Would you please answer my question? Why is your book more valuable than the ones I listed?

Why are you more qualified to teach than the authors I listed?

Steven Youell

Myth#1:Card Tricks Are Difficult To Perform

Although I always thought laymen think the opposite, as every layman can do a card trick, as opposed to a coin trick. At any case, you may have your sources to put up that claim, maybe from your experience with magic students ...

Mtyth#2: Card Tricks Will Impact An Audience MORE If They Are More Difficult To Perform

"Here is the thing: Nerd magicians want to believe that they’re better than you because they practice a million hours a day."
This is an outrageous comment that honestly makes you look like someone with no knowledge to magic or never went to a magic community. I personally never heard of such magicians. They may be egoistic people who brag about their routines ( which happens ), but going far to say "I'm better than you, I can do the pass" is simply a stupid claim and I think no magician with his right mind would do it. Even if its done, then its a rarity, which is the reason you would remove the above statement which only serve to delude layman and give them the wrong picture.

"These graphs aren’t perfect, but hopefully they get the point across."
How can you honestly compare effect's impact based on difficulty in methodology?! This alone is simply wrong. In you're graph you're saying that a lot of easy tricks provide impact, while not the same number of hard tricks provide impact. I simply find this out of logic, and I wonder how a magician who studied magic would come to such conclusion. At any case, and you putting this statement to a book for layman is simply deluding them even more. You sir, are putting put a myth for laymen.

"This is very surprising to most people. It is especially surprising to the magicians who practice alone in their room for hours and hours!"
Trust me, this is not surprising at all, the fact that many magicians put practice is because they love it, so far ( according to my humble magic knowledge mind you ) I never seen a magician who wished he had put practice time of the pass into something else. Practice benefits him one way or another, even if the routine at the end didn't work out.

The model you're putting by the above statement is this: "a magician selects a difficult routine but he likes it, he practices it, then perform it but it didn't work out, so he says now he wasted all his time practicing, I wished I sticked with an easier trick". According to your ebook, these magicians are supposed to be alot, while to me this seems to be not the case.

I would really like you to introduce me to such person, or at least give me a name. PM me away with his MSN.

"Don’t bother reading the whole book first. And don’t bother picking out the tricks that YOU like. That’s how regular magicians do it. You’re not going to be a regular magician. You’re going to be better."
How can you put such statement?! This defies logic, and make you look more and more not-intelligent to the magic community. Would Harry Lorayne put such statement? Would Hugard and Braue put such statement? Obviously not, think why.

Finally, by "nerd magicians" I think you mean whats commonly known in the trade as "move monkeys". I know a lot of such people and I'm one of them, all of them ( the ones I know ) put practice on moves and concepts even though they aren't fit for live performance or they are impractical, but at the same time they are very intresting to know and read. These people AT THE SAME TIME have ALSO put practice to routines and magic theory that works wonders in the real world, they only moved to study concepts and moves after they developed a good performing ability. Even if there are "move monkeys" who don't perform at all, just practice moves ( I never met such one, but lets !@#ume there is ), you are insulting him by saying he's a "nerd magician", you are insulting him because he choose such an interested. You insulted, and they get offended. Insulting magicians show no respect, and especially in your case sir, show lack of logic when it comes to this case.
------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, you simply put 2 valid ideas in an extremely bad way, and you're rant in the introduction make you look bad, and strayed away from making the points clear. This may be because of 2 reasons, first is lacking of writing ability. Second is lack of correct knowledge. You pick the one that suits you.

Here are the points that I think you tried to convoy written in a clear manner ( hopefully ):
- The best judge for the effect itself is the spectator.
- Effects cannot be judged by difficulty of method. Easier effects can be very entertaining, as well as harder ones.

Instead of putting it that way, you ranted and compared effects' impact based on difficulty of the method, to me this is simply ..... I don't want to insult you here, but you get the point.

Sincerely,

~ Feras

What scientific proof does Peter Duffie have for his book "Effortless Card Magic"
Were Dai Vernon's "Secrets Of Card Magic" scientifically proven to be the "ULTIMATE"
The "Complete Works Of Derek Dingle" did not contain all his work. So is that "Fraud"
Can Aldo Colombini's book "Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere" be proven?

...and my favorite. Did the effects in Michael Webers book ever "SAVE A LIFE"

All Tim would have to do to prove his title of High Impact Card Magic is to show that there are tricks that have less impact then the ones in his book. I think we would all agree that would not be hard to do.

, Jonathan

I have A.D.D ! I thought the Three of Hearts was the Three of Diamonds. I CAN PROVE IT !!

The title of the book is not as damaging as the ideas it contains, which is my post above addresses.

Jonny Boy-- you speak from ignorance. Tim made this statement:



You find a statement like that in any of the books you listed? The hrase "scientifically proven" carries certain legal ramifications that I'm pretty sure you know nothing about.

Steven Youell

Many words or phrases have multiple meanings. Tims use of the word scumbag meant a contemptible or objectionable person. This is not unacceptable language. If we were to use your reasoning then we would never be able to describe a spongeball routine now would we.

, Jonathan

These are book titles vs. quotes...

Did you even read my post?

The phrase "Scientifically Proven" is a marketing phrase that has legal implications. Check out the FTC site. Please stop making ignorant comments.

What is acceptable and not acceptable is a matter of perspective-- the supreme court decided that. If the community accepts Tim's use of the word, that's fine. I don't.

I will not address you further in this thread, Johnny Boy-- you're just making ridiculously ignorant comments.

Steven Youell