270: Apollo Robbins on the Other Side of the Record

[Scott Wells]

On this week's podcast of The Magic Word, Apollo Robbins defends his position of comments made by Gregory Wilson on episode #268. Apollo was at the epicenter of Greg's assertions that he (Apollo) accused him (Greg) of theft of intellectual property, tricks and/or ideas. There were several other magicians mentioned by Gregory who have made individual accusations against him. Apollo agreed to defend his position and tell the listeners his "construct of reality" as he sees it only if I would pursue the story and get others to tell their individual sides of the story, too.

Apollo also tells a few stories about other magicians who have similar accusations. But to be fair, those are third party stories and deserve to have their stories told fist hand on the podcast. As such, and as mentioned in an earlier post in this Genii Forum, I intend to contact those mentioned (and others) to get their side of the stories so you, the listeners, will make up your own minds and judge from the testimonies presented. And if any of those people do not wish to share their stories in the public forum of a podcast, then their silence will be judged in the court of popular opinion as to whether or not Greg was right in saying that people cannot present evidence or at least the other side of the coin, so to speak.

You can watch a video, see some photos, read the blog, listen online to the podcast, or download the MP3 file at: http://themagicwordpodcast.com/scottwel ... lo-robbins

Just so you don't miss another podcast in the upcoming #MagicCereal be sure to subscribe and listen each week to The Magic Word. You can subscribe to the RSS feed by clicking here: http://themagicwordpodcast.com/scottwel ... format=rss or through any of your favorite podcatchers, iTunes, Stitcher, Tunein or FeedPress. Also, be sure to join the discussion on Twitter by following us at #MagicWordPod and be sure to use the hashtag #MagicCereal when posting your thoughts, comments and short stories.

And if you are in a position to make a New Year's donation or ongoing pledge to help support and offset some production costs of The Magic Word Podcast, then please make your donation through PayPal to scottwellsmagic@gmail.com or through http://Patreon.com/TheMagicWord

Thank you and Happy New Year! This should be a fun ride!

[Brad Henderson]

The predictions from the companion thread seem to have been born out. There is some intense stuff here. Though presented with the hope of a net positive outcome, I can't imagine someone not coming out of this seriously scathed. Let's see what the writers have in store for us in next week's episode: "Plop, the Defilement of the Fan." I hope it's a Jack and Rob episode (those guys are DREAMY) , but would be equally excited to see a mystery guest.

Time to drink more ovaltine.

[Dustin Stinett]

[observer]

Just sheer greatness all the way through.

"I was gonna make espresso ..."

[performer]

Well, at least it will give Scott plenty of material for future podcasts and it means he won't have to think about them. I know what he is up to. I AM psychic after all..................

[Brad Jeffers]

My intent is not to be one who creates controversy and I don't want to be known as the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich of magic.

Even Jerry Springer did not start out to be "Jerry Springer". He began as a Phil Donahue clone, but quickly discovered that the low road was paved with gold.

Looking forward to the season finale, the one on one cage match between Greg "The Prince of Purloiners" Wilson and Apollo "Creed" Robbins.

[JHostler]

...And if any of those people do not wish to share their stories in the public forum of a podcast, then their silence will be judged in the court of popular opinion as to whether or not Greg was right in saying that people cannot present evidence or at least the other side of the coin, so to speak.

Perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines, but Mr. Wells seems to be stirring the pot more than your garden variety "detached journalist." Nevertheless... I present for the permanent record Hostler's Law:

As debates on crediting in magic intensify, so does the urge to coin new variations of Sayre’s Law.


My intention is not to downplay the importance of crediting. As difficult as it may be to trace the roots of any given method, effect, or presentational spin, we carry the burden of a "best efforts" obligation. (Given an increasingly unmanageable volume of published and unpublished work with variation upon trivial variation, I unabashedly draw the line at "best efforts.") Nevertheless, I think it's time the warring parties put some of these issues in perspective. Thinly-veiled (??) ad hominems flatter no one. Have dinner and work things out privately, for Pete's sake!

[performer]

I have a horrible feeling that if I were to write a book with a lot of different material therein I suspect my method of crediting would be to put a little note in the preface saying, "I haven't the slightest idea who the bloody hell invented which trick and neither do I care. Just help yourselves to them with my blessing"

Everybody would then make an almighty fuss about it and naturally that would result in increased sales.

[Brad Henderson]

My intention is not to downplay the importance of crediting. As difficult as it may be to trace the roots of any given method, effect, or presentational spin, we carry the burden of a "best efforts" obligation. (Given an increasingly unmanageable volume of published and unpublished work with variation upon trivial variation, I unabashedly draw the line at "best efforts.") Nevertheless, I think it's time the warring parties put some of these issues in perspective. Thinly-veiled (??) ad hominems flatter no one. Have dinner and work things out privately, for Pete's sake!

1) there is a difference between missing an obscure credit and out right theft. The accusations here seem to be of the latter, not the former

2) your naivety is adorable. These things NEVER get worked out in private. If they did, we wouldn't continually see issues like this arise again and again. it is not until these matters go public that the (alleged) offenders are forced to actually own up to their acts. They can no longer rely on popularity and hide behind a wall of fans and those interested in currying favor. Sunshine is the answer.

[JHostler]

My intention is not to downplay the importance of crediting. As difficult as it may be to trace the roots of any given method, effect, or presentational spin, we carry the burden of a "best efforts" obligation. (Given an increasingly unmanageable volume of published and unpublished work with variation upon trivial variation, I unabashedly draw the line at "best efforts.") Nevertheless, I think it's time the warring parties put some of these issues in perspective. Thinly-veiled (??) ad hominems flatter no one. Have dinner and work things out privately, for Pete's sake!

1) there is a difference between missing an obscure credit and out right theft. The accusations here seem to be of the latter, not the former

2) your naivety is adorable. These things NEVER get worked out in private. If they did, we wouldn't continually see issues like this arise again and again. it is not until these matters go public that the (alleged) offenders are forced to actually own up to their acts. They can no longer rely on popularity and hide behind a wall of fans and those interested in currying favor. Sunshine is the answer.

1) I never suggested otherwise.

2) Looking past the obnoxious "adorable" quip, I'd counter your second assertion with the simple observation that the vast majority of grievances aren't resolved in public.

[Brad Henderson]

Really?!? you know that how?

I have this special whistle, it keeps rogue tigers away. I know it works, because, see, no tigers.

It has been my experience that for many players in our industry, absolutely nothing is ever resolved until it has gone public. I would make you a list, but if you have read any magic forum in the past 10 years, you already have the details in your memory.

[performer]

I often see that magic books written for the public have no crediting whatsoever. I have often wondered whether this was a decision of the publishers themselves. Perhaps the editors deem it superfluous and takes up too much space. There are exceptions but I have seen it happen far more than with books written for the trade.

[billmccloskey]

Ever since Marc Maron got his fledgling podcast written up in the New York Times after he put Carlos Mencia and Robin Williams on the hot seat for allegedly stealing material, I think it has become the thing to get folks in a particular industry to talk [censored] about each other.

As far as I can see, this is just a blatant attempt by the podcast producer to do the same. He is hoping this is Marc Maron moment, in my opinion.

Personally, I don't think this stuff should be aired in public. Brings everyone, and magic, down.

[Brad Henderson]

what REALLY brings us down - the behaviors discussed in this podcast or the act of talking about them out in the open?

If talking about what we do brings us down, I suggest the problem is what we do, not the act of acknowledging it.

[Richard Kaufman]

I haven't listened to the podcast, so I'll write in general terms.

Theft has been endemic in our field for hundreds of years. It intensified after 1900 and has only grown since then.

For example, no matter how many times I explain to people that Ed Marlo stole this or that, there are always a group who deny it, apologize for Ed, or just think I'm an idiot. But Ed Marlo stole a lot of material, and not only did he willfully steal material from both printed and unpublished sources (as has been proven time and time again), he also copped the words of the published items he sometimes stole. The published record is so messed up because of Ed Marlo that it will NEVER get sorted out.

Is there anything different here? I don't know who's right or wrong, and sometimes it's impossible to figure that out. He said/she said doesn't get you very far. Back-dated notebooks mean nothing. Personal witnesses often mean nothing. People lie their asses off to protect their friends, themselves, and things they've said at an earlier time.

I've seen so much theft in the world of magic that it's really unbelievable. So why does this current contretemps surprise anyone? And why would you believe Person A over Person B? Where you do find solid ground?

[JHostler]

...Is there anything different here? I don't know who's right or wrong, and sometimes it's impossible to figure that out... <snip> People lie their asses off to protect their friends, themselves, and things they've said at an earlier time... <snip> So why does this current contretemps surprise anyone? And why would you believe Person A over Person B? Where you do find solid ground?

Exactly why airing grievances on podcasts and the like is a really, REALLY bad idea. Some believe that the ensuing discourse brings truth into sharper focus. In the end, "truth" often remains just as slippery and subject to twisting - leaving a gaggle of uninvolved gawkers with varying interpretations and further obfuscating reality. The court of public opinion is fallible and often nothing more than a barometer of popularity. To compound matters, online fora breed incivility... incivility breeds miscommunication. There's a great case to be made for handling sensitive matters privately.

[mr_goat]

I think a very niche podcast with a very small audience needed to do something to rekindle interest.

Seems our 'host' wants to be known as the [censored] stirrer of magic. Not sure it's something laudable.

[Brad Henderson]

experience demonstrates that those who steal willingly never capitulate in private confrontations. It is only when they see that their reputations are on the line are they willing to make amends. I mean, why else would they? if they are willing to steal from someone, why would a phone call change that decision? Peer pressure is, sadly, one of our few effective techniques for dealing with the issue.

[Richard Kaufman]

Is anyone willing to summarize the salient point of both podcasts because I really don't have the time to listen to them.

[Brad Henderson]

Scott Wells associates Apollo's name with the concept of 'put pocketing'. Wilson claims credit and then discusses his "reputation" for being a trick thief. mentioning those who he feels are responsible the creation of that reputation. Apollo is specifically mentioned, among others.

Apollo tells the story of his experience and admonishes listeners to check the facts and see who is correct. In that process he uses the word 'predator,' discusses strategies used by con men and child molesters in relation to behaviors he feels Wilson practices , and relates a potentially damning anecdote regarding an incident involving Wilson with Rob Zabrecky and Jon Lovick. He says that he wants to stop such bad actors such as Wilson, but again encourages listeners to ask for the evidence Wilson claims to have and come to their own conclusions.

Scott wells says he's not try to stir sh$t. His fingernails are brown.

[performer]

Eh? Putpocketing is as old as the hills before either of them were born!

[Jon Racherbaumer]

Without jumping feet first into the Crediting Imbroglio and the contentious blood sport that it is, I agree that tons of stuff has been miscredited and incorrectly cited. (However, for the moment, using words like theft, rip-off- and other heat-seeking terms should be put aside until ALL of the evidence has been compiled and submitted.) Meanwhile I'm not as pessimistic as my cohort, RK, regarding the vast, seemingly impossible Attribution Challenge. RK thinks that it will never be sorted out. I don't agree…right now my esteemed colleagues (Giobbi, Minch, Behr, and others) are assiduously working at it. So am I. Granted: There is plenty of culpability to go around. Furthermore, it dates further back than 1900. Like I've repeatedly said in the past, "We are parasites of our precursors." I also agree with Emerson: "All originality is relative."

Onward...

[Brad Henderson]

Performer, Apollo does mention that the idea has a history which predates both of them.

[Richard Kaufman]

I agree with JR that several people are working to create an online database of crediting, but since it is written by people who are often basing it on misinformation they've been told, or read, it is no more correct than any other printed matter. (And I'm taking into account honest mistakes in my own books, of which there are quite a few. Every time I see the phrase "Kaps Subtlety" it makes me wince.)

Which, I suppose, is my point.

Nevertheless, we scribes continue to write.

[JHostler]

JR / RK -

Will this database of which you speak cover both documented and undocumented credit - by which I essentially mean "first to publish" versus "first to [allegedly] develop" versus "first to [allegedly] perform?" The distinction is obviously critical. While many "innovations" (Tilt being my favorite example) can be traced reasonably well through print, they are far too simple/elemental for anyone to stake further claim with a high degree of confidence.

[Bill Mullins]

I've made a few minor contributions to the Conjuring Credits database (most of the work was done by Denis Behr, Max Maven, and Stephen Minch, I believe). Particularly when discussing items older than any living magician's memory, it doesn't make sense to consider anything _but_ the written record. A credit more than a few decades old can only be meaningfully described in the context of its first written description.

[Bill Mullins]

JHostler -- you posted while I was writing. Check the Conjuring Credits website. Mostly, it documents the first published appearance (performance or description) of an effect. I just spot checked a few items, they all were of this sort, and I can't remember seeing any "alleged" credits. Do you have something specific in mind?

The moderators (Minch and Behr) are looking for contributions and corrections. If you have good information on the origins of a trick or sleight, I'm sure they would be interested in hearing it.

[JHostler]

I've made a few minor contributions to the Conjuring Credits database (most of the work was done by Denis Behr, Max Maven, and Stephen Minch, I believe). Particularly when discussing items older than any living magician's memory, it doesn't make sense to consider anything _but_ the written record. A credit more than a few decades old can only be meaningfully described in the context of its first written description.

I agree that many, many things magical can only be traced through publication... which is why I find statements like the following (quoted directly from the Conjuring Credits entry for the Depth Illusion) so disconcerting:

"This 'sleight' based on a visual illusion was developed by Dai Vernon."


The implication is that it was first developed by Vernon. But who's to say someone like Cazeneuve didn't do the exact same thing off-record? Given the simplicity of the concept, the odds are far better than negligible.

I find it fascinating (no snark intended) that we see so much magic inadvertently reinvented on a near-daily basis, but are so willing to accept as firm fact the identity of a single "prime mover."

All that said, I GREATLY appreciate the effort to document this stuff!

[Bill Mullins]

So do you disagree with the specific word "developed"? Because I think the entry for "Depth Illusion or Tilt" is as inclusive of information as it could be. The credit for Vernon is contemporaneously documented in the Csuri notebooks. Precursors and parallel inventors are also described.

I take the "developed" statement at its word: Vernon did develop the illusion. I don't know if Vernon claimed to be the first invent it, but the Conjuring Credits website doesn't say he did.

[Krenz]

It would be nice if magic had a registration system for original developments. Something like the one that writers have with the Writer's Guild of America. Something only gets registered if it is approved by a board of knowledgable experts.

Of course, enforcement is an issue. But at least it would be better than the court of public opinion or the he said/she said jury of public shaming.

[Bill Mullins]

A registration system would deal with the problem of establishing credit. But is that really the problem? Isn't the problem one of respecting credits?

[Richard Kaufman]

The Depth Illusion as we know it was created by Dai Vernon. It's established in letters to Ross Bertram, I believe. He was inspired by a sleight of Edward Victor's (shown in a photo in the Victor book) where the card was inserted into the outer end of the deck. In other words, the open end of the wedge was toward the audience, but the end of the deck was angled downward.

Vernon's exact handling for The Depth Illusion has not been published yet, but it will be.

But you can't rely solely on the written record--it's just not possible. For example, on the way to Chicago, Gordon Bruce stopped in LA and showed Larry Jennings and several others a new sleight. Then Gordon went to Chicago and showed it to Ed Marlo, who promptly put it in print under the title "Upjog Addition." If you go by the printed record Marlo gets the credit, and that's wrong, and it's a lie. And if you repeat it, then you become a liar, too, and further screw up the printed record.

[Krenz]

A registration system would deal with the problem of establishing credit. But is that really the problem? Isn't the problem one of respecting credits?

I see many issues, not just one.

With any big problem, you break it down into smaller ones, which will make approaching solutions more attainable. Address the smaller parts one by one, and over time, the big problem will be solved.

But then, I am an optimist at heart.

[JHostler]

So do you disagree with the specific word "developed"? Because I think the entry for "Depth Illusion or Tilt" is as inclusive of information as it could be. The credit for Vernon is contemporaneously documented in the Csuri notebooks. Precursors and parallel inventors are also described.

I take the "developed" statement at its word: Vernon did develop the illusion. I don't know if Vernon claimed to be the first invent it, but the Conjuring Credits website doesn't say he did.

Correct. The entry itself is plenty thorough. My issue relates to the word "developed," as many will interpret this as confirmation that Vernon was the first to develop. If we were dealing with something more complex, a stronger conclusion could be drawn. But 1) all we're essentially talking about is opening a rear gap for a false insertion, and 2) similar (albeit not identical) work predates Vernon in print. IMO, it is absurd to assume Vernon was the first man on planet earth to do something so physically and spatially rudimentary. (I, for one, vaguely recall tinkering with this principle in the late '70s - my pre-teen years - before having learned of the move proper. It's something anyone messing with a deck could stumble upon.)

This actually relates to a much broader and more important issue regarding "ownership" in magic. We have a tendency to stake claims on fairly basic physical movements and minute alterations to existing methods, effects, and sleights. Take the Action Cop. No offense to Thomas Baxter, but that sleight - upon which an entire book was based - consisted largely of the age-old gambler's cop. Same thing with our 800 variations on the pass, where the placement of a finger or sleight twisting of a wrist makes something "new." Finessing is fine, but the crediting can get a little silly...

[Bill Mullins]

My issue relates to the word "developed," as many will interpret this as confirmation that Vernon was the first to develop.

That may be true, but you can't pin that on Stephen Minch. It is nigh-on impossible to write something so clearly that some moron somewhere won't misunderstand it. The entry for tilt is written clearly and accurately (so far as the record is known).

IMO, it is absurd to assume Vernon was the first man on planet earth to do something so physically and spatially rudimentary.

Then don't assume so! No one at Conjuring Credits is suggesting that you should.

But consider . . .

Someone had to be the first to invent "Tilt", and the historical record gives more support to Vernon being that person than it does anyone else. He was in the right place and time to do it. He was motivated to invent new sleights, and to look for more natural ways of doing what others had done before. The sleight is so useful that it is difficult to see how, if someone else had invented it, it was unknown to Vernon at the time he (possibly independently and secondarily) developed it. If it was so patently obvious, why didn't Marlo come up with it before Vernon?

History is full of things that, once they were invented, people said "well that was obvious" -- but no one had bothered to invent them before. From my own area of professional knowledge, everything that was necessary to develop the laser was known and understood as far back as the 1930s -- the quantum physics, the properties of materials, the optics. Yet lasers remained uninvented until Ted Maiman made one in 1960.

I can't prove Vernon invented Tilt. You can't prove he didn't. All that can be done is examine the record to see who got credit first -- and that is all Conjuring Credits purports to do. It is all anyone can do. And it seems a little churlish to criticize Conjuring Credits for doing so.

[JHostler]

I can't prove Vernon invented Tilt. You can't prove he didn't. All that can be done is examine the record to see who got credit first -- and that is all Conjuring Credits purports to do. It is all anyone can do. And it seems a little churlish to criticize Conjuring Credits for doing so.

Conjuring Credits simply reflects the current standard - and is doing a great job of "drilling down" to root sources as they are currently understood/accepted. What I'm critiquing is the industry standard itself, to which CC is more or less subject. IMO, given the sheer volume of published (and unpublished) work, our penchant for "claiming" variations of preexisting work, the similarity of these variations, and the simplicity of many things claimed, we're rapidly approaching some sort of tipping point. It may soon be impossible (or highly impractical) for the average writer or developer to thoroughly and accurately trace their work's lineage/precedents.

This is one reason I prefer terms like "attributed to" over "developed" - particularly when the credited item (e.g., Tilt/DI) is simple and prone to reinvention.

[performer]

I love it when performers say they were "inspired" by so and so to create and perform their version of a trick. What they really mean is that they have stolen it! I see this all the time and it gives my cynical grafter's mind great amusement.

The truth of the matter is that it is a nasty jungle out there and notwithstanding the prattle about ethics it is going to happen whether you like it or not. You have to be ice cold about the matter, realise it is going to happen and protect your interests as best you can. And if necessary, be as ruthless as the thief. How I don't know, perhaps see what you can steal from THEM!

[performer]

Oh, and as for the Tilt thing, I could swear that Edward Victor had something to do with it but I may well be wrong. I do know that Edward Victor invented a lot of things that are in use today and nobody realises it. The so called Elsmley Count is one example. To be fair to Alex Elmsley he always admitted he got the idea from Victor.

[Jonathan Townsend]

The Depth Illusion as we know it was created by Dai Vernon....Vernon's exact handling for The Depth Illusion has not been published yet, but it will be...

Or more simply: the depth illusion, as seen in Victor's More Magic of the hands, page x photo y, has been explored extensively for use when the audience is both closeup and looking slightly down upon the pack. This strategy, aided by some card gaffs, led to marketed card rise and vanishing pack effects.

One criterion for adding or giving "credit" to a proffered work is to look for earliest citation in the proffered work. If the work has no citations - no credit to pass on. A proffered work might contain an early report on an item but it's not scholarly work so much as reporting. Especially awkward when the work being reported is not being given by the performer but rather described. Of course it's useful to pass on tips and touches as they are found useful ... but that's not scholarly so much as trivia/lore within a culture.

Wooden nickles, hard money or soft currency?

[MagicbyAlfred]

Performer wrote: "I do know that Edward Victor invented a lot of things that are in use today and nobody realises it. The so called Elsmley Count is one example. To be fair to Alex Elmsley he always admitted he got the idea from Victor."

Spot on, 'ol chap. According to Magicpedia, Edward Victor (born Edward Victor Neuschwander):

"...invented the E-Y-E Count which Alex Elmsley adapted to create the Elmsley Count...Eye Count is a false count with a packet of three cards, designed to hide one card while apparently showing all three. Developed by Edward Victor for his E-Y-E routine in a trick marketed in 1952. Also known as the Victor Count. Alex Elmsley later adapted it to create his Ghost Count."

Of course, the "Ghost Count" subsequently became known as the "Elmsley Count" (because nobody could se it).