Hidden Symbolism in Magic Books?

[Guest]

Hey, a customer called to see if we knew anything about the graphic design on page 46 of Edward Maurice's SHOWMANSHIP AND PRESENTATION (Goodliffe 1946). He feels it is a phallic symbol. Looked at in that light, it is hard not to see it that way, but I had never noticed before and it would surprise me, given Goodliffe was, I believe, a very devout Catholic. Has anyone ever heard anything about this? Are there hidden images in other conjuring works? I believe the artwork of Don England in GAFFED TO THE HILT is similarly symbolic...

[Richard Kaufman]

There is nothing symbolic about Don England's work in Gaffed to the Hilt: the man likes to draw labia. Period. Not a secret.
As for phalluses, those who wish to see them can find them in almost any vertical object whether drawn or constructed.

[Guest]

If you want an amazing choice of phallic symbols - mostly hardcore - get a set of The Crimp ! It'll make your eyes water...especially the Sarah Cox image! (BBC Radio 1 Disc Jockey, I think.)

[Richard Kaufman]

I used to have a file of The Crimp. I used it for toilet paper but it made my tush dirty.

[Guest]

Even my bloody Parrott complained when I used my file of The Crimp to line it's cage!

If the editor continues to slander me, I shall feel forced to cancel my subs! (Thanks Groucho!)

Paul

[Guest]

Is it slander if it's in written form? More importantly, is it still slander if it's true?

[Richard Kaufman]

Slander is spoken, libel is written.

In this country, simply writing an untruth about someone is not sufficient grounds for either: malice has to be proven as well.

[Guest]

If memory serves, in the U.K., malice need not be shown by the plaintiff to prove libel.

More than malice needs to be proven to succeed in a libel action. For examples, the statement cant be a statement of mere opinion (or of obvious parody, etc.), and the plaintiff must suffer and prove some sort of damage as a result. Even with malice, it cant just be malice as we laymen might think of it. For example, Richard could write and publish something in Genii that he really hoped would hurt the person (theres your malice), but assuming Richard (a) didnt know the statement to be false and (b) had really researched the statement of fact, with the result being that nothing in the research really jumped out at him as disproving the statement he was making, the guy suing Richard would almost certainly not win the libel case. Ironically, malice (as commonly defined) has practically nothing to do with winning a libel case. Damn lawyers ... :whack:

[Guest]

My Groucho-inspired joke was an in-joke play-on-words...obviously missed the mark! (Wry English humour!)

Back to original subject, see page 40 of second edition of "Coins & Cards" (1971) by Dan Dolan.

[Guest]

My Groucho-inspired joke was an in-joke play-on-words...obviously missed the mark! (Wry English humour!)

Groucho was an Englishman?

[Guest]

OK, just glad that we have established that everything written in the Crimp about Mr Gordon is in fact true.

[Guest]

So, jnhofzinser - how's that, then? You're not biased, then? You believe all you read? Prejudiced?! Two sides to ANY story? Hmm....

I guess, if you were British - you'd buy The Sun newspaper. Or, maybe as you hide behind a false name - it's easy to make silly and unintelligent comments like that. Or, as someone just emailed me - maybe YOU are the editor!

[Guest]

Well Paul, seems to me you have the perfect opportunity for explaining your side of the story. We're all ears...

[Guest]

How come we only ever hear one side then? Do you also have an empty envelope proving that you never lifted anything from the Crimp?