I'm sorry? When was it demonstrated that Alexander was superior to silverking? You say it like it's a fact that has been proven here in this thread.
has claimed that D.A. is "superior to silverking." If they had, I certainly would not have agreed with it (It's also so broad I am not sure exactly what that would mean).
Silverking said that the Berglas book was filled with "empty pages" and was not written for magicians and mentalists. Dismissing the value of a book that was the product of a life's work, and of -- I am sure -- hundreds of hours.
D.A. has said that the value of the book is not apparent without extensive performing experience. The sense of this was strongly seconded in Eric Mead's review in Genii where he referred to the ACAAN section as (and this is not a direct quote but a paraphrase from memory) "notes from one expert to another."
David Alexander has made his living from magic since -- at least -- the mid-1960's. He was a personal student of Frakson.
David has claimed that the most valuable lessons in the Berglas book are ones he was only ready to learn because of his experience.
Silverking found the book without value to him
and from that projected that the book was without value
(see the above post about empty pages and the book not being written for magicians and mentalists).
David's opinion is not about the value of the book simply, but of its value to experienced professional performers
. This is a judgement he is clearly qualified to make.
Now, in contrast to David (who is very open about who he is and where he is from -- which allows us to put his opinions in context), silverking gives us only that he is in Canada.
If silverking has similar credentials, he has no reason not to share them. If he is a successful, highly experienced professional, than his opinion is relevant to the usefulness of the book to experienced professionals
(to whom the book is clearly intended based on the statement in the front matter).
But if he isn't, and without a statement from him there is no reason to believe that he is, then what he has to say has little relevance to the narrow
question of the value of the book to its intended audience
Of course, if it is of value to experienced professionals, then the pages are hardly "empty" as he claims above.
this kind of thing has an unfortunate emotional edge to it. People don't like to think that there are lessons they may not be ready for...and I think get defensive because they think it is some kind of judgement of them...
It isn't. There is nothing wrong with being less experienced -- its all part of the ride...
In magic, for whatever reason, everyone wants to be seen as an expert...and so we have the young guy taking it upon himself to give out "magic's oscars"...
And so Silverking takes umbrage at the idea that he isn't in the intended audience for this book...If he is, again, he should be open about who he is and what his background is -- so that we can give the appropriate weight to what he has to say...
If he is not, what is so offensive about not being in the intended audience for a book?
People who are clearly experts -- Eric Mead and John Carney -- have talked publicly about how valuable the book is.
Silverking casually dismisses the book.
Casually dismisses years of Berglas' life and hard won experience laid out on a silver platter for the student.
Are Mead and Carney just not as perceptive as silverking to see that the emperor has no clothes?
Or is it possible, just possible, that there are lessons that he and I are not yet ready for?
I think the reason that I am so adamant about this kind of thing -- this "everybody-in-magic's-opinion-is-equally-valid -- is that there is an explosion of information out there...
With all the internet experts, and everybody with equally valid opinions, the student has no where to turn for qualified information...
I think we need to be honest as a community.
I think we need to be clear that the guys who have sweated for years to build successful careers -- the Denny Haneys, David Alexanders, Bob Sheets etc. etc. -- really are experts and their views, when it comes to learning effective magic for muggles
, should be given greater weight than the views of some anonymous guy...
Alright, rant over...I'm headed to bed
P.S. About my "claim" of being 24 (I have never before had anyone in an argument challenge my statement that I was young and inexperienced), you can take a gander at http://illusionartistry.com/bio.html
for information about me. I think you'll clearly see a 24 year old dweeb at the very begining of his career.