Page 1 of 1

Peter Samelson in this month's MUM

Posted: December 5th, 2016, 11:57 am
by erdnasephile
I know we've kicked (and kicked and kicked and kicked) around this topic before, but Peter Samelson has a reasoned take on whether or not performance permission is implicit in publication in the December, 2016 MUM. He writes of an account of an "intense online discussion" with Tom Stone (Is there any other kind? --- I'm just kidding... ;) ) with regards to this issue. I think what separates out Mr. Samelson's take from most others is that he is clearly a creator and a "giver" in terms of magic originality, so his opinion carries a bit more weight with me than most of the arguments I've read from those that are primarily consumers (including myself). While my own personal position falls in the middle ground on this issue, I do think his (and Mr. Stone's) arguments are worth a thoughtful read.

(PS: On a related note: I would've liked to have seen an article on this issue in the vein of the "Use the provided patter vs. write your own" and "Too Perfect Theory" articles that were published years ago in MAGIC and Genii. I still love rereading those pieces because of the diversity (and sometimes, ferocity) of opinion from so many of magic's leading lights.)

Re: Peter Samelson in this month's MUM

Posted: December 5th, 2016, 12:13 pm
by Matthew Field
Samelson.

Re: Peter Samelson in this month's MUM

Posted: December 5th, 2016, 3:39 pm
by erdnasephile
Thanks for the correction---I apologize to Mr. Samelson for messing up his name.