Nov 06 -Dennis' Deliberations

Odd and ends from my "utter frustration" file...A recent phone call:

Dennis: Hello

Client: Mr.. Phillips, I am (name withheld for legal purposes) and I heard that you are a very good magician. We have a mutual friend who saw your act.
I have a luncheon for about 50 people and I want to find out what you would charge to do a 30 minute show and we would like for you to bring your girl assistant and maybe put her in a box and vanish her or something. What do you charge?

Dennis: Thank you for the compliment! May I ask where and what time this event is and who it is for?

Client: It is in (location ) and it is for the (lawyer's organization). I am an attorney in (city). The luncheon is Friday at Noon on the 27th of October.

Dennis: Oh in (city) ? ( A pretty good drive) And my daughter Sara and my wife Cindy are my assistants. We do a cute effect called , "The Indian Sword basket" It is one of the oldest illusions in the world. I will also do my nite club act. My fee would be $250. (okay, I considerably lowballed it because the reference he gave who saw my show is a good friend of my wife )

Client: Wow! that much?

Dennis: If you want to pay less, would you like to just have me come alone?

Client: No. It is just that...uhhh $250 for 30 minutes ? That is $500 an hour! I am a lawyer here and all I make is $105 an hour.

Dennis: You know ( name) when I was the highest paid lawyer in your town that is all I made too!

Client: You were an attorney here?

Dennis: You didn't get my joke?

Client: Oh! Sheez , a wise guy?

Dennis: Yes, an expensive one at that. $500 an hour! Catch ya later, Pal.... You can't afford me! (I slammed down the phone) CLICK!

After I hung up and cussed a little, I was angry that I had lowballed the guy, I don't need the grief about my fee from a lawyer that makes $105 an hour!

Here is a goodie from the Canada:

The Wikipedia Philosophy Towards Magic Exposure by Larry Thornton

Dennis told me about the blatant exposure of David Copperfield's Flying Illusion in Google's Video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5726537828765374451&q=David+Copperfield&hl=en complete with animated drawings. I decided to check out Wikipedias "exposures" of magic. Here are just ten that I found. There could possibly be dozens of such magic "spoiler warnings" (their term), or maybe hundreds. After ten, I quit looking.

Wikipedia tries to explain....

1) Copperfield's Statue of Liberty Vanish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_the_Statue_of_Liberty

3) Sawing a Woman in Half (various methods in illustrated form)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half

4) The King Rising Levitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Rising_Levitation

5) Balducci Levitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balducci_levitation

6) Elevator Levitation

This article "exposes" the trick only by rattling on about a "gimmick" being used, but essentially says nothing. There's even a video clip included of something called "Loughran's Elevator 2".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_levitation

7) Paul Harris's Sooperman levitation, explained in one of his books and said to be a variation of the Balducci, and sold as a simplified version under the name of Wild Levitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooperman

8) A oddball (by my thinking) levitation called Mike Brent's Zero Gravity, said to be an offshoot of Balducci

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bent%27s_Zero_Gravity

9) The Chinese Linking Rings (standard version with eight rings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_linking_rings

10) The Cups and Balls

A long-winded "explanation", minus any illustrations, including an explanation of the Chop Cup, said to have been invented by Al Wheatley in 1954. What this sort of convoluted exposure is designed to accomplish, is anybody's guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cups_and_balls


THE INCREDIBLE IRONY IN ALL OF THIS, is that in a comprehensive article on the art of magic, the Wikipedia states:

Membership in professional magicians' organizations often requires an oath not to reveal the secrets of magic to non-magicians. This is known as the "Magician's Oath".
The Magician's Oath (though it may vary, 'The Oath' takes the following, or similar form):

"As a magician I promise to never reveal the secret of any illusion to a non-magician, without first swearing them to the Magician's Oath. I promise never to perform any illusion for any non-magician, without first practicing the effect until I can perform it well enough to maintain the illusion of magic".

The Wikipedia article then tells us:


Once sworn to The Oath, one is considered a magician, and is expected to live up to this promise. A magician who reveals a secret, either purposely or through insufficient practice, may typically find themselves without any magicians willing to teach them more secrets. - End of Quote The article then tells us (I'm paraphrasing here) that it is okay for a magician to reveal secrets to people with a sincere interest in magic who are most likely to become magicians themselves.


The "irony" lies in the bizarre fact that it is said magicians are asked (by their organizations) NOT to reveal secrets, and yet it's fair game for Wikipedia and any other non-magicians to reveal magic's secrets to the public at large. Journalists and columnists do it all the time. Sometimes these "exposures" (Wikipedia has examples) amount to little more than blatant guessing, as in the case of the Statue of Liberty vanish, but all too often magic's methods are 'stolen' directly from magic's own literature.


And speaking of "literature", Wikipedia further states [quote ] "The secrets of almost all tricks are available to the public through numerous books and magazines devoted to magic, available from the specialized magic trade."


Now there is a bit of a misnomer here: that almost all tricks are "available TO the public" even thought they come from books and magazines not officially released for public consumption. We have to ask the common-sense question: Do we see any or all of the magic books and magician's trade magazines out on public magazine or book store shelves? NO! Magic's literature is designed specifically and exclusively for "the specialized magic trade". That it can be accessed by a determined public that has to go to the bother of actually searching for it, is beside the point. Granted, many a street magic shop is open to the public and features such books and magazines, but it is a stretch to assert that just because a non-magician can get hold of such literature "if they have a mind to", then all of magic's secrets are in the public domain. Is this what makes them think that the exposure of magic online is no longer unethical? Perhaps it is a fine point, but I take strong objection to the oblique suggestion here, that because magic's literature makes it possible for a determined public to learn any secret, then that makes it perfectly okay to reveal the secrets in a wildly popular online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.


Any possible legal issues are beyond the scope of this article and knowledge of its author, but I would just like to present this much of the argument as "food for thought". I encourage any constructive feedback. You can send your comments to mail@wizardlarry.com if you have anything pertinent to say on the matter.

- Larry Thornton (Calgary, Alberta, CANADA)

Larry and I ponder over the future of the magical arts as we know them when a few clicks on the Internet will reveal any magic secret you want to know. Moreover, psychologically sick people who resent or are jealous of the popularity of a magical artist will set up websites revealing methods for everything that is done.

Many of David Blaine's effects from his early shows are explained on this site http://www.vkmag.com/media/david_blaines_magic_revealed.pdf .

Please don't E-Mail me and tell me that I am a hypocrite. This newsletter is distributed only to people that are interested in magic. I find it interesting that a magician can walk into a brick and mortar magic shop and be confronted with far more secrecy than is faced by anyone merely typing into Google!

As Kurt Vonnegut often said in Slaughterhouse Five, "And so it goes".

Dennis Phillips