ERDNASE

[lybrary]

I would guess that almost any German who read the book "discovered" that Erdnase sounds like a fun German word. I know I did, it's hard to miss.

I totally agree, but we need to be fair and credit those who first publish such insights, and to the best of my knowledge Tom was the first to publish it.

[lybrary]

The ebook says (wrongly) that Richard Hatch first discovered this.

Then you are reading an old edition. This has been corrected a while ago.

The edition I am reading is the one you sold me on 11/30.

You've said many times here on the Forum that one of the great advantages of ebooks is that errors can be corrected. If you are correcting errors of fact, why aren't you sending updates to previous purchasers? You've got my contact information. Every time you make a change, you should be sending me (and the others that bought the book) an email saying that "Version 2.03 is now available, with the following errors corrected". And there should be some sort of tracking, so that two people with different versions can have an intelligent conversation about the contents, without one saying "The book says this", and the other saying "No, they book says something else".

If you don't proactively push out corrections, then this supposed "advantage" of ebooks is only a source of confusion (as we see here).

Bill, we do that regularly. Frequent Lybrary.com customers can verify that. Whenever an ebook is updated, and this happens often, we send out emails to all customers. But emails are not a perfect form of communication. Not all arrive. Some get caught in spam filters or other blockers before they even reach your computer. It can also happen that occasionally we forget to send out update notifications, because we are merely humans. But to cover for our imperfections we have the red identifier in the digital shelf. Any link that turns red has a newer file version from the one you downloaded. You should buy more often from Lybrary.com. Then you would know about all the great features and services we provide

[performer]

I rather like "warlike". I might try that one.

[Roger M.]

You will remember several places where he strongly advises against the behavior you describe Devol exhibited.

Well, yes - even Devol would suggest that not making your skills as a cardsharp apparent to the sheep is probably a good idea. It's an idea Erdnase no doubt shared.

However, wanting to conceal ones identity for safety reasons is an entirely different discussion than concealing ones identity due to the Comstock Laws.

We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Erdnase was "afraid" of being identified, and thus wanted to publish the book without his true name attached as the author.
Indeed, taken as a whole, and considering he met Smith in the hotel room in person and paid him with a cheque ... it would seem Mr. Erdnase didn't try very hard at all to conceal who he was.

Presumably, if Erdnase feared being discovered as the author, he would have done a much better job (at the time) of remaining concealed - including simply authoring the book as "Anonymous", or "An Adept".

But hide he did (just not out of fear), and thus we look for him.

[Bill Mullins]

Whenever an ebook is updated, and this happens often, we send out emails to all customers.

All customers except me.

But I did redownload the book from the digital shelf, and that error is corrected. But have other errors been corrected? Tracking revisions is just as important as notification.

Can you provide a list of changes you have made, along with dates made, to "The Hunt for Erdnase & the path to Edward Gallaway" since its publication?

[lybrary]

Whenever an ebook is updated, and this happens often, we send out emails to all customers.

All customers except me.

But I did redownload the book from the digital shelf, and that error is corrected. But have other errors been corrected? Tracking revisions is just as important as notification.

Can you provide a list of changes you have made, along with dates made, to "The Hunt for Erdnase & the path to Edward Gallaway" since its publication?

I should add that in your Lybrary account there is a setting that allows you to disable email notifications. (It is under Account Information.) Some customers do not want to receive such notification emails. You may want to check it. Perhaps it is turned off in your account.

My Hunt for Erdnase ebook has gone through many revisions and corrections over several months. Early customers could download early versions of it. I am sure there are still errors in the ebook, be it typos or factual errors. They will be corrected as soon as I am made aware of them. It is also possible that I will add or revise certain parts as new facts about Gallaway come to light. That is the benefit of ebooks and is a practice many of our ebook authors take advantage of, including myself.

When we send out update notifications we usually include information about what has changed - a trick has been added, typos corrected, etc. But we do not track changes or publish lists of when and what has been changed. We have 6000 digital magic products. On average something gets fixed or corrected every day. It would be an administrative nightmare to keep track of every change. We update and fix every error that comes to our attention, but we do not maintain a revision log. But you are free to save versions under whatever versioning system you use if that is important to you.

[lybrary]

You will remember several places where he strongly advises against the behavior you describe Devol exhibited.

Well, yes - even Devol would suggest that not making your skills as a cardsharp apparent to the sheep is probably a good idea. It's an idea Erdnase no doubt shared.

However, wanting to conceal ones identity for safety reasons is an entirely different discussion than concealing ones identity due to the Comstock Laws.

We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Erdnase was "afraid" of being identified, and thus wanted to publish the book without his true name attached as the author.
Indeed, taken as a whole, and considering he met Smith in the hotel room in person and paid him with a cheque ... it would seem Mr. Erdnase didn't try very hard at all to conceal who he was.

Presumably, if Erdnase feared being discovered as the author, he would have done a much better job (at the time) of remaining concealed - including simply authoring the book as "Anonymous", or "An Adept".

But hide he did (just not out of fear), and thus we look for him.

One thing we know, the author did not use his real name. So clearly he had some concerns of some sort to use his real name. What they exactly were is speculation. Nobody knows for sure. The other fact we know is that for more than hundred years he stayed hidden. If it really was just a reversal of his true name the author would have been found a long time ago, but it could also be just an accident of history that he stayed hidden for so long. Since we have no hard facts about why the author chose a pseudonym we are left to apply common sense and what is plausible. It is common sense that as a cheat you may not want to publish the book under your real name and that you want to truly stay hidden. What appeared to the author as a good pseudonym a hundred years ago is again pure speculation. That is why I pointed out that all of these are theories. Each one is as good or as bad as the other. I consider the discussion on the name interesting but not very important, because it does not allow one to decide if a candidate is more or less likely. None of these theories can be attached to anything Erdnase wrote in his book and are therefore simply speculation. That is why my thesis outlined in my ebook hinges to a good part on verifiable facts in particular the linguistic analysis where one can with scientific methods analyze and develop certain insights which are much more concrete and relevant than guessing about how the author derived his pseudonym.

[Bill Mullins]

I should add that in your Lybrary account there is a setting that allows you to disable email notifications. (It is under Account Information.) Some customers do not want to receive such notification emails. You may want to check it. Perhaps it is turned off in your account.

My box is currently checked to receive updates and emails, and it has been so for a long time.

We update and fix every error that comes to our attention, but we do not maintain a revision log.

The fact that you do not (with respect to substantive issues of fact, I'm not talking about minimal stuff like typos) greatly lessens an ebook's value as a scholarly document and an historical document. Just my opinion, others may feel differently.

And if you don't keep revision logs, let me ask this: Is there anything else in an edition from 11/30 (such as I have) of substance that you recall having changed? Otherwise I suppose the only way to find out is to print out that version and a current one and do side-by-side comparisons.

[Leonard Hevia]

My Hunt for Erdnase ebook has gone through many revisions and corrections over several months. Early customers could download early versions of it. I am sure there are still errors in the ebook, be it typos or factual errors. They will be corrected as soon as I am made aware of them. It is also possible that I will add or revise certain parts as new facts about Gallaway come to light. That is the benefit of ebooks and is a practice many of our ebook authors take advantage of, including myself.

That is the benefit of ebooks? "My Hunt for Erdnase ebook has gone through many revisions and corrections"...sounds like a half baked project to me. I would consider that more of a curse than a benefit. The impulse to rush out the information and then correct as you go along is tempting, isn't it? When a researcher is publishing his or her work on actual paper, the research must be completed to the best of his or her ability. It forces the researcher to do a more thorough job.

[Bill Mullins]

I see that I'm not the only person who feels this way about revision tracking. Clay Shevlin, in a Magicol review of Chris's book on the Hooker Rising Cards:

And in light of Lybrary.com's growth as a publisher of original works in both electronic and hard-copy formats and its consumer-friendly policy of continually upgrading its e-book products and making them available to customers at no additional charge, one bibliographical criticism comes to mind: There is no easy way of knowing if and to what extent the e-book has been modified over the course of time, or which e-book version corresponds to the printed version then being offered, and this can create uncertainties and inconveniences for consumers, reviewers and bibliographers. Lybrary.com (and all other e-book publishers for that matter) should devise a system for uniquely and permanently identifying each updated version of its e-books and, if applicable, its printed books.

I'd add that a great deal of digital data includes revision tracking. Most big software packages do it. My wife works for NASA in aerospace design, and they track blueprints and other design data, particularly on flight hardware and other mission-critical items. Even wikipedia does it.

[lybrary]

That is the benefit of ebooks? "My Hunt for Erdnase ebook has gone through many revisions and corrections"...sounds like a half baked project to me. I would consider that more of a curse than a benefit. The impulse to rush out the information and then correct as you go along is tempting, isn't it? When a researcher is publishing his or her work on actual paper, the research must be completed to the best of his or her ability. It forces the researcher to do a more thorough job.

Leonard, it is very cute that you lecture me on what a researcher does. I have published several articles in peer reviewed science journals including prestigious journals such as "IEEE Transactions on Computer Aided Design", or "IEEE Transaction on Electron Devices" and many other.

In my ebook I think I do lay out my thesis clearly, back it up with facts and my interpretation of them, cite sources, credit where I think credit is due. But it is not my PhD thesis. After all it was a fun project and I like to write in a colloquial interesting style and not make it a dry read. I have spent about two years on my Erdnase ebook and I am sure my main thesis will not change. But as I outline in the ebook there are more things we will likely discover about Gallaway and I will add new findings to the ebook. He had a large library and more of his books with his bookplate in it will surface at some point. These books may tell us more. Maybe there are margin notes or tipped in sheets. Just getting more information on which books in particular he had in his library would give us further clues to his interests. There are several other areas that can provide more information. The publication of my ebook has stimulated new information to come in. Some readers do send me new leads, new and interesting ways to think about the information in the ebook, and many other interesting bits and pieces. Now that I know Gallaway is Erdnase I want to find out as much about him as possible. When I do I will add it to the ebook and customers will be able to read the additions without having to buy a new edition the way it would be necessary for a printed book. I think that is a good thing and a great value to my customers.

[lybrary]

I see that I'm not the only person who feels this way about revision tracking. Clay Shevlin, in a Magicol review of Chris's book on the Hooker Rising Cards.

A great (e)book. I can recommend it. http://www.lybrary.com/samuel-cox-hooke ... p-680.html

[Roger M.]

Now that I know Gallaway is Erdnase I want to find out as much about him as possible.

You don't know anything of the sort, and this is where you always seem to get off the tracks as a credible researcher - at least as far as Erdnase is concerned.

You do have a candidate you strongly support - but have offered nothing whatsoever to positively confirm Galloway's identity as the author of TEACTC.

As an aside, the completely dismissive attitude to important questions about untracked and unannounced changes made to your e-books makes me question the research value of those Lybrary publications I've already purchased from you over the years.

[performer]

I haven't the slightest idea who Erdnase was and neither do I care. However, I believe I know why he wanted to keep his name secret and I have already mentioned it. I don't think he kept it secret because people would find out he was a card sharp. I think he kept it secret because people would find out that he WASN'T!

Think about it......................................

[lybrary]

You do have a candidate you strongly support - but have offered nothing whatsoever to positively confirm Galloway's identity as the author of TEACTC.

Since you haven't read my ebook you don't know. Not everything in the ebook has been discussed here. One could say you are drawing conclusions without all the facts. Something you have a habit of doing.

As an aside, the completely dismissive attitude to important questions about untracked and unannounced changes made to your e-books makes me question the research value of those Lybrary publications I've already purchased from you over the years.

Again a complete mischaracterization. I have not dismissed it, I have simply stated that we do not currently do it. Maybe we will do this at some point. Maybe we won't. But why do you pile all of this on me? Many books and editions have been published in magic without a revision history and I don't see you blaming anybody. When Tarbell published his anthology did he make a list of what he changed from his original course? No. When "The New Modern Coin Magic" was published was there a list of additions and revisions included? No. Yet, these are two of perhaps the most referenced, read, and celebrated titles in magic. (BTW, "New Modern Coin Magic" by Bobo is exclusively available as ebook from Lybrary.com http://www.lybrary.com/-p-886802.html ) How often has Kaufman or Minch included a revision history in their editions? I don't remember that the various editions of Card College had any list of corrections or additions included.

Your critique is therefore completely unfair and simply a sign that the reason of the critique of my work on this forum is in many cases manufactured for the sake of damaging my work, not for its contents, but for other reasons. One reason is that some just can't stomach the thought that Erdnase can be found. It cannot be. The search must go on. so let's tear down anybody who actually has a case good enough to end the search. A friend who studied psychology told me: "Chris, you should be very happy about the nastiness of the critique, because the ferocity of the critique is proportional to the strength of your case. It is the nature of the human mind that cannot change or accept new realities."

[lybrary]

I haven't the slightest idea who Erdnase was and neither do I care. However, I believe I know why he wanted to keep his name secret and I have already mentioned it. I don't think he kept it secret because people would find out he was a card sharp. I think he kept it secret because people would find out that he WASN'T!

Think about it......................................

Mark, you make a very valid point. I think this could very well be the case. I make a related point in my ebook where I state that writing about sleight-of-hand and actually performing it are two different things. Many assume from the contents of the book that Erdnase was this super cheat. But that is not necessarily the case. Some people are better writers than they are doers and vice versa. I have read many magic books and when I later saw the author lecture or perform there were instances were I was either pleasantly surprised or miserably disappointed. We have only one data point about Erdnase's true skill - Smith. Smith says that Erdnase did do a few card tricks for him and then demonstrated the moves. Smith said that he felt he was the 'real deal'. However, Smith was not a magician or gambler and was not informed about sleight-of-hand. Any mediocre magician could have impressed him. And demonstrating a move to an artist and actually performing the move under heat are two entirely different things. I go on in my ebook to state that we do not know how good Erdnase really was with a deck of cards, nor will we ever find out. But we do know how good he was with words and we can put that to the test and compare it with other authors. So the notion of 'putting a deck of cards' into a candidates hands is misguided, because it is essentially impossible to find out how good they were with a deck of cards. Just playing cards means nothing - everybody did it back then. But we can test and study his skill with words and compare that with the writings of candidates. Gallaway comes out on the very top, with a big margin, of that analysis.

[Bill Mullins]

I see that I'm not the only person who feels this way about revision tracking. Clay Shevlin, in a Magicol review of Chris's book on the Hooker Rising Cards.

A great (e)book. I can recommend it. http://www.lybrary.com/samuel-cox-hooke ... p-680.html

If, as you say, John Gaughan and Jim Steinmeyer have "unpleasant reactions" to the book, then I see nothing to recommend it. They, more than anyone else in the world, would know.

[lybrary]

I see that I'm not the only person who feels this way about revision tracking. Clay Shevlin, in a Magicol review of Chris's book on the Hooker Rising Cards.

A great (e)book. I can recommend it. http://www.lybrary.com/samuel-cox-hooke ... p-680.html

If, as you say, John Gaughan and Jim Steinmeyer have "unpleasant reactions" to the book, then I see nothing to recommend it. They, more than anyone else in the world, would know.

The one with the temper tantrum was Gaughan. Don't know about Steinmeyer. But if the method I describe would be the wrong one, then they could simply smile in comfort or calmly state that it is all wrong. The fact that Gaughan had a temper tantrum and threw the book across the room proves that my method must come unpleasantly close to the real method. Otherwise there would be no reason to be so upset about it. Human nature is very revealing. As Mark would say ... think about it ...

[Bill Mullins]

Many books and editions have been published in magic without a revision history and I don't see you blaming anybody. When Tarbell published his anthology did he make a list of what he changed from his original course? No. When "The New Modern Coin Magic" was published was there a list of additions and revisions included? No. Yet, these are two of perhaps the most referenced, read, and celebrated titles in magic.

Apples and oranges. The original Tarbell mail order course and the set of Tarbell books are two completely different entities -- there is absolutely no ambiguity when discussing the contents of one vs the other. Likewise, when the original Bobo and the expanded version were published, again they were separate, distinguishable works. And they were fixed -- once printed, they did not change. My copy and your copy are identical, even if mine was printed after yours. If you quote or refer to something from your copy, I can be sure that it is stated the same way in mine.

[Roger M.]

Since you haven't read my ebook you don't know. Not everything in the ebook has been discussed here. One could say you are drawing conclusions without all the facts. Something you have a habit of doing.

No Chris, I haven't read your book, nor do I intend to.
One of the reasons I subscribe to Genii is for the reviews. In this case the review of your book confirms everything an astute reader would pull from your posts in this thread.

Your methodology, and refusal to recognize the shortcomings in your research methods render the book as something I don't wish to read.
(actually, to be fair - I would indeed read it ... I just wouldn't buy it).

Gallaway isn't Erdnase though, so it's all somewhat of a moot point.

[Bill Mullins]

The one with the temper tantrum was Gaughan. Don't know about Steinmeyer.

If you don't know about Steinmeyer, why did you say "Based on the unpleasant reactions by John Gaughan and Jim Steinmeyer"?

The fact that Gaughan had a temper tantrum and threw the book across the room proves that my method must come unpleasantly close to the real method. Otherwise there would be no reason to be so upset about it.

Given that you prevaricated with respect to Steinmeyer's reaction, I won't just assume that Gaughan did in fact throw it across the room. But a negative reaction doesn't at all have to mean that your "solution" was close. He may have been upset that you took what, according to every report I've seen by people that actually saw it, was a deeply moving magical experience, and reduced it to a commodity to be monetized. Chris, it wasn't your secret to sell. He may have been mad just because you did it.

[lybrary]

Roger, I am very happy you do not want to buy my ebook. That way it is easy to eliminate your voice from the critique of my ebook, because you just don't know the entirety of my thesis. But since you mentioned Lovick's review which you seem to trust so much, let me tell you that it is littered with errors. The most surprising one is that Lovick doesn't know the difference between a book cover and a book title page. And that guy is the designated book reviewer for the #1 magic magazine? Give me a break. He is a joke. Then he states the fact that Gallaway had a circus career is "almost irrelevant". Martin Gardner uncovered credible evidence that Harto had contact with Erdnase. Harto toured with circuses and performed in the side shows at the same time when Gallaway toured with circuses and managed the side-shows. While that does not prove that they knew each other, it is quite plausible. In my judgement and in that of any objective reader would be "highly relevant" or at least "very interesting". Lovick spends a lot of time talking about my Hooker book from 10 years ago, which has nothing to do with my work on Erdnase. He chastises me for not going and see the last Gaughan performance of the Hooker card rise. What does Lovick know about my professional and personal disposition at that time? Nothing. A completely unfair and personal attack which clearly reveals his agenda for his review. I don't mind tough and objective critique. But I mind obvious errors and personal attacks particularly if they have nothing to do with the work under review.

[lybrary]

Given that you prevaricated with respect to Steinmeyer's reaction, I won't just assume that Gaughan did in fact throw it across the room. But a negative reaction doesn't at all have to mean that your "solution" was close. He may have been upset that you took what, according to every report I've seen by people that actually saw it, was a deeply moving magical experience, and reduced it to a commodity to be monetized. Chris, it wasn't your secret to sell. He may have been mad just because you did it.

Bill, have you actually read what Hooker himself said about his card rise? Do you know what Hooker's intention was creating this mystery? Let me help you out. Here is a quote from the description of my book:

Samuel Hooker created his rising cards to stimulate magicians to think and come up with their own solutions and explanations and through that process of inquiry, to develop new methods and techniques. As a scientist this is a very natural way of learning. Nature exposes us to all kinds of mysteries, questions, and puzzles and scientists try to explain them. They conduct experiments and think logically about them to advance their understanding of nature. Fundamentally scientists are driven by nature’s secrets and want to understand and explain them. In the same way Hooker is presenting magicians with a mystery and he is asking us to think about ways how it could be done. Hooker himself solicited explanations from his spectators. This work is my answer to Hooker's solicitation.

I simply did what Hooker asked us to do. How dare Gaughan or anybody else wants to change what Hooker asked magicians to do. I have not revealed anything because I do not know how it is done. I have simply written down my solution to the problem. If anything Gaughan has revealed it by getting upset about my explanation. On top I had the OK from the Hooker family who passed on the secret to Gaughan in the first place. Not that I needed their ok, but I had it and they contributed information they had.

[Roger M.]

I don't mind tough and objective critique.

Apparently you do Chris.

[lybrary]

I don't mind tough and objective critique.

Apparently you do Chris.

What critique do you mean? Do you mean Lovick's hack job littered with errors? Do you mean your critique even though you haven't read my ebook? Hardly objective if you critique a book you haven't read.

[Roger M.]

I don't get the impression that Lovick knows you personally or professionally (please correct me if I'm wrong).

He reviewed your book solely based on its contents, and then he used your previous written works as a measuring stick in terms evaluating your thoroughness as an author.

It read as a professional book review, authored by a professional reviewer.

As well, whether I read your book or not is irrelevant Chris, it's just you playing semantics ... I know what the premise of your book is, and I completely disagree with it.

In reality, if you were far less forward and confrontational with regards to your candidate, and if you presented your candidate as all previous champions have presented candidates (as a candidate) ... I'd buy your book in a blink, and I'd go on to congratulate you on the discovery of a new candidate - one whom with much more research might - just might, rise up on folks lists of Erdnase candidates.
I might not agree with you, but I'd be happy to support your efforts in the search for Erdnase.

But that's not how you roll apparently.

[lybrary]

It read as a professional book review, authored by a professional reviewer.

Who doesn't know the difference between the cover and the title page.

The strength of my conviction is based on the evidence.

[lybrary]

Many books and editions have been published in magic without a revision history and I don't see you blaming anybody. When Tarbell published his anthology did he make a list of what he changed from his original course? No. When "The New Modern Coin Magic" was published was there a list of additions and revisions included? No. Yet, these are two of perhaps the most referenced, read, and celebrated titles in magic.

Apples and oranges. The original Tarbell mail order course and the set of Tarbell books are two completely different entities -- there is absolutely no ambiguity when discussing the contents of one vs the other. Likewise, when the original Bobo and the expanded version were published, again they were separate, distinguishable works. And they were fixed -- once printed, they did not change. My copy and your copy are identical, even if mine was printed after yours. If you quote or refer to something from your copy, I can be sure that it is stated the same way in mine.

Every PDF has a creation and modification date that can be inspected in the properties in Adobe Reader or other PDF viewers. It is all there and fixed for those who want to track modification dates and then compare editions. Anybody can add to their reference the last modification date which you can consider a version number. If the modification date is the same you will be looking at the exact same PDF and every reference will be unambiguous. There are also programs that can quickly identify the difference between two documents. So for anybody who really cares about these things and wants to know and track changes you can do all of that already. Problem solved.

[Bill Mullins]

No it isn't. I have two copies of the new Erdnase ebook -- the current one, and the one I downloaded on 11/30. I have no idea what the differences between them are. That is the problem.

Further, if you make more changes to it, I will have no way of knowing that you did so unless I take the initiative and download a new copy, and do a page-by-page examination.

If I want to have a conversation with another reader about the contents, we don't have any way to confirm that we both are talking about the same thing unless we exchange the parts under discussion.

It's a bigger problem than you are acknowledging.

[Bill Mullins]

Speaking of errors, I see you still haven't corrected this one from page 80:
"Gallaway also performed magic on stage of the R. R. Donnelley company amateur theater show in 1924."

And with respect to Hooker, where was it he asked magicians to come up with their own solutions?

I had the OK from the Hooker family who passed on the secret to Gaughan in the first place.

As I understand it, they sold the trick to Gaughan. It wasn't their place to give you the OK after that had happened.

[Denis Behr]

No it isn't. I have two copies of the new Erdnase ebook -- the current one, and the one I downloaded on 11/30. I have no idea what the differences between them are. That is the problem.
...
It's a bigger problem than you are acknowledging.

I think that's quite bad as well. Coming up with and installing a detailed tracking version will be work, but once in place it could be automatic and shouldn't be an "administrative nightmare".

It means that when quoting lybrary ebooks in some sort of historical or academic context, one has to do it somewhat like that: "It says soandso in the copy that could be downloaded in 2013. The ebook was published in 2005, but there is no way of seeing whether the quoted content was in the original edition or a later update."

[performer]

I am astonished that such acrimony and bad feeling has been stirred over the authorship of an old book written near the beginning of the last century. I would have thought this the stuff of dreary but civil intellectual discussions in a quiet university somewhere. As my friend Mahdi Gilbert whispered to me once, "magicians are weird"

I remember a similar fuss about a bloody riffle shuffle years ago. Terrific arguments and friends falling out over it. Yep. Magicians are weird. When people are being massacred in Aleppo and people are starving in various parts of the world magicians are arguing about riffle shuffles and some long dead author who wrote a book over a hundred years ago.

I haven't studied the various theories about Erdnase and am not in a position to comment on who has the best one. I suspect they are all a load of old cobblers but that is my cynical nature. One thing I will say though. I just don't think he was a card cheat. The book is far too well written for that. I have consorted with various scoundrels of different kinds during my wicked life and naturally have come across a few card cheats. They were rough and ready fellows and not quite the sort that one would invite to tea with the Queen. Besides they would have stolen the palace cutlery.
They did not talk posh like this Erdnase fellow and could hardly string a few sentences together let alone write an entire book in such a literary manner with excellent spelling and grammar.

The guy was a MAGICIAN. That is patently obvious by the fact that he showed Marshall Smith some card tricks. And wrote an entire magic section at the back of the book. And how many magicians do you know that have actually cheated at cards? On a regular basis, day in and day out? Sure there are a tiny few but a lot of it is all talk. They may even write books about it but haven't done that much of it themselves.

And there is far too much detail and far too many sleights and moves described. In fact the moves are far too advanced and well ahead of their time to be the work of a common card cheat. This was written by an advanced card technician. Or advanced for that time at any rate. You should all be looking for a well known card magician who was around during that time period. The Vernon of his day. Who that might be I have no idea. I suspect someone who was well known in the magic community. Possibly someone whose name you already know. Someone who wrote a book on card cheating because he thought it would be more commercial than a book on card tricks. Someone who did not want his name known because it would be realised he wasn't a card cheat at all but an upright member of the stuffy magic community.

Perhaps you should be looking at the president of a local magic club of the time. Not that I am of a cynical frame of mind of course.

[lybrary]

Further, if you make more changes to it, I will have no way of knowing that you did so unless I take the initiative and download a new copy, and do a page-by-page examination.

You will either get an email with update info or you will see the link in your digital shelf turn red. That is the sign that a new version is available. If the email does not arrive in your inbox there is nothing I can do about it. Check your spam folder and whitelist lybrary.com.

If I want to have a conversation with another reader about the contents, we don't have any way to confirm that we both are talking about the same thing unless we exchange the parts under discussion.

Yes you do. You compare the PDF creation date. Instead of saying I have "The Hunt for Erdnase version 4.7" you say I have "The Hunt for Erdnase 11/30/2016". The information is all there. And since other magic publishers do not routinely issue lists of changes for new editions I don't see the need why I should do it. It is not common practice. I have also not received any customer feedback on this issue except yours here.

[lybrary]

Speaking of errors, I see you still haven't corrected this one from page 80:
"Gallaway also performed magic on stage of the R. R. Donnelley company amateur theater show in 1924."

I disagree, it is not an error. I am certain Gallaway did perform magic. His performance was called "The Magic Wand" and a reviewer wrote: "Mr. Gallaway and his bag of tricks was one of the outstanding features." Add to this that Gallaway had magic books in his library. I don't know anybody who has magic books in their library but can't perform a couple of tricks. He also was a circus barker. I believe he MCed the slide show with magic tricks as some barkers do use magic tricks to lure spectators into the sideshow. I am sure you have seen announcers or MCs use magic tricks as part of their work. So yes, it was not a stage illusion show. It was a slide show he presented and enhanced with magic

And with respect to Hooker, where was it he asked magicians to come up with their own solutions?

Read my book and you will find out.

I had the OK from the Hooker family who passed on the secret to Gaughan in the first place.

As I understand it, they sold the trick to Gaughan. It wasn't their place to give you the OK after that had happened.

I didn't need the permission of Gaughan or the family. I have simply published my solution to a problem Hooker posed. It is not for Gaughan or anybody else to decide who can come up with solutions to the problem. But it was great that the family endorsed and contributed to my project.

[lybrary]

It means that when quoting lybrary ebooks in some sort of historical or academic context, one has to do it somewhat like that: "It says soandso in the copy that could be downloaded in 2013. The ebook was published in 2005, ..."

You do not have to do it that convoluted. When you download the ebook is irrelevant. Simply look inside the PDF at the creation date and use that as the version identifier.

...but there is no way of seeing whether the quoted content was in the original edition or a later update."

When you quote from "The New Modern Coin Magic" I have no way of knowing if it is also in "Modern Coin Magic". It is no different with printed books. You guys simply try to be difficult.

[lybrary]

And for those who want to find the difference between two PDF files get for example a free software called diffpdf (available for Windows and Linux). This will allow you to quickly see what has changed. See, wasn't too hard. Problem solved. Another point where ebooks are better than printed books. It is now very simple to find all the changes even in big tomes.

[Bill Mullins]

Further, if you make more changes to it, I will have no way of knowing that you did so unless I take the initiative and download a new copy, and do a page-by-page examination.

You will either get an email with update info or you will see the link in your digital shelf turn red. That is the sign that a new version is available. If the email does not arrive in your inbox there is nothing I can do about it. Check your spam folder and whitelist lybrary.com.

I've checked my spam folder, and there is nothing there. Can you please resend, to the email address in my account, any update emails you've sent about "The Hunt for Erdnase" since 11/30? Or barring that, do you recall anything you've changed in the book since then?

If I want to have a conversation with another reader about the contents, we don't have any way to confirm that we both are talking about the same thing unless we exchange the parts under discussion.

Yes you do. You compare the PDF creation date. Instead of saying I have "The Hunt for Erdnase version 4.7" you say I have "The Hunt for Erdnase 11/30/2016". The information is all there. And since other magic publishers do not routinely issue lists of changes for new editions I don't see the need why I should do it. It is not common practice. I have also not received any customer feedback on this issue except yours here.

But identifying different editions is only the lesser part of the problem. What is important is identifying the changes. I've found two changes made between the copy I bought 11/30 (PDF creation date 11/2/2016) and the current one on the digital shelf (PDF creation date 12/18/2016):
- p 17: "Richard Hatch was the first to note" changed to "Tom Sawyer was the first to note"
- p 41: "362880 permutations" changed to "90270 permutations" (this error from a member of the Royal Statistical Society!) (Earlier, Chris, you asked about other's work being used without credit. This is another example -- I did these calculations here. Olsson has said he read the entire thread, so I can only presume this is where he got the correct information.)
(Thanks to Richard Hatch for alerting me to these)
Can this be crowdsourced? Can the other customers of the book post the PDF creation dates of their copies?

I am certain Gallaway did perform magic.

Okay, so what tricks did he perform?
Maybe since you are not a native speaker of English, you don't recognize that "magic wand" and "bag of tricks" are both used far more often as figures of speech, than they are as literal expressions. You've mentioned that you used Newspaperarchive.com as a source for data about Gallaway. Seach for both phrases ("magic wand" and "bag of tricks") during March 1930, when the show happened. You will see that the vast majority of the time, they are used figuratively, rather than literally. Given that the reviewer didn't mention any conjuring to place it into context, there is no reason to suspect that they were used literally here.

And for those who want to find the difference between two PDF files get for example a free software called diffpdf (available for Windows and Linux). This will allow you to quickly see what has changed. See, wasn't too hard. Problem solved.

No, it's not solved, it's simply moved from the vendor to the customer.

[Bill Mullins]

Add to this that Gallaway had magic books in his library.

books?
We know he had a copy of Expert, which I suppose you could call a magic book. Marshall said he had a collection of gambling books. What other magic books did he own?

Here is a recent article on Milton Franklin Andrews.

[lybrary]

I've checked my spam folder, and there is nothing there. Can you please resend, to the email address in my account, any update emails you've sent about "The Hunt for Erdnase" since 11/30? Or barring that, do you recall anything you've changed in the book since then?

I don't recall what I changed and these notification emails are not archived. So I can't send them again. Sorry. But with diffpdf you can track every typo that was corrected. Knock yourself out.

But identifying different editions is only the lesser part of the problem.

You first complained that it is a problem. This is solved now. Yes?

What is important is identifying the changes.

Use diffpdf or other free software that can compare two PDFs. Even in Adobe Reader there is a compare feature but is a for pay feature.

- p 41: "362880 permutations" changed to "90270 permutations" (this error from a member of the Royal Statistical Society!) (Earlier, Chris, you asked about other's work being used without credit. This is another example -- I did these calculations here. Olsson has said he read the entire thread, so I can only presume this is where he got the correct information.)

Calculating anagram permutations is not creditworthy. It is a standard mathematical calculation. Olsson made an error, which I missed, and Richard Hatch corrected. Grow up. Next time I add two numbers I will call you whom I should credit for the math. Don't be a baby.

Can this be crowdsourced? Can the other customers of the book post the PDF creation dates of their copies?

In your digital shelf, going to the online version of the ebook you will find a mini-forum. You can use this to connect with other customers of the same ebook, ask questions, etc.

Maybe since you are not a native speaker of English, you don't recognize that "magic wand" and "bag of tricks" are both used far more often as figures of speech, than they are as literal expressions. You've mentioned that you used Newspaperarchive.com as a source for data about Gallaway. Seach for both phrases ("magic wand" and "bag of tricks") during March 1930, when the show happened. You will see that the vast majority of the time, they are used figuratively, rather than literally.

If you can show us examples where these phrases are used together figuratively during that time then you have an argument. A quick first search for these together always implies magic tricks or magic performance of some sort.

[Denis Behr]

...but there is no way of seeing whether the quoted content was in the original edition or a later update."

When you quote from "The New Modern Coin Magic" I have no way of knowing if it is also in "Modern Coin Magic". It is no different with printed books.

Are you serious? It's hard to believe that you are. In your example, if I find something in The New Modern Coin Magic and want to know if it's in Modern Coin Magic, I simply check this book. There are only those two. No problem. With your ebook? No idea. There is nothing I can check. The creation date is, as far as the reader is concerned, the publication date. Previous history cannot be traced (past versions cannot be downloaded and compared, by diff-software or otherwise!). I'm surprised that you cannot see the difference.