Can somebody please tell me where to get a magic decoder ring to decipher JT's cryptic messages?

I want one too.

I don't know if this has already been said, but my two cents are that most of the people who buy magic books end up sparking an interest in magic. Not many people buy the cheesy magic books to figure out our secrets. They wouldn't expect to find them there.

Really? I bet most here don't even want to start down a path of exploring magic. Really. Test yourself: Would you bring your friend a basket? Real question. You can PM if you require clarification.
Huh = I have not yet even considered starting my education.



Think of it as a depth gauge. The less you understand, and the less you look up unfamiliar phrases, the higher the reading.

So apparently there is no harm in exposing magic.

So many posts justifying it.

There is harm, no doubt about it.

It's just that we can't stop it.

So let's find away to "roll with the punches" as it may...

Make Lemonade with the Lemons thrown at you and all that Glass-Half-Full mindset...

It is what it is as it is now...

So I suggest we keep on keeping on.

Actually, I prefer the Dylan Thomas take on things. As Starrpower correctly points out, there is much justifying of exposure, coupled with the "nothing we can do" school of anti-activism.

For me, exposure is wrong, an evil that at the very least should be pointed out and, yes, exposed. I really do not care that is has been around for years, that big names do it, that you can make a lot of money doing it. Not very many years ago, one could have said the same for slavery.

I try not to miss any opportunity to speak out against exposure of magic secrets- some battles are worth waging even if there is no hope of winning...

:kermit:

No one has said that.

We are still waiting for a clear definition of exposure which takes into account social and historical contexts while addressing issues of practicality before we condemn people of crimes they may not even be criminal.

Jonathan is the only person I recall to offer any sort of cogent definition, though I remain unconvinced that it would be pragmatically viable.

Everyone else just seems to be screaming 'its wrong' without any consideration of the history of our art, its literary traditions, or even the changing nature of exposure.

I look at the sky.

I like red.

That's what it is right? I mean, that's what I call it.

BTW; Rory, your original post says you "just picked up" the Joshua Jay and "Mysterio" books. Does that mean you purchased them or did you just skim through them at the book store? Generally when someone says they "just picked up" something it means they just bought it. I trust that you did not support these evil-doers in their vile enterprises.

Oh come on ... it is what it is. A professional who should know better is selling professional secrets -- those that MANY make a living from -- on the open market to laypeople.

You guys sound like sleazy politicians. "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

If you can't see the difference between right and wrong, the battle is already lost.

Besides, you are all lost in the minutia. Again, I yell from the mountaintop -- Rory's post is about the HYPOCRISY of the good ol' boys, not exposure itself.

That hypocrisy goes all the way back to Houdini and beyond. Magicians treating their community as if it were their lay audiences. Magic fans overstepping their bounds from eager audience to reading (or watching) things that diminish their own enjoyment of the performances they seek to enjoy. Not even going to get into the strange codependency between dealers, their du-jour aidoru and a market of folks looking for answers to questions they can't even put into words.

And what about the professional who is selling professional secrets on the open market to anyone who has the cash - in a magic store, on a magic website?

You have yet to define the line.

Clearly we DON'T know what exposure is, or these arguments wouldn't become so heated.

If it is so clear what exposure is, please - please - give us the definition. It it holds up to any sort of internal consistency and external evaluation in terms of what actually happens in the world, versus what is only happening in your head and heart, then we can go from there. *It would be nice if your answer allowed us to answer the following: was hoffman exposure then? Is it now? What about Erdnase? Where would we be without those texts? What's the difference in directing my web browser to amazon or hatch? Is that the difference between being a magician and not?

We're waiting. . . .

In the meantime, this hypocrisy nonsense belies a belief in the existence of some powerful, central secret cabal.

REALLY?!?


It always amuses me what I see people refer to magic dealers (um, sorry creators, um sorry "artists") in rarefied terms as if they make millions and travel in their private yacht when presenting lectures in Peoria. I remember one post when the credulous admirer mentioned his favorite creator hobnobbing with magical elites and working on high level projects.

The last time I saw said creator, he was sitting barefoot on the floor of a cheap convention hotel picking at his toenails.

They are the creators of illusion.

But back to the point: First, if there is a secret cabal, I don't think Josh Jay is going to make the cut. Second, I can recall several books sold to MAGICIANS that were filled with little more than exposure - work taken from other magician's acts. Those authors were heralded as magicians helping magicians - though those I would personally consider to be "the inside guys" universally condemned him.

Is this any better than exposing to laymen? Ever go to a magic convention? Try this test: Imagine you've fenced in any 15 guys from the middle of a room. Now, ask yourself - how many of these people could do a trick, right now, deceptively, with some modicum of presentation, and whose performance would elevate magic in the eyes of the audience, not detract from it?

My experience is, you might be lucky to get 3 or 4 IF you are willing to establish an extremely low bar for the consideration of competence.

Yet - for the price on the tag, any of these people can have access to any secret in the world - and it's NOT exposure?!?!?!

Check yourself: anyone right now getting angry? Anyone thinking, 'How dare he? who is he to say someone isn't qualified or or isn't good enough to be considered a magician and have access to the information?'

You're right.

But I must ask, "who are you to say that someone is?"

If exposure of professional grade material to the unqualified is the issue - then we need to know what separates the magician from the layman? And it's not an easy question. I might be inclined to suggest that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to be magicians, are not. And I find it distressing that they have access to real information. When Dover toyed with the idea of reprinting Greater Magic, I didn't care that a layperson might buy the book. I was worried more magicians would have access to it?

How is this attitude difference at all from the position you seem to be taking?

It's just about keeping information and access away from the class you feel is beneath you.

Or as I like to put it: When someone explains one of my secrets to someone, it's exposure. When someone explains someone else's secret to me, then it's education


So, if there is an hypocrisy, you must ask - who is determining the rules?

If you can't find the answer, just look at the top right of this very page. At this moment, you have a little over 43,000 names to convict.

I kinda like the word gossip in both cases.

I always enjoy learning how tricks are done.

Don't you guys?

If you do, they why would you deprive anyone else of that same feeling?

Sounds like something a mean person or some type of greedy jerk would do.

I love the idea that this book is marketed for laypeople
here, must are only thinking on the hecklers they will encounter because of that book but what about the magic entusiasts that will get the bug of magic and buy your creations?, what about the CEO that will rather have a magician than a comedian in the corporate party?, what about the creations and inventions of the kids that buy this book?. hell jeff prace was what? 15 when he got his gum dvd?.

I hope there´s more people into magic,
I don't care how many know the linking rings, the magic square or a double lift..
if you are supposed to be professional you'll work your way around it

You mean you hope the CEO you thought might hire you buys the book, visits a magic shop and decides to show off at the party rather than hire a magician?

Truthteller, you Sir, have changed my mind about the whole issue with that post above.

Interesting, disturbing and thought provoking at the same time.

Thank you.

I haven't read this whole topic so I'm sorry if some of this has already been said.

I started magic when I was about seven, and I found a tourist magic store at Navy Pier in Chicago. I got a simple magic set and I was hooked. I don't really see a difference in a tourist-aimed magic store compared to a magic book aimed for the general public. Everyone has to start somewhere; no one is starting by going to a "real" magic store and picking up a book by Dai Vernon or Ed Marlo.

The books aimed towards the general public are like magic sets at Walmart. Those contain classics such as the Cups and Balls and other distinguished tricks.

Everyone has got to start somewhere, and I think these books are a great place to do so.

Perhaps it was useful to you and many here. Such is not in dispute.

However, it's very difficult to say that what you found in open products when you started should stay that way and that it would be wrong for an open product to include your work given that everything in the products you found in the open were at one time somebody's work.