A Thought To Help Complicate Location of Internet Exposure

[brianarudolph]

Spurred on by comments in the "Are We in a Golden Age of Magic?" thread, I thought I'd post this little principle that I realized that I have always adhered to, even in the days long before the Internet. No one ever told me to do this; I just realized that I've always done it:

When performing for laypeople I rarely call a trick/effect by the name by which it's known within the magic profession. Along with that: I rarely say key words that can uniquely identify a trick/effect when pattering either.

For example, when I do an Oil and Water effect I will NEVER say the words "oil" or "water." Ever. I may talk about "birds of a feather flocking together" or how "in most cases opposites attract, but in a deck of cards likes attract" or some such, but I will never use the words "oil" or "water." In the case of Oil and Water I even try not to mention "reds" and "blacks" opting instead for just SHOWING that the like colors keep re-collecting over and over again.

The Golden Age thread made me realize that this is also at least a very tiny a step toward thwarting a semi-interested layperson's post-show Googling for secrets. Obviously if someone is truly determined, you'll never stop them from ultimately locating the secret or at least some purported secrets online. But why not frustrate everyone else from the get-go by not feeding them extremely tasty Google-ready search terms?

The vast majority of people aren't really that good at using a tool like Google anyway (again, there's not much we can do to stop the truly determined ones) so why help them get better in locating (supposed) secrets of magic? Yes, it's still not that hard in the grand scheme of things (I just Googled "that trick where red and black cards separate" and was instantly linked to several "Oil and Water" explanations, along with the entry in Wikipedia for it) but at least Layman Me had to actually sit down and ask Google about "that trick where red and black cards separate" before I got there. For a lot of folks the urge to seek out the secret will pass since they aren't willing to put that much effort into it.

Although I cited Oil and Water here, and although everything I said about what I say about it (and what I don't say about it) when performing it is true, perhaps it's not the best example. I probably should have used "Triumph" or "Zig-Zag" or "Devil's Tears" or some others.

On the flip side are things like linking rings, the three shell game, three card monte, and the cups and balls. It's pretty hard not to use those effect names and related keywords when performing these. My take on them and other classics is to keep polishing my performance (not that this advice doesn't apply in the earlier cases either!) But given how well these classic effects are known, how much exposure of them has already occurred and how blatantly obvious the Google search terms would be even if you performed them in total silence for people who have never seen them before (and there are plenty of such people), a great performance can still save the day. Essentially, I view it as misdirecting a layperson's desire to Google the secret by thrilling them with a very satisfying performance.

But I hope I've made the point. With all the faux and real exposure spread out across the Internet, the deck is now definitely stacked against magicians when it comes to audience members potentially knowing a specific secret. So I say we do everything we can - even if it's something as small as what I've posted here - to not help them to help themselves to it.

[P.T.Widdle]

So I say we do everything we can - even if it's something as small as what I've posted here - to not help them to help themselves to it.

What is the problem, really, of a spectator seeking out a secret?

As a performer, you have done your job in mystifying them. In fact, their curiousness in seeking out the secret afterwards should be flattering to you.

Are you trying to protect them from an inevitable letdown once they do find out? I would counter, how do we know for sure it will be a letdown? Perhaps the discovery of the secret will bring a second level of astonishment, one that is more about the appreciation of the cleverness of the trick (and the performer). But even if the spectator is let down by the secret, so what? It doesn't take away from the fact that they were mystified in the first place. But let's even postulate that the discovery of the secret is such a letdown that it does, indeed, cause the layman to remember the initial trick in a worse light. I say again, so what? There are plenty of laymen who never seek out the secret of a trick, but nevertheless are upset about being fooled. What do we do about them?

The fact is, the majority of spectators never ever seek out the secret. And for the ones that do, I feel it is likely that it will result in more respect for the performer and the art of magic. And to the tiny few who Google the secret and say, "That's not such a big deal," I say, "Next."

[brianarudolph]

And thus we have the tremendous respect for the art of magic that we do in this "golden age."

But hey - at least it's flattering to magicians.

[P.T.Widdle]

And thus we have the tremendous respect for the art of magic that we do in this "golden age."

But hey - at least it's flattering to magicians.

Where is there any indication of a lesser respect for magic now than at any other time?

[Richard Kaufman]

It's called "Google Fu": the ability to track down things on the Internet. The person with the strongest Google Fu I know is Bill Mullins, and I'm really glad he doesn't have a TV show where he wants to teach magic to the public.

I think Brian's discussion and aim are admirable. I think Widdle is just stirring the sh*t as usual and to little purpose.

[P.T.Widdle]

I think Widdle is just stirring the sh*t as usual and to little purpose.

I guess when Peter Lamont questions long-standing assumptions about magic history (in Dustin's excellent piece on the LA Magic History Conference), it's considered admirable, but when I, god forbid, question a long-standing assumption about the behavior of laymen, I'm "stirring the sh*it." At least you didn't threaten to ban me this time.

[mr_goat]

Spurred on by comments in the "Are We in a Golden Age of Magic?" thread, I thought I'd post this little principle that I realized that I have always adhered to, even in the days long before the Internet. No one ever told me to do this; I just realized that I've always done it:

When performing for laypeople I rarely call a trick/effect by the name by which it's known within the magic profession. Along with that: I rarely say key words that can uniquely identify a trick/effect when pattering either.

For example, when I do an Oil and Water effect I will NEVER say the words "oil" or "water." Ever. I may talk about "birds of a feather flocking together" or how "in most cases opposites attract, but in a deck of cards likes attract" or some such, but I will never use the words "oil" or "water." In the case of Oil and Water I even try not to mention "reds" and "blacks" opting instead for just SHOWING that the like colors keep re-collecting over and over again.

The Golden Age thread made me realize that this is also at least a very tiny a step toward thwarting a semi-interested layperson's post-show Googling for secrets. Obviously if someone is truly determined, you'll never stop them from ultimately locating the secret or at least some purported secrets online. But why not frustrate everyone else from the get-go by not feeding them extremely tasty Google-ready search terms?

The vast majority of people aren't really that good at using a tool like Google anyway (again, there's not much we can do to stop the truly determined ones) so why help them get better in locating (supposed) secrets of magic? Yes, it's still not that hard in the grand scheme of things (I just Googled "that trick where red and black cards separate" and was instantly linked to several "Oil and Water" explanations, along with the entry in Wikipedia for it) but at least Layman Me had to actually sit down and ask Google about "that trick where red and black cards separate" before I got there. For a lot of folks the urge to seek out the secret will pass since they aren't willing to put that much effort into it.

Although I cited Oil and Water here, and although everything I said about what I say about it (and what I don't say about it) when performing it is true, perhaps it's not the best example. I probably should have used "Triumph" or "Zig-Zag" or "Devil's Tears" or some others.

On the flip side are things like linking rings, the three shell game, three card monte, and the cups and balls. It's pretty hard not to use those effect names and related keywords when performing these. My take on them and other classics is to keep polishing my performance (not that this advice doesn't apply in the earlier cases either!) But given how well these classic effects are known, how much exposure of them has already occurred and how blatantly obvious the Google search terms would be even if you performed them in total silence for people who have never seen them before (and there are plenty of such people), a great performance can still save the day. Essentially, I view it as misdirecting a layperson's desire to Google the secret by thrilling them with a very satisfying performance.

But I hope I've made the point. With all the faux and real exposure spread out across the Internet, the deck is now definitely stacked against magicians when it comes to audience members potentially knowing a specific secret. So I say we do everything we can - even if it's something as small as what I've posted here - to not help them to help themselves to it.

Tl;dr: the op doesn't refer to tricks with a google able name. Cool eh?

[Brad Henderson]

Widdle: If the method is more interesting than the trick, you have a crappy trick; and if someone gets off on that, they will only create more crappy tricks. That's a membership increase we don't need.

years ago I worked with an illusionist. We
would call illusions by made up names or by names of other tricks. We did this to screw with any magicians who would be in the audience. (He was a frequent closer for local public magic club shows.)

[performer]

Dearie me. Poor old Widdle has a lot to learn about the art of magic, it seems. To him it is a great big hobby that should be available to the masses. To me it is an art form that should be revealed to only a select few and that does NOT include Widdle who is obviously merely a layman who knows how the tricks are done.

[lybrary]

I happen to sort of agree with Widdle. I think only a minority of viewers of a magic show would afterwards go on Google to try to find how it was done. And those who do clearly show some kind of interest in magic, even if it is only how it was done, and not in an attempt to actually learn magic - at least not immediately. But as we all know such initial interest can sometimes lead to a lifelong deep and appreciative interest in magic. I therefore do not think it is necessarily and generally speaking a bad thing if that happens.

On the other hand as magicians we need to be worried about having our secrets become common knowledge. But I see no reason why this should ever happen, even with the current Internet situation. Don't forget that the Internet makes also a gazillion other pieces of information readily available. This means that for most people non-magic information is much more interesting than magic secrets. The flood of information works both ways, also as distraction and hiding in plain sight. It is a bit like the old saying: "If you want something forgotten put it in print." Just because something is on the Internet does not mean that a lot of people will actually see it, read it, and understand it.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... I rarely call a trick/effect by the name by which it's known within the magic profession. Along with that: I rarely say key words that can uniquely identify a trick/effect when pattering either...

So it's not okay to bring out the books and show them where you got your tricks, citing inventor, publication or first marketing of the item and ... variations along the way? How about a fictitious book with nonsense descriptions? A wrongipedia?

Come on folks the job is to entertain. If you really want to show/tell history ... that can be great if you have the chops to do what Bosco did, or deKolta, Hofzinser, or Ramsay... but keep in mind their tricks were successful in their time - so your job is to make the tricks work today.

The Vernon story about a drunk trying to mess up a card trick is just fine for doing the card trick.

[brianarudolph]

I sort of see why Chris sort of agrees with the Widdler. And if someone's interest in ferreting out the secrets to magic effects online leads to a lifelong deep and appreciative interest in magic, then more power to them - provided it truly leads to a deep and appreciative interest in the art of magic - not the art of magic as overwhelmingly portrayed online.

Don't forget that the Internet also makes it incredibly easy to widdle ... er ... I mean whittle down its gazillion other pieces of non-relevant information in favor of higher quality links to information you likely seek in microscopic fractions of a second either. The very notion that something can be hidden by putting it on the Internet is, at least to my mind, sadly amusing if not absurd. This is incredibly not at all the notion of "hiding the secret to a magic trick in a book by publishing it" (with all due respect, Chris.) It used to be that there was no button a person could press to find secrets that were "hidden in print." Locating those secrets took an incredible amount of work - often including networking with accomplished pros/devotees. Now it just takes a few keystrokes and mouse clicks. And preciously all too few of them - with no accomplished pros/devotees required if so desired either knowingly or unknowingly.

But if someone's research into magic secrets online does lead them to a brick and mortar magic shop, Genii magazine, or the Academy of Magical Arts (just to name a few examples) where they will find actual pros and devotees, and it actually leads to that lifelong appreciation of the art of magic, again I'm all for it. But I can't help but feel that that number will be an incredibly small percentage compared to the number of folks who just want to learn secrets and who could otherwise not care less about the "art" of magic.

So my point remains: the deck is stacked against magicians in this day and age with the bar to entry (and quality) being lowered by the Internet more and more every day. I see absolutely no reason why we as magicians need to help anyone learn the secrets to our effects any more than the world already does. The truly interested will persevere and become interested in the art. Unfortunately, the true jerks will channel their tenacity towards learning and exposing secrets as well. Or to put it another way: The cream rises to the top. Unfortunately, so does the scum.

[brianarudolph]

So it's not okay to bring out the books and show them where you got your tricks, citing inventor, publication or first marketing of the item and ... variations along the way? How about a fictitious book with nonsense descriptions? A wrongipedia?

Come on folks the job is to entertain.

Have you considered becoming a stand-up comic? It turns out that the Internet is full of all kinds of material you could use. Oh wait ...

[Jonathan Townsend]

Secrets... do you mean magic shop product for sale to all who would pay the price?

My position is simply that "your job is to make the tricks work today." - it's supposed to register as impossible/real... magical. They are supposed to know they have been deceived but not when or how.

The bar to entry seems about the same:
Can you arrange things so they feel good about being deceived?

[Tom Stone]

I'm not sure that I understand why it would be a problem if anyone researched the material afterwards. To me, it sounds both awesome and desirable.

In every magic show I've made for theatre settings, I have had a full and very detailed list of credits for all the performance material in the theater programme. Like in a good magic book, but expanded with short bios on the various creators.
An interesting side-effect is that the reviews tend to become twice as long as usual, and goes a lot deeper than usual, and it is never ever said that it is the "same old tricks". I've only found that proper credits gives more respect and appreciation.

I am convinced that this whole idea of keeping "secrets" is more destructive than beneficiary.

[Brad Henderson]

This problem doesn't arise from the issue of keeping secrets, the problem arises from the context of primacy magicians have created around secrecy and that we have communicated that false importance to the public.

When you provide a context where the secret becomes less valuable to the audience (one technique for doing so would be the context created by establishing magic as a lineage of ideas via the credits you speak of) you dis-empower the allure of the secret.

when the magician learns to care less about the secret and more about the audiences experience, the audience will sacrifice the search for the secret in order to better PRESERVE their experience.

I do not believe that a viable solution is to begin telling secrets. While that may make less valuable that one aspect of magic,it fails to establish anything to replace it of greater value.

being deceived is a critical aspect of magic, as opposed to any other art. it seems prudent to try to preserve that experience as much as possible for our audience's sake. But the problem is we have taught our audiences that their job is to try and catch us. We have done this since day one when we performed our first trick. What did we care about? What was the bar of success? :

Did they catch us !!!!!!

So we structure our presentations and adopt an attitude that puts the audience into the role of 'magic catcher.'

we put fooling before feeling. (having said that, if you don't deceive you are not performing magic in a skillful manner.)m

the reality is most people who do magic do it only to please themselves. We like to be fooled. We care about secrets. So when they perform that's the only context that informs their work. (well, that and egotism.).

So, we protect the secrets because for many that's all they really have. they know how it works and the audience doesn't - and we are right back where we started, having never left.

[Bill Mullins]

It's called "Google Fu": the ability to track down things on the Internet. The person with the strongest Google Fu I know is Bill Mullins, and I'm really glad he doesn't have a TV show where he wants to teach magic to the public.

My wife says I should drop the "Google Fu" and develop my "Do a Load of Laundry Once in a While Fu"

[brianarudolph]

Secrets... do you mean magic shop product for sale to all who would pay the price?

To a good degree, yes. But shelling out $10 or $20 or $50 online or in person to learn the secret to an effect (along with getting the necessary props/gimmicks as applicable) is a much, much, much higher bar of entry for a non-magician than watching 30 different YouTube exposure videos for free (considering the cost of your internet service as something you'd pay for every month no matter how much, how little or what you use it for.)

My position is simply that "your job is to make the tricks work today." - it's supposed to register as impossible/real... magical. They are supposed to know they have been deceived but not when or how.

The bar to entry seems about the same:
Can you arrange things so they feel good about being deceived?

Our job is to definitely "make the tricks work today." To that end, however, I sure hope an audience knows when they are deceived. Seems the "magical experience" would be a bit dampened if they miss those moments. Not knowing how they are deceived, well, that's getting back to the point. Would your audience have anything resembling a "magical experience" if they knew how your tricks were done in advance?

I'm not sure that I understand why it would be a problem if anyone researched the material afterwards. To me, it sounds both awesome and desirable.

In every magic show I've made for theatre settings, I have had a full and very detailed list of credits for all the performance material in the theater programme. Like in a good magic book, but expanded with short bios on the various creators.
An interesting side-effect is that the reviews tend to become twice as long as usual, and goes a lot deeper than usual, and it is never ever said that it is the "same old tricks". I've only found that proper credits gives more respect and appreciation.

I am convinced that this whole idea of keeping "secrets" is more destructive than beneficiary.

Then, rather than an audience knowing the secrets to your effects in advance, will it alter their "magical experience" if they learn all the secrets after they go home? Obviously they'll have a great experience during the performance (especially a Tom Stone performance.) But it seems difficult not to conclude that the "magicalness" of their experience will ultimately be at least somewhat diminished if and when they pull back the proverbial curtain. Otherwise, why not save everyone time and just include the explanations of your effects along with the credits in the programme? That would make the programme even more detailed and complete too.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...if they miss those moments. Not knowing how they are deceived, well, that's getting back to the point. Would your audience have anything resembling a "magical experience" if they knew how your tricks were done in advance?...

That's about three tough questions

1) Missing the moment? The effect? Let's begin that discussion with classical demonstrative procedural format, having an open setup, an invocation of magic and then a display of results. What went wrong? They missed the part where they knew what was supposed to be there before the magic? They missed the part where you supposedly used magic? They missed the part where the results are self evidently different from what was there before? That's a FAIL for effect design in magic. Even half interested folks who can't hear what we are saying are supposed to be able to read the before/magic/after conditions.

2) Not knowing they were deceived... that's a FAIL effect in magic but probably the desired outcome in a confidence swindle.

3) Knowing how the tricks are done in advance? That presupposes the audience knows about magic methods and that they can read your methods from your setup conditions. Such may well be a working definition of FAIL for method design. What is leading them to see methods? what's cluing them in? Do the props look so out of place or strange that they are taking pictures, using an image search off the web and finding the only match comes from a magic shop? Is the method you are using so well telegraphed by your actions that the show might as well be narrated by Mitch Pilleggi? What's taking their sense of the moment away from your performance and into backstage mechanics?

[lybrary]

... than watching 30 different YouTube exposure videos for free

Brian, I think what you are forgetting is that looking something up on Google, sorting through the list of results, and then watching 30 YouTube videos takes TIME and EFFORT. Unless the person does have some kind of deeper interest in magic than merely viewing and enjoying it, they would not spend that time and effort. Certainly many - if not all - viewers of a magic show will think about "how is this done?" That is human nature. If you see something you can't explain you will wonder how this is possible. All of science is based on that basic experience. But for most it stops there. To actually start and research, go online and search, read, spend time, ... requires an increased interest in magic which is generally speaking a good thing for magic.

[brianarudolph]

This problem doesn't arise from the issue of keeping secrets, the problem arises from the context of primacy magicians have created around secrecy and that we have communicated that false importance to the public.

When you provide a context where the secret becomes less valuable to the audience (one technique for doing so would be the context created by establishing magic as a lineage of ideas via the credits you speak of) you dis-empower the allure of the secret.

when the magician learns to care less about the secret and more about the audiences experience, the audience will sacrifice the search for the secret in order to better PRESERVE their experience.

I do not believe that a viable solution is to begin telling secrets. While that may make less valuable that one aspect of magic,it fails to establish anything to replace it of greater value.

being deceived is a critical aspect of magic, as opposed to any other art. it seems prudent to try to preserve that experience as much as possible for our audience's sake. But the problem is we have taught our audiences that their job is to try and catch us. We have done this since day one when we performed our first trick. What did we care about? What was the bar of success? :

Did they catch us !!!!!!

So we structure our presentations and adopt an attitude that puts the audience into the role of 'magic catcher.'

we put fooling before feeling. (having said that, if you don't deceive you are not performing magic in a skillful manner.)m

the reality is most people who do magic do it only to please themselves. We like to be fooled. We care about secrets. So when they perform that's the only context that informs their work. (well, that and egotism.).

So, we protect the secrets because for many that's all they really have. they know how it works and the audience doesn't - and we are right back where we started, having never left.

Brad makes several excellent points here, including the reiteration of the fact that secrets are and always will be an integral part of magic by definition and as such carefree exposure of them will not serve the art well. And he's spot-on with the notion that we as magicians frequently exacerbate the issue by projecting an image of overemphasizing their importance to the public - often when we perform. But, at the risk of reducing the development of magic through the ages to a sound bite, magic was founded on secrets. The wizards, alchemists, witches/warlocks, witch doctors, shamans and mystics of yore were no doubt quite zealously protective of successful methods they discovered that they could use to deceive their audiences. The advances in "stage dressing" (the predecessor to the "art" of magic) was secondary. But also as Brad notes, even as the art developed and the importance of placing feeling before fooling became apparent, fooling had to remain a very close second if you are performing magic - otherwise you're just playing with props.

But another aspect of my point is to address those spectators who commit the same sin: heading in to a magic show with an attitude of "I dare you to fool me, especially since I know how all your tricks work. I have access to the Internet. And I use it." Are those spectators in the majority? Thankfully in my experience they have not been. Hopefully that's because as Brad and Tom and others have noted as a philosophical tenet, I think that I have had some modicum of success being likable when performing and not coming off as the audience's intellectual adversary. But have I encountered spectators from the dark side? Unfortunately the answer is yes. Contrary to popular belief, there are some people who do not like to be fooled. And some of those people can be really tenacious, if not outright nasty, in their pursuit to prove that they "can't be fooled" - especially when they have an audience of their own (which when I get unlucky is the audience at my show into which they have inserted themselves.) While there are lots of things a magician can and should do to help bring these Sithtators to the good side, there will always be some who cannot be turned.

... than watching 30 different YouTube exposure videos for free

Brian, what you are forgetting is that looking something up on Google, sorting through the list of results, and then watching 30 YouTube videos takes TIME and EFFORT. Unless the person does have some kind of larger interest in magic than merely viewing and enjoying it, they would not spend that time and effort. Certainly many - if not all - viewers of a magic show will think about "how is this done?" That is human nature. If you see something you can't explain you will wonder how this is possible. All of science is based on that basic experience. But for most it stops there. To actually start and research, go online and search, read, spend time, ... requires an increased interest in magic which is generally speaking a good thing for magic.

Again with all due respect, Chris, what you are forgetting is that a spectator (especially one with the aforementioned attitude) will not need to watch 30 YouTube videos to gain the secrets they seek. Going back to the example of mine that you cited, I just timed it. It took 11 seconds for me to enter "that trick where the red and black cards separate" and for Google to come up with a (sadly) very long list of options for me to choose from. There's unfortunately an incredibly good chance that just 5 to 10 minutes spent viewing the material pointed to by a couple of the tops hits will give them all the secret information they need to potentially spoil the best presentation by barfing up the method during a performance. If that's TIME and EFFORT, then I really need to take a five year vacation after cruelly overworking myself every day.

So again I say that we have no obligation to make anyone's life easier by handing them even better terms for them to type into Google to learn the secrets of magic.

[Tom Stone]

Then, rather than an audience knowing the secrets to your effects in advance, will it alter their "magical experience" if they learn all the secrets after they go home? Obviously they'll have a great experience during the performance (especially a Tom Stone performance.) But it seems difficult not to conclude that the "magicalness" of their experience will ultimately be at least somewhat diminished if and when they pull back the proverbial curtain. Otherwise, why not save everyone time and just include the explanations of your effects along with the credits in the programme? That would make the programme even more detailed and complete too.

I don't understand. I should write and give away free books instead of show programmes? What problem would that solve?

[Pete McCabe]

But it seems difficult not to conclude that the "magicalness" of their experience will ultimately be at least somewhat diminished if and when they pull back the proverbial curtain.

Nelms and I disagree with you:

"There is a tremendous difference between even short-lived illusions and none at all. If a play fails to create any illusion, it is worthless. On the other hand, if it succeeds in creating an illusion, the fact that the spell of drama is broken with the fall of the curtain does not diminish its effect in the slightest."
—Henning Nelms


I think it's a poor tradeoff to give up such a simple, natural, relatable presentational idea, just to keep the odd internet user away from the secrets.

I think this is especially silly for Oil and Water. There are so many different versions, handlings, routines, etc. You could do David Regal's Oil and Water from whatever book that was and tell all and sundry it's called Oil and Water, and your audience can google that phrase for hours and hours with no effect.

Finally I would love to meet the guy who watched 30 youtube videos to try to figure out a trick. That sounds like something I would totally do.

[Jonathan Townsend]

If you could just stick to this part:

I rarely call a trick/effect by the name by which it's known within the magic profession. Along with that: I rarely say key words that can uniquely identify a trick/effect when pattering either.

I'd be happy to agree and laud the practice.

incogito

[brianarudolph]

But it seems difficult not to conclude that the "magicalness" of their experience will ultimately be at least somewhat diminished if and when they pull back the proverbial curtain.

Nelms and I disagree with you:

"There is a tremendous difference between even short-lived illusions and none at all. If a play fails to create any illusion, it is worthless. On the other hand, if it succeeds in creating an illusion, the fact that the spell of drama is broken with the fall of the curtain does not diminish its effect in the slightest."
—Henning Nelms


I think it's a poor tradeoff to give up such a simple, natural, relatable presentational idea, just to keep the odd internet user away from the secrets.

I think this is especially silly for Oil and Water. There are so many different versions, handlings, routines, etc. You could do David Regal's Oil and Water from whatever book that was and tell all and sundry it's called Oil and Water, and your audience can google that phrase for hours and hours with no effect.

Finally I would love to meet the guy who watched 30 youtube videos to try to figure out a trick. That sounds like something I would totally do.

Apparently you and Mr. Nelms disagree with others here too. Nothing wrong with that. Very glad I do. But just because Henning Nelms said something doesn't automatically make it true either. Heck on one video where Vernon performs the three card monte he actually tells the spectator that he does not want them to think that he's throwing the other card of the two in his hand. (Spoiler alert: magical sacrilege ahead) I proudly disagree with Vernon's choice of patter for that performance. (As you exit through the gift shop, please be sure to pick up a replica of my pitchfork, horns or other fine merchandise.)

And if you bothered to actually read and comprehend my original premise for this thread, you'll see that you've got it backwards: I wasn't looking for a way to stop or thwart people from finding magic secrets on the Internet - I noted as a secondary effect that a practice I had employed all my magical life *might help* thwart it a little bit since there is no way to ever stop it. I then further noted that since the deck was stacked against magicians in terms of exposure of secrets in this age of the Internet that I saw no reason to help anyone track down those secrets online by feeding them juicy search terms straight from the magic profession.

Then, rather than an audience knowing the secrets to your effects in advance, will it alter their "magical experience" if they learn all the secrets after they go home? Obviously they'll have a great experience during the performance (especially a Tom Stone performance.) But it seems difficult not to conclude that the "magicalness" of their experience will ultimately be at least somewhat diminished if and when they pull back the proverbial curtain. Otherwise, why not save everyone time and just include the explanations of your effects along with the credits in the programme? That would make the programme even more detailed and complete too.

I don't understand. I should write and give away free books instead of show programmes? What problem would that solve?

Not talking about a book, Tom. Just toss in an extra page with a line or two revealing how each effect you present is accomplished. If there's reluctance to do that because programmes are available when the audience enters, you can let them pick up the extra page as they leave. Either way, surely that would create even more interest in magic among those in attendance, wouldn't it?

If you could just stick to this part:

I rarely call a trick/effect by the name by which it's known within the magic profession. Along with that: I rarely say key words that can uniquely identify a trick/effect when pattering either.

I'd be happy to agree and laud the practice.

incogito

That is, was, and always has been the entire point. Thank you, Jonathan.

[performer]

I haven't read this thread properly so I don't really know what it is about. I am merely commenting because I saw the name of Henning Nelms. I have always thought the chap had no idea what he was talking about. It seems all you have to do is write a book and everyone thinks you are an expert. I hate that bloody book and shudder every time I see it on a shelf somewhere.

And then I found out years later after I hated it that the chap had never done a magic show in his life! I can't say I am surprised. I just wish I had known that before I wasted so much time believing all the crap he wrote. Of course I was young and innocent then.

[Tom Stone]

Then, rather than an audience knowing the secrets to your effects in advance, will it alter their "magical experience" if they learn all the secrets after they go home? Obviously they'll have a great experience during the performance (especially a Tom Stone performance.) But it seems difficult not to conclude that the "magicalness" of their experience will ultimately be at least somewhat diminished if and when they pull back the proverbial curtain. Otherwise, why not save everyone time and just include the explanations of your effects along with the credits in the programme? That would make the programme even more detailed and complete too.

I don't understand. I should write and give away free books instead of show programmes? What problem would that solve?

Not talking about a book, Tom. Just toss in an extra page with a line or two revealing how each effect you present is accomplished. If there's reluctance to do that because programmes are available when the audience enters, you can let them pick up the extra page as they leave. Either way, surely that would create even more interest in magic among those in attendance, wouldn't it?

I still don't understand. Are you saying that my work is so shallow that that material for a two act show can fit on a single sheet of paper? Like, 100 minutes of "I've got your nose"? Or that my writing is known to be lacking in substance? ...Maybe that is true, but I still don't see what problem you mean it would solve. It would rather undermine the solution provided by the detailed crediting, and bring it all back to square one again.
It would make no sense in the context either. When you go to a music concert, you don't get the sheet music with you home. When you go to the theatre, you don't get the script and stage directions with you home. You don't get the storyboards when you go to the cinema.

[Tom Stone]

I haven't read this thread properly so I don't really know what it is about. I am merely commenting because I saw the name of Henning Nelms. I have always thought the chap had no idea what he was talking about. It seems all you have to do is write a book and everyone thinks you are an expert. I hate that bloody book and shudder every time I see it on a shelf somewhere.

It's not too bad when compared with Fitzkee. Easy to read, interesting illustrations and as a fantasy book quite entertaining.
I think you would enjoy his other books more.

[performer]

I am not overly keen on Fitzkee either! Mind you there is one page in Fitzkee that I believe in to the point of obsession. I might post the page number if I can ever find it.

With regard to the Nelms book when I first purchased it I wandered on to the premises of Harry Stanley the famed magic dealer who brought Vernon and Slydini over to the UK and organised the publication of their classic books by Lewis Ganson.

He spotted me with the book in my hand and asked me about it. I showed it to him and he got all excited saying, "It is high time someone wrote a book about this stuff!" He then asked if he could borrow it and I agreed. A few days later he returned the book to me snorting that he didn't think much of it and that it was "all padding". Of course Harry was an old pro himself and knew the difference between the real stuff and theory.

Oddly enough I did see a remark somewhere by respected professional magician Geoffray Durham about the book saying it was "sterile and unhelpful". I must say I felt quite vindicated when I read that!

[brianarudolph]

I still don't understand. Are you saying that my work is so shallow that that material for a two act show can fit on a single sheet of paper? Like, 100 minutes of "I've got your nose"? Or that my writing is known to be lacking in substance? ...Maybe that is true, but I still don't see what problem you mean it would solve. It would rather undermine the solution provided by the detailed crediting, and bring it all back to square one again.
It would make no sense in the context either. When you go to a music concert, you don't get the sheet music with you home. When you go to the theatre, you don't get the script and stage directions with you home. You don't get the storyboards when you go to the cinema.

Tom: I am not denigrating your shows, performances or programmes whatsoever - quite the opposite, in fact. I completely admire all of your works be they your performances, books, Genii column or whatever. I merely mean to (and get back to) the original point which centered around not using terms from the magic profession when discussing effects with a lay audience, and the side effect that nowadays it could add one more tiny hurdle for someone bent on discovering magical secrets online to jump.

But as the professional you are and the types of shows you perform, particularly with the originality you inject into everything that you do, I bet you don't encounter too many (if any) of the kinds of spectators that enjoy challenging the performer and/or exposing magic secrets before, during or after a performance. So I bet there's not too much for you to worry about in this regard. Just to check, I Googled "that magician in the flared coat who makes sponge balls appear" (trying to think like a spectator.) I got all kinds of hits for "sponge balls" including everything from links to sleight of hand on various forums, magic shops where I could purchase them, and the Encyclopedia of Spongeball Magic - but at least within the first couple of pages of hits, no links to anything about Tom Stone. With that kind of herculean task ahead of them created by the originality of your shows, I agree that they can research 'til their heart's content. So it's no wonder that you care less/worry less about any exposure of what you do and the affect it would have on you. And I'll bet that folks who do take the time to research magic after one of your performances (following your credits or not) are far more likely to be the type who would actually be interested in magic itself rather than in just its/your secrets. My rhetorical suggestion for you to include short exposures of everything in your performance in your programme was done with the intent to briefly put you back in the world where exposure can and does have more of an effect on the typical magician.

I am not overly keen on Fitzkee either! Mind you there is one page in Fitzkee that I believe in to the point of obsession. I might post the page number if I can ever find it.

With regard to the Nelms book when I first purchased it I wandered on to the premises of Harry Stanley the famed magic dealer who brought Vernon and Slydini over to the UK and organised the publication of their classic books by Lewis Ganson.

He spotted me with the book in my hand and asked me about it. I showed it to him and he got all excited saying, "It is high time someone wrote a book about this stuff!" He then asked if he could borrow it and I agreed. A few days later he returned the book to me snorting that he didn't think much of it and that it was "all padding". Of course Harry was an old pro himself and knew the difference between the real stuff and theory.

Oddly enough I did see a remark somewhere by respected professional magician Geoffray Durham about the book saying it was "sterile and unhelpful". I must say I felt quite vindicated when I read that!

Books are books. Yes, they command a certain amount of respect because they have been published and their very existence gives some automatic credibility to the author. But that doesn't automatically imply that what a book contains is "right" or "new" or "the best" of anything. Or that it will remain so. Hemingway wrote many American classics and won the Pulitzer Prize in his time, but he also wrote several literary bombs too. The business book Good to Great became required reading at colleges and business schools all over the place when it was first published - and shortly thereafter three of the 11 operations that went from "good to great" failed spectacularly: Pitney Bowes, Fannie Mae, and Circuit City. No one is perfect.

Like everything else, each individual will decide what they like and don't like and what they'll take away after reading a book. In the case of magicians, that often means deciding what effects/sleights/philosophies they will pursue/use/adopt and which ones they will avoid/disregard/disagree with. For all the Hemingways, Vernons, Loraynes, Gardners, Stones (both Rolling and Tom), and others, there will be somewhere between two and ninety-one times as much material that is published and forgotten (usually rightfully if you subscribe to Hemingway's quote that “I write one page of masterpiece to ninety-one pages of sh*t. I try to put the sh*t in the wastebasket.”)

I actually enjoyed Fitzkee's Showmanship for Magicians. Of course, it has to be read in the context of the times in which it was produced and the ideas adapted to modern magic as necessary. The Trick Brain, OTOH, was amusing but only from a very high-level perspective/starting point for the creation of effects - even when I first read it as a lad of 14 years old. In my first attempt to create a trick using its methods, it was decided that we would be vanishing an elephant. And what was the method its process randomly suggested for consideration? A pull. Forty years later I'm still trying to design a harness that appears to be part of the elephant's costume. Not to mention finding bungee cord with the necessary elasticity and strength. and a way to anchor it - all with the comfort of the elephant in mind.

I think it's a poor tradeoff to give up such a simple, natural, relatable presentational idea, just to keep the odd internet user away from the secrets. I think this is especially silly for Oil and Water.

You forgot "used by 99% of the people who perform it." And that's another reason I avoid it. In addition to not using its name within the profession for laypeople, it's another way I nudge myself to be a little more creative. I'm no Tom Stone, but maybe one day I can be Tom Pebble as opposed to my current level of Tom Granule.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...Books are books. Yes, they command a certain amount of respect because they have been published and their very existence gives some automatic credibility to the author. ...

As entertainment and reportage ... perhaps. If written to build up what was already known and present in the literature - that's fine too. Without that scholarly commitment - to track down Seneca's humorous "moral epistles" and such - we get something that's closer to "here's my description of what so and so was doing".

But if the cover is embossed, the endpapers are unusual and the collector's edition... well here's where it leads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4jUXNMvhao

The magipedia and Conjuring Arts Research Center are great efforts in a scholarly direction.

Yes, that implies we may want to rethink copyright in our craft.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...

I think it's a poor tradeoff to give up such a simple, natural, relatable presentational idea, just to keep the odd internet user away from the secrets. I think this is especially silly for Oil and Water.

You forgot "used by 99% of the people who perform it." ...

Oil and water? Really? You mean like salad dressing? An oil tanker spill? Perhaps some folks are missing part of what's being demonstrated - probably the same as don't flinch when they say "master ace" while doing an ace assembly. Is that post-ironic or some kind of naive realism?

There's a funny "school dance" presentation. Anyone using Hofzinser's Divider idea?

[mr_goat]

Oh this is dull.

Haven't we had this discussion over and over?

Penn and Teller will ruin magic. The Masked Magician will ruin magic. The internet will ruin magic. Youtube will ruin magic.

Guess what, doom-mongers. None of those things ruined magic.

When I work I do linking rings and cups and balls. Both come in every kids' magic set. Both are really exposed. After one gig someone came up to me and said he'd seen how the linking rings works on the TV, that one has a hole in it, but he had no idea how I did it and was really impressed.

Lay people don't care about secrets. And if they do google your trick, well, so what? Has it taken away the feeling they had at the time? No. Does it mean anyone is going to die?? No.

[Brad Henderson]

but it does mean that we failed to give them an experience more valuable to them than that of knowing the secret.

The internet is not the problem. Our performances are. The visit to the Internet is merely the consequence of conveying the idea that the audience SHOULD care about the secrets.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... The internet is not the problem. Our performances are. ...

@Brad, folks are imagining audiences to be even less well informed than they are themselves. Ignorance begets ... never mind the judicious grieving we have folks who don't care to suit the word to the action and little regard to the modesty of nature - which might work if they had a video insert of Garret Morris loudly announcing the action for the hard of hearing.

[P.T.Widdle]

There's nothing wrong with a spectator wondering, "How was that done?" If they continue wondering after the performance, all the better. And if they feel the need to scratch that itch and go Googling, so be it. You should feel flattered.

When a spectator doesn't care about the secret because they were bored or disinterested in the performance, then you have something to worry about.

[Brad Henderson]

There's nothing wrong with a spectator wondering, "How was that done?" If they continue wondering after the performance, all the better. And if they feel the need to scratch that itch and go Googling, so be it. You should feel flattered.

When a spectator doesn't care about the secret because they were bored or disinterested in the performance, then you have something to worry about.

No body said there was anything wrong with a spectator wondering how a magi did something, assuming it arises from deception and not confusion.

You are tilting at your own hand made windmills again, Widdle.

if all the spectator cares about is the secret, they WERE the victim of a boring and uninteresting performance. They would have been equally served with a sodoku or word jumble.

Performer accused you of being a lay person who knows how the tricks are done. I think he may have gotten this one wrong. Your words suggest that you are just a magician of the most shallow type, one for whom magic is nothing but puzzles that exist to please the puzzler.

(note: I don't intend shallow to be inherently insulting, The most shallow experiences of 'magic' are those 'I don't know how its done' experiences. I don't comdemn puzzle lovers, nor people who enjoy the puzzle element of magic. I just don't think we are served by limiting magic to this level of experience)

[Brad Henderson]

@JT - Garrett Morris hard of hearing reference for the win!

[Jonathan Townsend]

I am not overly keen on Fitzkee either! Mind you there is one page in Fitzkee that I believe in to the point of obsession. I might post the page number if I can ever find it....

The part where he cites Tolstoy about a bad rehearsal?

https://books.google.com/books?id=6-IxA ... al&f=false

[Bill Mullins]

But as the professional you are and the types of shows you perform, particularly with the originality you inject into everything that you do, I bet you don't encounter too many (if any) of the kinds of spectators that enjoy challenging the performer and/or exposing magic secrets before, during or after a performance. So I bet there's not too much for you to worry about in this regard. Just to check, I Googled "that magician in the flared coat who makes sponge balls appear" (trying to think like a spectator.) I got all kinds of hits for "sponge balls" including everything from links to sleight of hand on various forums, magic shops where I could purchase them, and the Encyclopedia of Spongeball Magic - but at least within the first couple of pages of hits, no links to anything about Tom Stone.

But when I google (Swedish magician sponge balls) the very first link is to a youtube video of Tom's Benson Burner routine (using that very title). And if I then google ("Benson Burner" magic) I get all sorts of useful things.

Google knows everything.