|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts |
Quote:
Because Merlin the Magician would have survived in grand style by the good graces of His Royal Majesty the King. The rest of us have food to buy and mortgages to pay. Merlin didn’t arrive at the Kings table by selling his secrets to the public. Quote:
There is an economic imperative and a mutual gain to be had by magic secrets being disseminated. The inventor (ideally) makes money by publishing the new works, and the rest of us can make money performing them. Merlin would think a disseminated magic secret is an oxymoron. Quote:
And it's not all just about money. When the public loses interest in magic, all magicians suffer for lack of performance opportunities, and a lowered public perception of magic overall (as we saw in the late 20th century). Merlin would think, the pubic loses interest in the performance of magic when they know how magic is done and lack of performance opportunities would follow as surly as night follows day if they did. (as Merlin uses foresight ) How much more impoverished would the entire field of card magic be had Dai Vernon "acted like a magician" and kept everything he knew and learned a secret? How impoverished will the magic of Dai Vernon be when entire world can have his secrets at the click of mouse? Maybe Vernon, great magician that he was, never guessed that that mice would turn into dragons after he had gone. Regards Tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Tommy,
Perhaps you are blurring the distinction between publishing one's effects for the benefit of magicians and the betterment of magic (e.g., Dai Vernon), and giving away the secrets willy nilly to laymen? |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Willy and Nilly are downloading the books and videos off the internet via torrent sites. I've heard the Derren Brown, Phil Goldstein... Kenton Knepper ... and many other things are available.
A layman can walk into a magic shop and walk out with Greater Magic, The Vernon Book of Magic and if they have the money, even the Harbin book on illusions. So, what then is the difference between offering a work to the magic community and putting the work out for laymen?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-09-04 23:13, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Where would your magic be today if you never had the benefit of buying any books on the subject? If as a performer you only could rely on the effects that you made up yourself in your own imagination? And in addition, how many of your original effects would even exist if you didn't have all of everybody else's work to base them on? I know you're probably just playing devil's advocate, but I do think it is rather ridiculous to think that magic would be better off if people didn't publish their work. I'll bet that virtually none of us who are on the Café would be into magic today if there weren't fairly easily obtainable resources to satisfy our youthful curiosities on the subject. And I think there is a huge difference - both in theory and in practice - between making the secrets available to laymen, and publishing in media that is intended for magicians. First of all, laymen aren't going to be so curious about Guy Hollingworth's performance that they're willing to plunk down $40 for Drawing Room Deceptions. That's pretty obvious. And for those of us who have worked in magic shops, how many times would you get somebody off the street who wanted to buy a book or illusions plans just to find out how David Copperfield did something they saw on TV the other night? Never! Never in my life have I heard of any laymen devoting much time or money just to find out how something was done. And as far as the illegal filesharing is concerned, I see it most definitely as a concern for the magic publishing business, and not so much a concern about exposure. It stands to reason that, once again, it's not the laymen that are downloading Derren Brown. Laymen don't know who Derren Brown is! And if they saw somebody do one of his effects, how would they know what to look for online? Obviously, it is magicians who are downloading Derren Brown. Sure it's unethical and illegal and it's a problem, but it's not a very good example of published magic effects being exposed to laymen. I have no problem with innovations in magic being published in sources that only magicians would tend to find (try finding most magic books on Amazon.com, and you will be comforted by a lack of information and availability on many of the most sought after books on magic). It only helps the field of magic overall to have as many magicians as possible being as good as possible and performing the most astonishing material as possible. Plus, if you are an inventor, if you publish your work instead of sitting on it, you get your name on it forever and you don't have to whine about somebody else taking credit for it. Posting the secret to a trick on one's website (like that Café member who posted the secret to OOTW on his) so that it could be freely accessed by anybody is a clear example of irresponsible exposure, as are the amateur magicians who tell their spectators how they did something when asked. In those instances I would agree with you that it is bad for magic. And of course Wikipedia giving away OOTW is an abomination. But publishing in something released by Mike Caveney or Stephen Minch in a hardbound book that only a magician would ever think to buy certainly is not. Merlin would have known the difference between teaching his secrets for the betterment of his fellow wizards in the brotherhood in the privacy of their secret meeting chamber, and having the town crier broadcast all of their methods to the entire kingdom! |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-09-05 11:51, scorch wrote: Going for logical fallacies does not work. You get an F for the argument and some ridicule, aside from having the rest of your argument dismissed as non-sequitors. Try again without the fallacies and the implied ad-hominem if you wish to discuss. Key to one useful argument might be to consider what distinguishes a magician from a muggle. Given a workable answer to that question, other things follow that you might find agreeable. Without that answer, many disagreeable things are waiting.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Ad hominem? I'm not sure what you mean. I certainly didn't mean anything as an attack on anybody, except maybe the guy who exposed OOTW on his website.
And what part of my point do you think is fallacious? And how? |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Let's start with the "Where would your magic be today" and check Copi's book or any other on logical fallacies used in arguments. Here is a link for those who like to look... http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/logic.htm
My argument stands about publication in a market that accepts money which is legal tender for ALL debits public and private. Where cash buys our secrets... Do you have an answer to the question about what distinguishes a magician from a muggle?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
I'm fairly familiar with many theories of critical reasoning and logical fallacies - ad hominem, straw man, poisoning the well, etc. I'm still waiting to hear you explain how it is a logical fallacy to bring up my pertinent point: If publishing is bad for magic, how would your magic be without the benefit of such publishing? It may be tangential to the original point, but it is a valid question. Unless you could explain why it isn't.
And without overthinking it too much, I would say a magician is one who performs magic and knows many of its secrest, whereas a "muggle" (laymen) does not. In my experience "muggles" and laymen don't spend money buying books on magic. But how does that distinction play into this issue? And again, if publishing magic is bad, why is it a fallacy to wonder what magic would be like without its benefit? Would magic be better off, then, without the work of Dai Vernon or Ed Marlo? It would be better off if their secrets died with them? OK, since you don't seem to want to explain your reasoning, I guess you are standing on Petitio Principii, "because I said so." According to Copi, the conclusion that "exposure of magic effects to laymen is a problem, therefore magicians should not publish their effects to other magicians" would be a fairly clear example of a non sequitur (literally in the Latin, "it does not follow.") |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Let there be magic! » » Can I publish/release this to the public? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |