NY Times review of Alex Stone's FOOLING HOUDINI

[JohnCox]

I'm going to cover this on my blog with a little story about the time Houdini got in trouble for exposing The Talking Teakettle. In fact, it appears the formal Magician's Code was drawn up due to this scandal.

Does anyone have a link to the Magicians Code as written by the SAM, or a scan I could use on my site?

[Tom Klem]

JohnCox:

Here is Code of Honor

Every applicant for membership shall be required to
sign the following pledge, which constitutes the SAMs
Code of Honor, as printed on the National Council
application for members:
If accepted, I agree to conform to the Constitution, By
Laws and Ritual of the Society of American Magicians,
and all resolutions now in force or that may hereafter
be enacted or amended. I shall endeavor to cooperate
with the Society in the promotion of its objectives, to
promote harmony among those interested in magic, and
to advance the ethics of the profession. I agree not to
expose any modus operandi from stage, platform,
radio, or in any manner whatsoever. I am opposed to
cheap literature wherein magical secrets are needlessly
exposed, or to the sale of professional magical effects
in cheap miniature form to the public. I am opposed to
needless and useless explanations of secrets to persons
who are not interested in stagecraft. I am opposed to
placing in a predicament any legitimate performer
while he is before an audience."

[JohnCox]

Fabulous. Thanks, Tom.

[Meir Yedid]

The current code of ethics from the SAM website:

S.A.M. Code of Ethics

At a joint meeting in March of 1993, the officers of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, and the Society of American Magicians agreed to establish a Code of Ethic for its members and the fraternity of Magic. The following was ratified in May of that year and signed jointly at their National Conventions in July by IBM President "Obie" O'Brien and Sam President George Schindler. Here is the document:

All members of the Society of American Magicians agree to:

1) Oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.

2) Display ethical behavior in the presentation of magic to the public and in our conduct as magicians, including not interfering with or jeopardizing the performance of another magician either through personal intervention or the unauthorized use of another's creation.

3) Recognize and respect for rights of the creators, inventors, authors, and owners of magic concepts, presentations, effects and literature, and their rights to have exclusive use of, or to grant permission for the use by others of such creations.

4) Discourage false or misleading statements in the advertising of effects, and literature, merchandise or actions pertaining to the magical arts.

5) Discourage advertisement in magic publications for any magical apparatus, effect, literature or other materials for which the advertiser does not have commercial rights.

6) Promote the humane treatment and care of livestock used in magical performances.

Can be found at: http://www.magicsam.com/ethics.asp

[Jonathan Townsend]

And by opposing end them Hamlet?

I am opposed to
cheap literature wherein magical secrets are needlessly
exposed, or to the sale of professional magical effects
in cheap miniature form to the public.

And in non-weasel words this means what? Let's see:
Cheap means less than a thousand dollars for the item? Ten? Venal concerns define ethics? Okay.
Needlessly means not for profit or publicity?
Professional means offered in a catalog or perhaps in someone's repertoire and not yet in print/for sale?
Miniature... got something against Adams and Tenyo who offer miniature guillotine and zigzag tricks?

Socializing Among Magicians - let's not fuss over ethics, please.

IMHO discussing magic trick methods with the public is usually not going to help them feel wonder as they watch a magic show. Discussing cons and other uses of deception/emotional manipulation can be done in context and using examples that are not directly exposing the tricks we use to entertain.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...The "H. Becker" I was referring to is Herbert Becker who wrote this unfortunate book: http://www.amazon.com/All-Secrets-Magic ... 597&sr=1-2

How is this book different from Ponsin's "Latest Magic Tricks Revealed" or Hoffmann's "Modern Magic"?

[Eric DeCamps]

Thank you Meir for posting the JOINT Code of Ethics for the IBM & the SAM. It certainly clarifies the position of both organizations when it comes to exposure and conduct of members in and outside of the organizations.

In addition, readers may find of interest the SAM oath that all prospective members must swear to as a condition of membership:

If accepted, I agree to elevate the art of magic, abide by the constitution, by-laws, code of ethics and rituals of The Society of American Magicians. I will cooperate with the Society in the promotion of its objectives, promote harmony and advance the ethics of the profession.

I will not condone the dissemination of trade secrets and principles related to magicians or magic effects with no effort or expectation by the recipient to obtain or acquire the information. I will not expose the secrets and principles of magic, nor will I support those who do. I will not copy, imitate, manufacture or sell the materials, ideas, principles, trade secrets or presentations of others without consent.

I will treat all my fellow compeers and all magicians with respect, encouraging fellowship, unity and cooperation.

The SAM Oath may be found here: S.A.M .Oath

Also Meir, thanks for posting the link to Ricky Jays Wall Street Journal review of Alex Stones book. It was certainly quite the read.

[Jonathan Townsend]

[font:Book Antiqua][size:14pt]

@Alex - I will give your book a read as soon as I can acquire a copy. ...

@Alex and interested parties - I have a copy of the book. On page 20 now and will have comment in a few days.

Not sure what to think of folks posting about oaths and ethics when a quick trip to a magic shop that these same members own or patronize would turn up findings that are contrary to what they claim to support including cheap miniatures of classic and professional items which are intended to be sold to the public.[/size][/font]

[Tom Klem]

Jonathan Townsend:

I was just giving John Cox what he asked for and no more.

He ask for a copy of the magicians code as per the SAM perhaps closer to the time
when it was first written I believe. Not the current code. Perhaps I have an even older version. If so I will e-mail it to him privately

[mrgoat]

Not sure what to think of folks posting about oaths and ethics when a quick trip to a magic shop that these same members own or patronize would turn up findings that are contrary to what they claim to support including cheap miniatures of classic and professional items which are intended to be sold to the public.[/size][/font]

Don't need the physical magic shop JT, I doubt you could find an online retailer not selling that floaty match on a card rip off.

[Andres Reynoso]

The "H. Becker" I was referring to is Herbert Becker who wrote this unfortunate book: http://www.amazon.com/All-Secrets-Magic ... 597&sr=1-2

Several years ago as a teenager I watched on a Russian Circus TV show a couple magicians perform Metamorphosis (I don't know who they were). I was really astonished (then learn it was a really slow performance). A couple of months after that, I discovered the Herbert Becker book in a supermarket store, in spanish and very low price.

My parents buyed it for me, and I read the Metamorphosis' "secret" what ingenious trick!!

Again, a couple of months after, I watched World's Greatest Magicians tv show. They presented a couple named The Pendragons with a subtrunk. I said: "oh yes, metamorphosis, great trick, I know how it is done" And then ... surprise, my jaw drops and they shut up me with their incredible performance. Since then I admired Pendragons a lot.

In my particular case I wanted to read the book because I was interested in magic, in fact it was my first aproach to grand illusions and for me was an invaluable book in these years. And even knowing the "secret" The Pendragons surprised me.
But, for people who isn't related to magic and only look for disclosure I don't think it could be good. Everytime you know how a trick is done, some illusion in your life dies. Most times magicians lost the capacity to be surprised, and is a shame laypeople too because disclosure.

[magicam]

Better magic minds have ruminated on, debated, discussed, and philosophized on the pros and cons of exposure, but Ill nonetheless engage in the conceit of sharing my views.

As one who performed magic as a child and teenager, I have a visceral attraction to secrecy. Why? After some thought, Im not exactly sure, but I think the real reason may be the feeling of fraternity, of belonging, that comes with sharing arcana with a relatively small group of people, the same kind of feeling of belonging, for example, that pro basketball players (to name but one of thousands of select groups of people) would have with each other: only fellow players truly know what it is, what it means, to play pro basketball and to be a pro player.

Im not troubled by the practical effect of exposure. Thus far, it doesnt seem to have adversely affected our art in any meaningful way. I stress the qualifier thus far, because we (humankind) are in the beginning stages of a profound paradigm shift in information availability. Will the infinitely greater ease with which laymen may learn magic secrets finally spoil our party?

As others have noted, the debate about exposure has raged on for many years. In fact, its been an issue for centuries. Consider Reginald Scots profound lament in 1584 in The Discoverie of Witchcraft that his exposure of the tricks of the magicians of his day might damage their livelihoods. And the more subtle, but perhaps more critical, issue of what effect exposure has on magic and its competent magicians those whose performances transform mere trickery into an art has also been in play far longer than we may think. It was squarely addressed over 330 years ago in, and was the primary topic of, the Prologue to J.M.s Sports and Pastimes (London, 1676). Heres the Prologue in full:

Some Hocus Pocusses, no doubt, may quible,
And say, what meant this Fellow thus to scrible,
And thus our quality for to invade?
If he runs on so, he will spoil our Trade:
When it gets in the City 'mongst the Boyes,
Then down goes all our Hocus Pocus toyes.

Nay, if it comes amongst the Country Swains,
They'l find our Cheats and kick us for our pains:
The Egg-box, Melting-box, the Globes and Balls,
Must have no entertainment in their Halls.
Then let's go travail in some other Land,
And there we'l shew our nimble slight of hand;
Where this Book goes no room's for us to stand.

In answer then I say, this is one bit,
Until the whole Joynt be drawn off the Spit:
This will not in the least hurt Sons of Art,
But Bunglers only they must feel the smart,
Avant therefore, begone, I bid Adew
T'those that know nothing, yet pretend to shew.

To my knowledge, this is the earliest clear articulation of the idea that exposure of conjuring principles and secrets hurts only incompetent performers. And the very last line of this poem appears to be one of Jays and Swiss key criticisms of Mr. Stone and his book, one adjunct to which Bob Farmer captured in his typically pithy and humorous fashion. :D

Some other random thoughts about Stones book, the reviews thereof, and exposure

Good gawd, another instance of a general trade publisher trying to sell books using Houdinis name.

Perhaps the biggest danger of exposure relates to our need (as with any other art) for a constant influx of new blood. Im thinking of magics attraction to children in particular. While Ted Ms post nicely enumerates the manifold elements to our art, I wonder how many of us as children were drawn to magic for those, shall we say, artful, reasons. I wanted to become a magician simply because I wanted to know its secrets. Only later did I discover the joys and challenges of becoming someone who, as a magician, represented something far greater than being the mere possessor of secrets. To the question: will a critical mass of computer-literate children continue to be drawn to magic if they can easily discover its secrets online and thus bypass the traditional ways in which past generations of youth have learned about magic and its secrets?

Anent Ricky Jays review, Id like to know the basis on which he makes the judgment that books in our genre are "notoriously underrepresented in publishing" let alone underrepresented although I wouldn't quibble with his follow up statement that "authoritative studies [of magic] are scarce." Are magic books really notoriously underrepresented in publishing? Are they even underrepresented?

[Jonathan Townsend]

@magicam, folks - Do you know the feeling of doing a routine well and with a sensible presentation that works for people, and then to have it met with a response of "yes, that was nice but I have that trick in a magic kit"?

If you haven't had that experience: It's the sort of thing worth doing with the matchbox/bag/quarter item - even using a duplicate wrapped box you show earlier in routine - just to see how things happen with audiences who recognize a trick from commercial availability. Once you meet this feeling of "why are you trying showing me a firefly as a fairy - i have a jar of them at home" ... you might have a different feeling about exposure.

[font:Book Antiqua]
[size:14pt]@all, on page 120 of the book. Comment to follow after performing this due dilligence. [/size][/font]

[erdnasephile]

God in heaven ... has ANYONE ever had another magician greet them by saying "Show me your Ambitious Card"?

I wonder if this is where Alex Stone got this odd notion:

"Sol often asks card workers to 'show him their favorite Amitious Card routine.'" (The Essential Sol Stone, pg 24)

[Tom Klem]

It is odd with all the visits to Cafe Rustico that Alex Stone made he does not mention a treasure like Sol Stone in his book. I love "The Essential Sol Stone".

A little of Sol Stone's history then his magic.

Dustin in Sol Stone's book he presents Mike Bornstein's floating bill effect with Mike's permission. It states Sol always carries it in his pocket ready to perform. As this book was a long time in reaching publication I do not know if Sol still does.

[El Harvey Oswald]

"I wanted to become a magician simply because I wanted to know its secrets."

I suspect this is the dominant motivation, and it's obscured by the transparently fake, high-minded responses that are so often given in response to the question. I find it extremely difficult to accurately re-construct my own motivations, as a nine-or-so year-old, and encounter more frivolous motivations than high-minded, highbrow ones.


"Good gawd, another instance of a general trade publisher trying to sell books using Houdinis name."

Exactly; in fairness, though, the author has almost no leverage with the title, and the fondness for putting Houdini in the title reflects the general dumbing-down that the average editor sees as his/her primary charge. They think of themselves as having the ideal combination of begin smart and educated but also possessing a special sense for how regular people think. In this respect, they are of the same species as many political consultants and TV/movie executives.

[Lisa Cousins]

"I wanted to become a magician simply because I wanted to know its secrets."

I suspect this is the dominant motivation, and it's obscured by the transparently fake, high-minded responses that are so often given in response to the question. I find it extremely difficult to accurately re-construct my own motivations, as a nine-or-so year-old, and encounter more frivolous motivations than high-minded, highbrow ones.

Hey, speak for yourself. Knowing magic's secrets played no role whatsoever in my motivation for becoming a magician. None.

My reasons were all high-minded, highbrow ones.

[mrgoat]

"I wanted to become a magician simply because I wanted to know its secrets."

I suspect this is the dominant motivation, and it's obscured by the transparently fake, high-minded responses that are so often given in response to the question. I find it extremely difficult to accurately re-construct my own motivations, as a nine-or-so year-old, and encounter more frivolous motivations than high-minded, highbrow ones.

Hey, speak for yourself. Knowing magic's secrets played no role whatsoever in my motivation for becoming a magician. None.

My reasons were all high-minded, highbrow ones.

You just wanted to learn so you could hook up with a hot long haired magician type. I've got your number, Cousins.

[JohnCox]

My way of commenting on this. The Magician's Code is no joke. Even Houdini (you know, the guy Stone is using in his title to help sell his book) could get in trouble over it.

http://www.wildabouthoudini.com/2012/06 ... g-tea.html

[Jonathan Townsend]

Just got through the book here. Will comment in a bit. I can certainly relate to notion of a physics student finding distraction in our craft.

In the mean time:
There was a three part National Geographic Special called "Test Your Brain". In the second show of the series there were some demonstrations of color perception in context. The demonstration using a gray circle that is the same color as the two apparently different regions elicited an odd feeling as the circle seemed to blend into each region in turn. This felt similar to the shift in frames between "informed" magician type perspective and the more "at face value" frame we would expect of audiences.

IMHO the special is informative. Kudos to Apollo Robbins for contributing.

Anyone else here read the Alex Stone book?

[Sam Kesler]

For those of you in the Los Angeles area, Mr. Stone will be discussing and signing his book on Tuesday, July 10, at 7PM, at Book Soup, 8818 Sunset Blvd, in West Hollywood. Might make for a lively evening. See you there!

[El Harvey Oswald]

"For those of you in the Los Angeles area, Mr. Stone will be discussing and signing his book on Tuesday, July 10, at 7PM, at Book Soup, 8818 Sunset Blvd, in West Hollywood. Might make for a lively evening. See you there!"

Not at all clear that a broader audience will align with the dominant views expressed on this thread. Also, Stone's factual errors and lack of experience/authority in the field are hard to convey, in the usual post-reading question-and-answer format, in a way that's not either laborious or uncomfortably aggressive. By contrast, were he to, for instance, replicate the NYT retention pass article, I suspect a general audience would be more inclined to conclude that he employs exposure toward greater, legitimate ends, not frivolously - much like "Sleights of Mind," which uses exposure copiously, but apparently prefaces that exposure with the requisite reverence to avoid an acerbic response. The arguments set out by Jamy Ian Swiss and Ricky Jay are more complicated and more nuanced; harder to make, especially in a constrained, non-written medium. Abstaining is often the best option when your's is the harder argument, you can's use your optimal mode of expression, and there's a genuine risk of being a loud voice in the wilderness; or, worse, Woody Allen's rambling, drooling pontificator outside Blomingdale's.

The prospect of a platoon of magicians appearing at Book Soup to set this guy straight makes David Regal's assessment and advice up above all the more trenchant.

[Richard Hatch]

An appearance by author Alex Stone on this morning's CBS Morning shows:
http://tinyurl.com/6tf66ob

[MaxNY]

"This is advanced Sleight of Hand"

I would like to forge his death certificate!

[Jon Racherbaumer]

Soaring through magicdom's noisy echo-chamber of opinions is this vibrant gem:

"The arguments set out by Jamy Ian Swiss and Ricky Jay are more complicated and more nuanced; harder to make, especially in a constrained, non-written medium. Abstaining is often the best option when your's is the harder argument, you can's use your optimal mode of expression, and there's a genuine risk of being a loud voice in the wilderness; or, worse, Woody Allen's rambling, drooling pontificator outside Blomingdale's."

It is worth repeating.
Thank you, E. H. Oswald.

[Anthony Vinson]

From the vid of the CBS Morning Show appearance: Howard Houdini?! Must've been Hardin's half-cousin from a different mother?

[Donhdunn]

Pretty sure she says Henry Houdini, not Howard Houdini. And I dunno whether he's doing a French Drop or Retention of Vision vanish or whatever with that coin, but I've certainly seen it done a lot better. Luckily, he says he's a writer, not a magician.

[Dave V]

His biggest trick seems to be how he's getting all this publicity over such a poor excuse for a book.

[JohnCox]

Henry Houdini... Good lord.

[Paul Critelli]

There is an old saw: He that can, does; he that cannot, teaches.

This is, of course, not always true - in fact, it is often total nonsense as we are truly blessed to have some legends also teaching us. However, it would seem to be quite useful to consider the schmucks who really want to have the glory and honor but do not have the raw and malleable talent that our stars have NOR the doggedly persistent passion that some who had a bit less "natural talent" used in order to learn and become a star.

We know what they do - masked or unmasked; having a pimp or free-lance; cloaking with pseudo-psychological claptrap or just exposing because they are artless and talentless. They remain and will always be - famous or creating fake fame - schmucks.

It's familiar, isn't it?

Like knowing that there will always be some kids who just cannot make it to the john on time and thinking that we and others really care for their explanation why some of what they ate ended up that way.

Bets on how long before it's on the remainder table?
Paul C

[jammen]

I don't understand the argument.

If I buy your books or magic dvds you are not exposing.
If I buy Stone's book,though, he is exposing.

Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

[Richard Kaufman]

No one is protesting too much here.

There's a big difference between doing books and/or DVDs that teach magic to magicians, and doing magic sets and/or books that are specifically designed to teach magic to kids to create new magicians, and GRATUITOUSLY exposing magic to laymen under the pseudo-intellectual path that Alex Stone has taken.

[El Harvey Oswald]

Precisely; and it's time to retire the tired, played-out "doth protest" trope. Few contrasts are more stark than that between Stone's book and, say, The Complete Works of Derek Dingle or the Bro. Hamman book.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Precisely; and it's time to retire the tired, played-out "doth protest" trope. Few contrasts are more stark than that between Stone's book and, say, The Complete Works of Derek Dingle or the Bro. Hamman book.

Why is that Gertrude? You expect they are not in the same download file online ...for that reason?

I'll post a short excerpt from the book (for review purposes) to make coment on the book in context.

At this rate a review of his book will have waited longer to hit print than the author spent before deciding to compete in magic contests. Hint, hint.

[stuartpalm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUPqMPk4 ... ata_player


I look forward to reading your comments.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I've read the book. What's not obvious by inspection (or self-evident) about the video?

[stuartpalm]

I have not yet read the book, and am a bit conflicted as to whether I want to. Could you be more clear with your question Johnathan. I don't understand what you are asking about the video.

[Jonathan Townsend]

IMHO the person in the video comes across the same way in his book.

[stuartpalm]

Okay, thanks, that gives me a very good idea of what the book would be like. Thanks!