Kids on My Lawn

[JHostler]

As far as magic is concerned, my fix is fed almost entirely by books and the occasional utility prop. Rarely “tricks.” Yet after completing Concordance and discovering Jamie Daws’ work on [part of] the same premise a couple of months later, I impulsively bit on Daws’ “Spirit.” The same fit of compulsion also led me to Liam Montier’s “What Happens in Vegas.” A veritable Alakazam binge.

Having a pretty good idea how both effects worked, it was the props that interested me more than anything. On that front, Alakazam delivered – and the routines themselves are swell. [Note to Dr. Nardi: An examinable switch-in for Liam’s casino deck would be the bee’s knees…]

Now to the grumpy old man bit...

Alakazam’s instructional videos were clear, well-produced, and easily downloaded. My problem is that both effects would have been equally (if not better) served with written directions – even in PDF form. Videos often hold the viewer captive, requiring a slog through soporific background information, meandering commentary, and superfluous detail. This can all be “skipped,” but only once the viewer knows when to do so – which, again, requires viewing loads of unwanted content. Soooo much easier to skim/skip through the same material in print.

Toss in the temptation to pinch things from filmed performances in lieu of “filling the gaps” with personal creativity, and you get young performers emulating – to an egregious extent – tone, mannerisms, and script detail. Yes, this was/is also a byproduct of video-only productions [how many of us cringed at the parroting of David Roth’s (RIP) and Darwin Ortiz’s (RIP) uniquely stiff/every-movement-rehearsed deliveries after their videos appeared?], but why tack the same negatives to single-trick releases?

In short, I freaking miss print.

Bloody hell… I think I hear some kids on my lawn. Signing out…

John

[Tom Frame]

Amen, brother John!

For instructional purposes, videos surpass the printed word only in their ability to convey the timing of methodological and presentational features.

Unless the student has no personality, in which case they are more than happy to appropriate the performer's persona. No good has ever come from that unimaginative, pathetic choice.

Otherwise, nothing beats the sight and smell and feel and taste of inked paper.

Let's join hands, scowl and sing, as we kick that ball out of your yard!

[Bob Farmer]

I hate instructional videos. Well, maybe not all of them, but most. They are boring and worse, they are boring for long periods of time. An hour of video = one page of instructions. I really don't want to spend hours watching a video on how to do a trick.

Of course, there are exceptions (the Vernon videos).

It may be that the creators either can't write or are too lazy to write.

Another exception: a video performance with no explanation. These can be useful as an adjunct to the written instruction.

[Tarotist]

I find videos damn inconvenient to watch. I far prefer books as my method of instruction. In fact they are just about the only method I use to learn magic. It is very rare that someone teaches me something in person. In fact probably never! On the odd occasion I see somebody doing something that I can use but not that often at all. And one disadvantage of video is that you often see an author write a great book but when you see them perform the material they write about it is often disappointing to watch and it biases you against what they are teaching. No----books are the best way. 95% of what I know is from books.

[jason156]

I have to agree . . . I remember many years ago (at least 40) ordering the trick Atomic Aces by Alex Elmsley from, I think, Abbotts. It was literally just the gaffs plus 4 double-sided pages of instructions with just a couple of line drawing illustrations. It took me a month to work through the whole routine, but I learned it better than if I had just watched it on a video. I felt like I had accomplished something very special.

[Dave Le Fevre]

I much prefer books, for many reasons.

However, videos have one major advantage.

I learned an effect from a book, and reading the instructions I thought that the method is really rather obvious to any spectator. Yet it isn't.

Each and every time that I perform it, I wish that I'd been able to watch a video of it before I'd first learned it, so that I could know how good it looks before one knows the method. It gets a good reaction. But learning it from a book means that I've been deprived of experiencing that reaction personally.

[Anthony Vinson]

Yeah, I agree. We're old. But seriously, I do agree. What I wouldn't give for an option to swap the boring-ass video instructions for a well-written pdf. Hell, I'd even pay a bit of a premium.

Av

[Tarotist]

One disadvantage of books is that a lot depends on the author. If you get the wrong one (and even the right one on rare occasions) you can find descriptions of tricks difficult to understand. And sometimes there are downright mistakes in the descriptions. It is actually quite difficult to describe the details of sleights and effects and not everybody can do it.

Oh, that reminds me! I just remembered that I have actually finished writing a little e-book myself. It will be coming out any day now. When it does I will announce the matter in my usual low profile manner.

[Ian Kendall]

Both have pros and cons, and the debate goes all the way back to Discoverie (honestly!)

The biggest hurdle to written instructions is that writing technical prose in a clear manner is very hard, and there are precious few magicians who can do it. The second hurdle is that it takes time, certainly compared to producing a basic instructional video. Having said that, there's a skill to teaching on video as well...

The final roadblock is that the majority of people producing instructional material for magic have no training in how to teach, and this is painfully apparent in a lot of product. This is when we get rambling and often unclear videos that should have been a two page PDF...

There's no solution to this anywhere close to us; I think the best compromise were the 'Work' ebooks that Mike Close and I put out a decade or so ago - PDFs with embedded videos so that you could read the lesson, and then see what it was supposed to look like. Sadly, technological advances killed this as a solution, but I just found a reformatted book of the three I did (two published, and one not) on my hard drive that I'll probably finish soon; that has QR codes linked to unlisted YouTube videos that were in the ebooks.

[Jonathan Townsend]

The L&L videos with an audience performance segment then an explanation seemed to work. The Alex Elmsley four video Tahoe session seemed to communicate well. Getting back to L&L their Tommy Wonder and Bill Malone videos might be good examples.

Writing? We have seen “ain’t” adopted, then emoticons, leet (L337), and emojis come into common use. Strunk and White went the way of Warner’s Grammar texts.

So how is the piece supposed to play? Show me. What do I need to do? Again show me . Why and how? Text please.

Quick question: How are your rapport skills?

[Jonathan Townsend]

On the other hand I have some Emerson and West, and Ron Frost instruction sets which leave me wondering what to do even though I trust the performer/writer was trying to communicate.

And let’s not get started on seeing ideas which were not marketed by their inventors sold without credit or permission. See the Three of Clubs trick in Greater Magic through today’s eyes having the Hofzinser trick with all those gaffed cards and trays to compare / contrast .

Venal matters aside, today we have more tools than ever before so let’s make sure publications serve their purpose. Please.

[Jonathan Townsend]

@Ian, the discussion goes back to Plato, and the judgement of Thamos. Jacques Derrida argues the matter more recently in his essay. The way to The Egress may be through the apporea.

More recently, one could as well ask If the meaning of a statement is the response it elicits.

But what about magic literature in specific? I hold that magic literature is built upon the rest of literature at the time. For example, using a “quaint” frame of reference in place of “once upon a time”, while useful in performance, may not be sufficient to convey knowledge which has been gleaned in the past few centuries. Today we fuss over what might have been called “black mirrors”, yet we don’t scry, we google.

[Bob Farmer]

Ian has hit the nail on the head: people with no idea on how to teach, trying to teach. Whether it's writing or videoing, the duffer fails.

[Jonathan Townsend]

And how might those “duffers” learn?

[JHostler]

Ian has hit the nail on the head: people with no idea on how to teach, trying to teach. Whether it's writing or videoing, the duffer fails.

... which also leads to use of the wrong medium (e.g., video where print might work better). Taken to an extreme, I can only imagine the cyclonic hell of trying to learn Doug Dyment's or Simon Aronson's more complex material with a talking head. Ack!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Where are the routines with a talking head published?

[BarryAllen]

As a loyal advocate of the printed word, there is one element of watching a video performance that stands out - namely recognising just how effectively something plays (looks) - as opposed to how it simply reads on paper.

Two Harry Lorayne examples spring instantly to mind:

- Amazing Prediction (Rim Shots 1973)
- Would You Believe In Mindreading (Quantum Leaps 1979)

Simply reading these tricks, even with Harry's dynamic and engaging writing style, would probably have led many to skip over them. Let's be honest - some methods are quite boring to read. However, watch him perform these (they're both on YouTube)......two stunning examples of powerful card magic - yet they read as dry as sandpaper.

I might have bored you before how I always admired Alan Alan for being able to physically dem material from the books on his shelf. A shop demo certainly brought the pages to life - and I can't think of any other (UK-based) dealer that was ever able to do this so effectively. It must have had a positive effect upon sales?

I think it was Paul Gordon who I first saw write about others copying the performing style of Magicians on film - I remember him using a phrase along the lines of - they will copy the performer's style 'by pure osmosis'? Until then, I hadn't given it a thought - but as also alluded to above, I think that there's some truth in that.

As also pointed out above, written instruction can be difficult to both produce - and/or for the end-user to understand. I remember contributing two tricks for Joe Riding's Newsletters many years ago - and it was quite difficult. Whilst I'm not completely dim and can string a few words together, explaining a Braue Reversal in my own words (rather than simply copying it from someone else) was a real challenge.

Undoubtedly, the very best written instructions, to accompany props, were authored by Ken Brooke. Ken's instruction sheets, to this day, stand alone in my opinion. No ambiguity, coupled with an in-depth attention to detail.

By comparison, I believe that Pat Page was one of the best tutors I've ever seen, on video. However, a lot of his written instructions left quite a bit to be desired.

I suppose we all have our strengths and weaknesses - but nevertheless greatly admire those who can both write instructional material effectively - and also 'put it over' so well on camera.

An element not discussed so far though is how recorded/digital media (or whatever it is called) can sometimes 'buck trends'. For example, with the arrival and increased popularity of video tapes in the late 80's/early 90's, I noticed how many Magicians in England began moving across from Bridge Packs to Poker Decks. The humble Waddingtons, or superb Piatnik, were being replaced by Bikes and Tally Ho's. UK coins were being replaced with Half Dollars. Nothing wrong with that per se - use whatever works I suppose.

Anyway, I'm rambling now.....so time to sod off.