Laypeople

[Mahdi Gilbert]

How many of you refer to your spectators, audiences, and non-magicians as 'laypeople'?

If you do, then why?

If you do not, then why not?

Personally, I find it to be an offensive and denigrating label and I hear it every single time I'm around a 'magician' and I'm very curious as to why people in the magic community use that term.

[Anthony Vinson]

Would you prefer Muggles? By definition the word laity fits; it's generally understood, and acts only to differentiate and not to denigrate. Is it overused? Perhaps, but so are countless other words and phrases.

[Richard Kaufman]

It's just convenient, Mahdi. What would you prefer?

[brianarudolph]

Hey Mahdi!

Now that you've made me think about this, I realized that I use all three terms in different ways:

I do reserve "laypeople" specifically for conversations with magicians only. In that context I use it to refer to any group of one or more people who do not have any significant level of magic background (including secrets, methods, history, AMA memberships, etc.) I do not use it as a derogatory term (something, with apologies to J. K. Rowling, that I think "muggle" certainly does) but rather to mean "someone without any intimate familiarity with the art of magic." The term itself may partially have been borrowed from religious tradition in which some "non-ordained" congregants have been trained to some "lower level" (again, in a non-derogatory way) to assist with religious services. They are often called "laypeople", "lay ministers", etc.

I seem to always use "spectators" when referring to anyone observing my performance in a close-up or small parlor setting - regardless of the magic expertise they possess (as I intentionally never want to presume what the mix of my "observers" is.)

I seem to always use "audience" in the same way as I do "spectators" but for large parlor and stage performances. In other words, in the way that you just made me realize that I've been using the terms all my life: a small group of "watchers" are "spectators" and a larger group of "watchers" is an "audience."

But I do totally understand your point as to how the term "laypeople" - even when used just between magicians - sounds offensive. It would be nice to hear suggestions for better terms to use when magicians talk shop. Both "observer" and "watcher" sound too bland, anonymous, uncaring and generic, so I'd rather not use those. Plus anyone can "watch" or "observe" regardless of their magical background.

At least this is not as bad as in the tech world, however. I'm increasingly hearing "techies" referring to someone who is simply not quite as "technically sophisticated" as the techie is (or thinks he/she is) as a "luddite" - even though that term originally meant someone who intentionally and actively destroyed new technology because they perceived it as threat. It has more recently grown to mean someone who simply resists new technology. But I hear it being intentionally used more and more in the techie community as an intellectual insult meaning "someone too stupid to grasp new technology" and I fear that its usage is only further decaying in that direction.

Perhaps we can find a better term than "layperson" and "laypeople" to refer to those not as acquainted with the magic profession as a reasonable magician would be, I'm just at a loss (as I rush to a lunch meeting) to think of a better term to offer from the point on top of my head right now.

[Jonathan Townsend]

It's part of the magic shop sales thing - you're smarter than they are because you bought the book and the trick and the dvd so now have justification (you bought that secret for your hard earned dollars) and can look down at the folks outside the magic shop who just don't have a clue how tricks work... so buy that item and feel special for having secret knowledge of the practice.

Folks honestly don't believe buying a magic shop item conveys any knowledge of magic... right?

First rule of fight club.

Taking a performing arts perspective... back to audiences.

[performer]

"Normal human beings" might be as good a term as any. Nobody could possibly accuse magicians of being normal human beings so the difference is quite obvious.

[Brad Jeffers]

Perhaps we can find a better term than "layperson" and "laypeople" to refer to those not as acquainted with the magic profession as a reasonable magician would be

If you want an alternative term, refer to them as "the public".

[Jack Shalom]

The term "layperson" embodies a useful distinction in discussing magic methods, notwithstanding some people's disapproval of that particular term.

It's not the case, in my opinion, that the words "the public" can convey the same nuance, since members of "the public" have varying degrees of magical knowledge. At times, in discussing magic, it's important to address issues that concern those members of the public who are not familiar with the mechanics of deception. It's useful to have a convenient word for those people.

Nothing to do with the commodification of secrets, though I understand the thrust of the remark. Bad attitudes will continue with or without the particular words.

"Non-magicians"?

[Brad Henderson]

I use the term 'real people'.

[J-Mac]

Unsuspecting victims...

Jim

[Ian Kendall]

I'm with Brad (however strange that sounds...)

I call them 'real people'.

[brianarudolph]

Magician A: Last night I did the best show of my life. My timing was impeccable. My card manipulation was more technically precise than Lance Burton's and more beautiful than Jeff McBride's. I was more hilarious than Terry Seabrooke, more spectacular than David Copperfield and more wonder-inspiring than Doug Henning. My finale of Metamorphosis put Houdini's to shame and made Jonathan Pendragon's look sedated. Afterwards, the audience's applause was so thunderous that I barely escaped after three encores.
Magician B: Were you performing for real people?
Magician A: No. Imaginary.

Despite that brief detour through bad humor, I like "real people" for "non-magicians" too. Also, it can only help that when magicians refer to "real people" among themselves that the term reinforces the notion that non-magicians are people we want to view in every sense of the word as "real" since they are the bulk of the ones who pay to see us perform - not to see us do things that make us feel in any way above them.

[J-Mac]

I generally use the term, "spectators".

Jim

[performer]

I think laymen is as good as anything. I don't find it offensive any more than when a member of the clergy uses the same word to describe people who are not church people. Mind you, I am an exception since as a psychic reverend and holy man of the cloth myself I call them "punters" but that is another matter entirely.......................................

[Leo Garet]

As Mister Kaufman says, it’s convenient. It's a fully rounded and traditionally accepted general term. Terminology, even jargon to some degree.

If anybody feels it’s somehow demeaning, so be it it. Alongside “laity,” it’s a word/phrase that’s been part of my vocabulary forever; inside and outside Magic.

I often use the word laypeople, layperson(s)and layfolk. No malice. Magicians know to which group I’m referring and to repeat, it’s terminology. Practical and useful. If magicians don't know, they should.

Much like “spectator”. Frowned on by some to whom “participant” is far more chivalrous, accurate, and honourable. “Patter,” too is a no-go area for those who think that “script,” “libretto” are more worthy.

Why the fuss? Why change it/them?
Leave 'em alone.

[Bill Mullins]

George Bernard Shaw: "All professions are conspiracies against the laity."

[Mahdi Gilbert]

Maybe it's not so much the word itself that makes me cringe but that it is usually being said by people with no true understanding of magic or deception (who quite naturally consider themselves to be conjurers) who say smugly aloud, "This fools the laymen every time."

You know who you are

[John Signa]

Magicians are best at fooling themselves.

[John LeBlanc]

This strikes me as a semantic dispute, and my answer depends on the context. When we engage in shoptalk -- among ourselves -- a convenient shortcut word for people who aren't magicians is layman or layperson; we all know what that means. I use "normal person." In outside talk, I use "audience" or "audience member."

Layman, mentalism/mentalist, silk -- these are shoptalk words.

John

[Ted M]

Maybe it's not so much the word itself that makes me cringe but that it is usually being said by people with no true understanding of magic or deception (who quite naturally consider themselves to be conjurers) who say smugly aloud, "This fools the laymen every time."

You know who you are

It sounds like the problem here is that no, they don't know who they are.

Plenty of people of all sorts lack self-awareness.

It's just really extra uncomfortable when public performers lack it.

[performer]

In any event most "magicians" are simply laymen who know how the tricks are done anyway. We should probably discuss who deserves to be called "magicians" rather than who should be called laymen. For the record I consider very few "magicians" to be magicians anyway. Quite frankly they don't deserve the title. But they all delude themselves that they do. I don't think I have met fifty MAGICIANS in my entire life. Certainly not more than a hundred. And you would be very surprised at the names I don't consider to be magicians.

[erdnasephile]

Yes--it's not the word, but the attitude behind the word that is of issue here, IMHO. It's the lack of respect for the audience that is most problematic.

I would take it a step further though. Even the sentence: "This fools the laymen every time" doesn't bother me per se if the reason for the sentence is to point out the difference between fooling the laity versus magicians, which IS different in many cases (and NOT because one group is inherently more intelligent or worthy than the other).

However, if the sentence is being used derisively or dismissively then I think that's emblematic of a bankrupt attitude. Worse, if it's being used as an excuse for a sloppy or careless performance, then I find that more offensive than any particular word or phrase.

[Leo Garet]

I generally refer to the farternity as Magicians and magic club members, although not all members of the faternity are magic club members. And some non-members are Magicians. And.....here we go round in circles to nowhere.

We're all layfolk, anyway. Step outside the back door and we're in a world that's familiar, but populated with people who may not be Magicians and/or magic club members, but know and do things that we have no idea about. They're the "experts," we're the layfolk.

I'm not a Politician and have no desire to be, but I know more about how to run the country than anybody in Parliament. And so does my neighbour and my brothers. The only thing wrong with them is that, like politicians, they too have no idea of how to run the country.

[Steve Mills]

Two possible definitions:

1. A person that could care less about the Precursor pdf

2. One who is not defined by the drool on his / her shirt

[Bill Duncan]

Has anyone bothered to look the word up?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Has anyone bothered to look the word up?

In Greek? Still a matter of context. Knowing the distinctions between a prank, a trick and a magic trick may have gone the way of reading those old Greek books.

[webbmaster]

What I think may be getting lost in the shuffle is the fact that we don't (or shouldn't be) using the term 'layman' or laymen' IN OUR PERFORMANCES...just in our discussions about our art. In public we should use terms like 'member of the audience' or such. But in our discussions of our art is is very important to decide if you are going to perform for magicians (who like to watch other good magicians) or for the PUBLIC, or both. The style is different as are which tricks to use depending on which group one is working for. If wanting to work for BOTH groups...you need two different kinds of shows...one for each. If you try to do magicians' magic on the PUBLIC, they won't GET what even the effect is supposed to be because it will go over their head. It is like an 'inside joke' not even being comprehended if you are not 'on the inside.

That's about all I can say about this.

[brianarudolph]

I generally refer to the farternity as Magicians and magic club members, although not all members of the faternity are magic club members.

No offense meant here, Leo ... with everything going on I'll take some humor anywhere I can find it now. That said, and while I'm sure they're both typos, I've regretfully been around a "farternity" of magicians a few times. And I'm a bona fide, card-carrying member of the magic faternity.

[webbmaster]

I can remember Mike Bornstein and Ken Krenzel arguing about this (often) because Mike felt he was interested in performing for non-magicians and he felt that Ken was concerned with fooling magicians. There are those two groups, because if you don't perform for magicians at your local Ring or whatnot, who do you perform for? My friend Jeff McBride will do magic for the cab driver, the doorman, etc., you name it, to be constantly testing things on non-magicians. Also, your friends are the worst barometers for feedback and if your friends are also magicians, watch out ! And yet there are many young magicians who want to go the "doing magic for magicians" route and more power to them. That's wha FISM and magic contests are all about. I like doing magic for "regular people" but when I use the term 'laymen' as opposed to 'magicians'...it means I'm glad they're not a room-full of 'magicians' because they seem to enjoy magic more.

[performer]

I never perform for magicians. I consider it akin to incest.

[Bill Duncan]

Has anyone bothered to look the word up?

Here was are more than three years later...

Second use, after "a non-ordained member the clergy." A lay minister or prayer group leader, for example. I assume when we use the phrase that's not what we mean so we should fall back on the secondary definition, which is entirely non-judgmental and accurate.

"a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field"

Not seeing a problem here. "Muggles" on the other hand offends me on so many levels...

[MagicbyAlfred]

How many of you refer to your spectators, audiences, and non-magicians as 'laypeople'?

If you do, then why?

If you do not, then why not?

Personally, I find it to be an offensive and denigrating label and I hear it every single time I'm around a 'magician' and I'm very curious as to why people in the magic community use that term.

When conversing exclusively with other magicians I sometimes (not always) refer to non-magicians as laymen. Why? Because it is a commonly-used, descriptive term for a non-magician, which other magicians understand and to which they can relate. But i would not use that term in the presence of a non-magician. Since no non-magician hears me refer to him or her as a "layman," I don't see how anyone could feel denigrated. You know - the old, "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

As a postscript, although I am in favor of using gender-neutral terms in most instances, it would not feel natural to me to use the term, "lay-people."

[Jack Shalom]

"Muggles" on the other hand offends me on so many levels...

Agreed. That internal "Mug" has connotations of "rube" and "sucker" even if not meant; and the Harry Potter origin implies folks without power--again pretty condescending here in the real world where there are no magical powers, and conjurers take the subway and not brooms.

[performer]

"Muggles" on the other hand offends me on so many levels...

and conjurers take the subway and not brooms.

Yes. And the original poster takes a urinating dog with him when he does it.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I actually have a couple of tricks where the spectator becomes the magician or the presentation is a test of whether he/she possesses magical powers. One example is "How to Make a Spectator Become a Magician," by Harold Lloyd, written up in Hugard, Card Manipulations Number 4. (a phenomenal trick)."Out of this World can also be so adapted. I always seek to empower and include the spectators, in what I say (or don't say), making them part of the magic rather than putting them down or drawing a line of demarcation between them and me.

[Joe Lyons]

I actually have a couple of tricks where the spectator becomes the magician

Do we need yet another word for the laity that perform a trick without knowing how?

[Dave Le Fevre]

"Muggles" on the other hand offends me on so many levels...

Agreed. That internal "Mug" has connotations of "rube" and "sucker" even if not meant; and the Harry Potter origin implies folks without power--again pretty condescending here in the real world where there are no magical powers, and conjurers take the subway and not brooms.

I have to agree. I find it patronisingly offensive. The internal mug says it all.

Yet many conjurors seem to consider it reasonable terminology.

Also, there's no need for it. We have the word laymen. Why invent a new word, especially one that seems derogatory?

Dave

[performer]

When I sell svengali decks I call them "punters" as all grafters do. Mind you, you should hear what they call me after they buy them and find out they can't do it......................

[Paco Nagata]

I never perform for magicians. I consider it akin to incest.

I couldn't agree more.
To me, performing for magicians doesn't have much sense unless (and only unless) you do it just to get their opinion about a new idea or thoughts as in lectures and magicians meetings.
Trying to "fool" magicians is irrelevant to me; I just want their opinion.

[Paco Nagata]

Regarding the thread topic, as an amateur I usually call laypeople "my people" or "your people" for other magician.