There has been a lot of heated discussion about guarding secrets -- magic secrets, trade secrets, etc. Sometimes the discussion gets pretty far afield. And sometimes I haven't stated my own position and case very effectively. So, let me do so here.

There is an attitude that seems to be more prevalent among newcomers to magic that once they reach a certain point, ALL of the secrets of magic are out there for them to have. That they have a right to know how everything works. Some figure that because they belong to a certain organization such as the IBM, the SAM or the Magic Circle, everything they are curious about is theirs for the asking.

The term "right to know" is very common among journalists. According to them "The Public has a Right to Know." Really? Where is this in any constitution or charter of any country? The right to know really does not exist. You may have a right to learn, but not necessarily to know.

There is also the dilemma of exposure vs. teaching. Most of us old dogs who have been around a while feel that the difference is transactional. Basically, if you want to learn something, you should pay for it. After all, if you want to learn to be a really good woodworker, you are going to pay for it, one way or another, either in ruined wood, wasted paint, badly chosen tools, research, lessons, apprenticeship -- but somehow, you will give something of value in order to receive the information. Teaching involves a transaction. Sometimes it isn't monetary, sometimes it is. Sometimes all that is necessary is proof that you are serious about your intentions and that you have a use for the information.

Several years ago, I had been working on a particular sleight. I was having trouble. So I went to Roger Klause, and asked him how much he would charge to teach it to me. His first question was "What do you want it for? How do you plan to use it?" I explained the context of it. He said my idea had validity, so he then asked how I had done with the instructions so far. I showed him. In a matter of minutes, he solved my problem. All he needed to make this a valid transction was the idea that I actually had thought it out, put in some time at it and had a use for it.

Exposure, on the other hand is non-transactional. You are watching television, and suddenly an idiot in a wrestling mask, accompanied by Mitch Pileggi, who attacks the attitudes of magicians, begins to expose pieces of magic that the public does not need to understand. They have no need to know.

I am not against teaching. I am not against legal sharing. I am against violation of copyrights. I am against giving other people's material away. I am against turning to the person next to you in the audience and saying "Did you see the way he put that ring through...? Now watch, the trapdoor is going to..." That's exposure. That's just as cool as standing up at the beginning of a movie and saying -- watch the ending...the blonde is going to die.

I received an e-mail from a fellow who feels that I do not have a grip on the way the world works. He posed a question about what happens when a secret dies. It went something like this:

What if there was a magic secret that only seven people knew? If one by one they were all killed in various accidents, then the secret would be lost unless they shared it.

Yep.

The question is "so what?" If those seven fellows created that secret, and it was theirs exclusively, they are under no obligation whatsoever to give it to anyone else. And if they want it to die with them, that's their business.

It may be a tragedy, but hey! That's the breaks!

I've gotten a lot of reaction to this topic. Most of it has been positive. There are a few who just don't get it. So let me add this, thereby throwing a little more fuel on the fire.

One of the facts of life is that we place a value upon things commensurate with what they originally cost us. If we get our knowledge without any investment, then we feel that we are free to distribute it without charge. This investment might be anything from money to favors. Or it might be work. But we place a value on things.

The father of modern semantics, Alford Korzybski, stated "A map is not the territory it represents." Likewise, the secrets are not the art. They are an essential part of the tools to create the art. But once the tools are laid bare to the prying eyes of the lay public, then they become useless. The more indiscriminately we distribute the tools, the more likely they are to be exposed.

This is the reason that I do not favor absolutely free access to all the secrets of magic.

There was, at one time, a movement in the various clubs to have a magic olympics. This would be done with a manipulative act, and the judges would grade on how well the various performers executed a set of required moves. There are some big holes in this idea, which is why it was eventually discarded. One was where this would be broadcast. Could you imagine a commentator saying in a hushed tone as Manipo the birdman did his act, "That was a nice steal there ... he's using a special harness he designed himself. OH NO! LOOK, he flashed the holder. That's a mandatory 5 point deduction." This was, in the minds of many of us, total insanity. For one thing, done right, the steals should not be visible.

Remember, magic is the art that conceals art.