform this fantastic variation without telling a downright lie. But there is no way I could ever give this up as it is so effective. So this begs the question; for the purpose of performing magic is it even possible to proceed without telling a single lie? I suppose it is but surely it would cramp the performer's style to a marked degree? I am not sure I could do it myself even if I wanted to. Luckily I have an elastic conscience for that kind of thing.

I really wish I could see this as an ethical dilemna but alas I can't. I just can't.

I want to though. I hate to see everyone ganging up on one person.

[jkeyes1000]

your issue isn't with lying but with certain kinds of lying. a visual lie (slydini looking into his hand and pretending to see a coin there when it isn't) is no different from a verbal lie wherein the magician states there is a coin in his hand. They convey the exact same information and with the same intent. They also both misrepresent the 'reality' of a situation.

you seem to want to claim you have defined lie. but according to other sources lies are defined as "something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture". in other words your restriction of lying to verbal statements is unfounded.

the reason i ask about your opinion of artists (not painters, let alone those of portraits) is because magic is an art. Though i don't think you agree with that statement - at least not based on what you think magic is meant to be. Your definition of magic relegates it to perceptual jugglery and demonstrations of illusion. Your opinion stems likely from a fixation on craft i.e. method and not aesthetics, the feelingful response conveyed. To you picasso is a bad painter because his pictures don't look like what they say they are. But they convey the essence of the thing better than mere representation. ergo all art is a lie. A truth that we can establish as true and not poetry. But then you would have to be conversant not only with picasso but duchamp

are you?

and it is you who are asserting that all visual illusions are magic. they are not. this is why i can exclude camera tricks from the domain of magic and you are saddled with them. if a successful visual illusion is magic then star wars is magic.

is star wars magic? has anyone on the planet ever confused star wars for anything ever performed by a magician?

why not?

likewise you ignore all the other types of illusions other than visual. why are visual illusions magic and tactile illusions not? auditory? olfactory? michael weber even has a great piece about taste. according to you that isn't magic because it isn't visual.

and when a car besides me pulls into reverse and i think i'm moving forward, so i applaud their amazing magic trick?

if not, why not?

it's because you can't define an art solely by the media employed. otherwise the guy who painted my house is an artist for both he and da vinci used paint.

finally, can you provide an example of a successful illusion presented without lies which convey the feelingful response of magic?

if your theory were true we should have oodles of examples. In fact, if your theory were true we would have more examples from our history of what you claim than examples of inferior work.

the fact you can't show us an example belies the validity of your position.

Yes my problem is with lying, Mr. Henderson. Your problem is that you seem to think there are various kinds, such as "visual lying".

I am a stickler for accuracy (which is why I hate this smartphone that plagues my diction with typos!). When I speak or write I do so with proper dictionary definitions in mind.

The primary definition is "An intentionally false statement". You are using the common vernacular, the sort that misintertprets it as "Anything false or untrue".

This eliminates the ESSENTIAL element of deliberate intent. As in libel cases, you need evidence of purpose in order to convict. A mere illusion can be a natural phenomenon, and even if it is intentionally created, it is not always clear that it was meant to deceive. It might very well have been designed to inspire wonder, to amuse, to entertain. No, an illusion is not a lie.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Performer wrote: "I really wish I could see this as an ethical dilemna but alas I can't. I just can't.
I want to though. I hate to see everyone ganging up on one person."

I agree with what Performer is saying. But I will say that at least the OP has stimulated a lively and intriguing discussion - far from boring! And for that I give him credit...

PS I cannot wait to see the annotation & variation on Gray's Spelling Trick - it has long been a pet trick for me

[Tom Moore]

The primary definition is "An intentionally false statement". You are using the common vernacular, the sort that misintertprets it as "Anything false or untrue".

So to revert to my example - saying "lets bury your card in the middle of the deck" after top-changing it is an intentionally false statement.
But the baffles, distractions and carefully controlled movements of a pass to move a card genuinely inserted in to the middle of the pack is also an intentionally false statement - a whole series of moves and distractions designed to deliberately (and intentionally) deceive the audience in to believing that you have "done absolutely nothing" when you have knowingly done lots.

[jkeyes1000]

I am annotating the Royal Road to Card Magic at the moment and am in the middle of one particular annotation. To my utter horror the variation I have been describing depends entirely on an outright lie of the sort that would probably make poor jkeyes cringe! I hate to do this to him but alas I have been doing this particular stunt for about 50 years and it is too late for me to do anything about it.

Some of you will know Gray's Spelling Trick which is a really, really good spelling trick which I have been making great use of for decades. However, years and years and years ago I figured out something which DOUBLES the effect and have decided to put in the annotations. I would be highly tempted to post it here but alas I do not want to raise Jkeyes blood pressure too much.

Alas there is utterly no way to perform this fantastic variation without telling a downright lie. But there is no way I could ever give this up as it is so effective. So this begs the question; for the purpose of performing magic is it even possible to proceed without telling a single lie? I suppose it is but surely it would cramp the performer's style to a marked degree? I am not sure I could do it myself even if I wanted to. Luckily I have an elastic conscience for that kind of thing.

I really wish I could see this as an ethical dilemna but alas I can't. I just can't.

I want to though. I hate to see everyone ganging up on one person.

Mark, I look forward to reading your annotated "Royal Road".

Don't worry about my reaction. I appreciate any clever routine. I simply strive to be as impervious to scepticism as possible in my methods, and think it would behoove everyone to do likewise.

I know there are many routines that use lies. I just don't believe it is ever absolutely necessary. I would love to see your version of the trick.

[performer]

Performer wrote: "I really wish I could see this as an ethical dilemna but alas I can't. I just can't.
I want to though. I hate to see everyone ganging up on one person."

I agree with what Performer is saying. But I will say that at least the OP has stimulated a lively and intriguing discussion - far from boring! And for that I give him credit...

PS I cannot wait to see the annotation & variation on Gray's Spelling Trick - it has long been a pet trick for me

Oh, if you are already doing Gray's Spelling Trick you will LOVE this! You do it as a follow up. And the follow up is even more stunning than the original trick! I only finished writing it about half an hour ago.

I might post it as it would be good advertising for the book which will probably be published posthumously at the rate I am going
It is not an easy thing to describe technical moves. I have always said Harry Lorayne is easily the best at it. Still, I am figuring it out, more or less. I am not doing too bad with it or at least I have seen worse.

[performer]

Perhaps I should start a separate thread about the spelling trick rather than having to disrupt this entire conversation which although amusing is more of an intellectual exercise than anything particularly important.

[Brad Henderson]

again, your definition is nonsense.

if i look at a non coin in my hand and act as if one is there MY INTENT is to convey untruthful information. It is NO different from telling you there is a coin there when it isn't.

and my definition that i quoted wasn't 'the vernacular' it came from an actual dictionary.

so there is that.

tell me. if i flip through a book and look down as i say 'page 121'. how is that a lie? i never said we stopped at page 121. i just made a statement and that led you to assume that the page was 121

how is that different from slydini taking a coin that isn't in his left hand and pretending to transfer it to his right?

both intentionally convey false information.

how is one a lie and one not?

and you never addressed the difference between magic and illusion. in star wars we have the illusion of space ships laying. is that magic? has anyone ever confused one for the other?

[Brad Henderson]

and in case you didn't know - there is no galaxy far away where rebels and the empire fought. star wars is NOT a documentary. that opening crawl is a lie.

oddly, that hasn't stopped people from enjoying it or having it impact their lives dramatically. Nor did it impinge upon its financial success

tell me again how lying hurts us?

[jkeyes1000]

again, your definition is nonsense.

if i look at a non coin in my hand and act as if one is there MY INTENT is to convey untruthful information. It is NO different from telling you there is a coin there when it isn't.

and my definition that i quoted wasn't 'the vernacular' it came from an actual dictionary.

so there is that.

tell me. if i flip through a book and look down as i say 'page 121'. how is that a lie? i never said we stopped at page 121. i just made a statement and that led you to assume that the page was 121

how is that different from slydini taking a coin that isn't in his left hand and pretending to transfer it to his right?

both intentionally convey false information.

how is one a lie and one not?

and you never addressed the difference between magic and illusion. in star wars we have the illusion of space ships laying. is that magic? has anyone ever confused one for the other?

You keep calling it my definition, as if you hope to marginalise it. I quoted The Oxford English Dictionary, Mr. Henderson.

"Nonsense"?

It is a pity we have to go over this again, but it appears that you will not get it. A lie is an INTENTIONALLY false STATEMENT. Not an intentionaly false impression. They are not the same.

If Slydini had said, "Now that the paper ball is in this hand, I want you to watch closely"- that would have been a lie. What he would say is, "Watch carefully. I put the ball in my hand..."

Which was not a lie. He did put it in his hand, albeit very briefly.

Your definition of "lie" is not the first one in any dictionary that I am familiar with. The primary definition is the proper one. The others are less authorataive, generally from the vernacular. An example might be the colloquial usage of "living a lie". But such dramatic interptetations are not to meant to supplant the literal meaning.

As for your Star Wars references: I never suggested that all ilusions constitute magic. I said that filmed versions of magical effects belong in the "magic" genre, just as music videos belong in the "music" category. Whether they are "live or Memorex" notwithstanding.