I haven't seen it yet, but apparently Jay's television show began airing a few days ago. I'm told he exposed The French Drop and the card effect where you have a card on the top and another on the bottom of the deck, toss the pack to your other hand, retaining the two cards in the first hand, as if you've produced them from the pack.

He also told the tale of Jasper Maskelyne causing the city of Alexandria to vanish during world war 2, as a Magic History Lesson. Too bad Jay didn't research this a little better. It's been exposed as a myth.

- entity


Finally caught one of Jays "Spellz" shows. It's on at an odd time when I'm not usually home, or am at dinner with family and friends, so it's taken a while to view it.

It's a pretty short show, I think about 15 minutes (at least the one that I saw was). This episode was themed on Number Magic. From what I could tell by this episode, the show seems focused primarily upon exposing or teaching effects. In this show Jay showed how to do an "add a number" effect using the 1089 principle, and he showed how to use The Reverse Count in a playing card prediction. There was also a short (1 min.?) bit on magic history, talking about an ancient memory expert.

Amusingly, there is a 10 second bumper added of Jay reminding his viewers to keep the secrets and not tell.

- entity

I know some won't agree with me, and will despise me for even thinking this, but...

I don't see a problem with shows like this. Although I am surprised to hear he tried to teach the french drop. I wouldn't have considered that suitable.
But isn't that the problem? Who get's to decide what's suitable?

A show that shows how to Break a Pencil with a Folded Dollar, or that teaches some simple card tricks like the 21 Card trick, or that teaches the linking paper slips is no threat to magic (In my Opinin).

I understand why people believe in the "never teach anything to anyone ever mantra". But there would be a lot less people interested in performing or even watching magic if that were following religiously by all.

My original interest in Magic came from Watching Paul Daniels on TV and buying some of his magic tricks and magic sets. I stayed at it for a while as a hobby, until other interests took over.

I got back into it a few years ago much more seriously, when my other half bought me one of those Card Trick books that comes with a cheap pack of bridge sized cards. She picked it up in a book store.

Neither the Paul Daniels Tricks, or the Card Trick book would have been available if some people here had their way. I couldn't have contacted a magician. I saw one in school when I was very young, and didn't see another until I was probably 20 years old. There simply were NO Magicians where I grew up. No magic shops, and no internet. I didn't even know Tarbell existed until I was 30.

Over the years I learned various stunts, like moving pencils with my mind, the rubber pencil, various number tricks, some card tricks, etc. I wouldn't have learned those and kept my interest in magic going if they weren't (in the public domain).

Had I not regained my interest in Magic via that book of card tricks, from a regular old Book Store, I would not had paid to see Copperfield Twice, Burton Once, numerous shows by various magicians in Orlando and Tampa, Dublin, and wherever else I could find one.

I wouldn't have paid a magician to perform at my wedding.

I wouldn't have bought the dozens and dozens of books and DVD's on magic, spent literally thousands of dollars reading about, purchasing, and viewing Magic.

I wouldn't have joined two magic clubs, corresponded with dozens of other magicians, spent hours in magic shops discussing magic with the owners and learning from them.

Perhaps Magic would be better without people like me involved. Perhaps magic would be stronger with a small group of 200 or 300 guys who never show anything to anyone unless someone manages to meet them in person and prove their honesty and worthiness.

But I'm not sure that it's at all clear that that is the case. I believe the potential audience for magic would be dramatically smaller if the ability to get involved was as limited as some would like. Less people involved means less innovation, less competition.

It's ok to offer opinions on what Sankey is doing, he knew getting into it that some would. I would argue that perhaps the French Drop shouldn't be exposed but the linking Paperclips is OK. Other's might argue that the linking paperclips shouldn't be exposed.

We can discuss each piece of exposure and see where the magic community stands on it.

But I don't think arguing that these shows should be abolished completely, or drawing parallels between Sankey and the Masked Magicians make a whole lot of sense.

It's Magical Fundamentalism, and I've always found all types of Fundamentalism leave me cold.

-MM

I think it's not always so black and white.

In the case of Jay's show, Spellz, the entire theme of the show seems to be exposure.
Jay teaches the kid on the show how to do a trick. The kid does the trick. In the teaching, viewers see how the trick is done, too.

Jay says to the viewing audience: "I want to make you guys magicians, too."

Perhaps this is Jay's way of increasing the number of "magicians" that will now buy his marketed effects.

- entity

So it's okay to just explain tricks? Like how you can manipulate people by means of their beliefs? Add that to Millram's finding about authority and you have almost a cookbook for some "interesting" happenings.

My feeling remains that it is not okay to tell kids there is no santa. Nor is it okay to tell folks there is only what is measurable in the lab... that the rest, as wonderful as it is to entertain the fantasy, is just that. To ME, that is also an unacceptable position. I believe the kids need their stories and as story tellers we are not there to dispel any of those stories.

> So it's okay to just explain tricks?

Some tricks, like the 21 card trick yes. Like the rubber pencil yes.
The rubber pencil is an optical illusion, you are not stealing anyone's belief in
magic by teaching it. You are just explaining that there is such a thing as an optical illusion. The 21 card trick is just maths but it can be entertaining.

Just because kids know that you can buy toys at the store doesn't mean they can't believe in Santa. Just because they can perform the 21 card trick doesn't mean they can't believe that David Copperfield or Jonathan Townsend have magical powers.

In time they'll realise themself that neither Copperfield, Townsend or Clause are all they appear to be, but until then the magic is alive, and teaching them a simple card trick doesn't change that. (In my experience anyway).

I have shown some simple card tricks to people (adults) and still had them asking if the trick with Red and Black cards (Galaxy) requires some sort of powers or hypnosis.

I know you're views on magic and sharing magical secrets. To be fair to you you are unwaivering in your conviction on the matter and you've obviously given it a lot of thought.

I've thought about it a lot too and I can't find a way to agree with you that magic secrets should only be passed on magician to student. It simply deprives too many people of the opportunity to enjoy performing magic. It would have deprived me of that opportunity.

There's also a slight flaw in your reasoning. If we should never share magical secrets, how do you envisage the magician/student conversation progressing.

Child: How do you do magic?
Magician: I can't tell you.

At some point we need to decide that there are certain tricks that it's ok for kids to learn, so as to prove their interest. 99% of them will forget the tricks. 1% will learn them and seek out more magic.

So, if a child asks you to teach them magic what do you do?
I teach them one of two or three card tricks, depending on their age.
The 21 card trick, a prediction trick, or a simple mentalism trick.
Then I give them a deck of cards.

99% of the time they take it no further. Every now and then I meet them a few weeks later and they levitate a soda can or a silk, or they make a silk dissapear because they went out and bought a magic set. At that point I show them a little more.

The ones who took it no further are still facinated by magic.

An interesting question would be, which tricks does the magic commuity think it's ok to teach kids.

21 Card Trick? The Key Card? The T***bT*p? The French Drop?
Cutting the Rope in an Envelope? Cups and Balls?

I think a show like Sankey's is a good idea, or at least an idea that does less harm than good to magic, but I'd like to know what secrets would be acceptable to teach kids. Where do we draw the line? Or should there be a line?
What would the criteria be to test if a kid is worthy of learning the rubber pencil?

-Richard

Ah the start of a serious and hopefully positive dialog here. Let's begin with no selling secrets in the open market. You will see the significance of this real soon if it's not obvious.

Now about learning; Here is what I see as the beginning:

WantsToLearn: "Hello Mr. magician. ...Very much liked what you did and I would like to learn to do that for others."

Magician: "Thanks, learning magic can be almost as fun as giving magic to others. Can you keep a secret? Okay, let's try one: magic is not the thing you saw but what you felt when you saw it. If you are willing to respect secrets and keep in mind that you are affecting people's feelings, let me know. Here is my card. We can discuss learning magic."

***

Okay, what do you think of that?


In reply to the question, what's okay to teach muggles?

IMHO nothing. There is no reason to teach. Why show them a world view based upon guile? What next... that there is no Santa? How about lack of scientific evidence for lots of other things we choose (or are taught) to believe?

If I may make a suggestion about this sort of discussion here...kindly keep us off the slippery slope that leads to a despair. When all the fairies are revealed to be fireflies, Tinkerbell becomes a carnivorous beetle and looses her appeal. Leave magic be.

> Ah the start of a serious and hopefully positive dialog here.

The beginnings of many dialogs I think. I hardly know where to begin. Do I deal with Santa Clause, or all the things that can't be proven in a Lab. Do I deal with how open or closed magic should be to new enthusiasts and how to test them before opening the door? Do I deal with how we can stop Toys'R'Us selling magic sets, or whether we should even try?

Santa Clause I've already dispensed with. I'm not going to go around telling kids Santa Clause doesn't exist. Similarly with Fairies and the like. Eventually the kids will figure out for themselves that these things don't exist, and they'll understand why adults lie about it.

God is a different story. If a child of mine asked if god exists I'd say nobody knows some people believe he does, others believe he doesn't, I personally believe he doesn't, but I have no more right to that opinion than the people who believe he does. Why the distinction? Because peoples belief in Religions carries on into Adulthood and is exploited, sometimes in the most horible way. I choose to treat belief in Gods differently to belief in Fairies. I choose to engage in discussion about the various religions of the world only on an intellectual level whether I talk to an adult or a child. But that's just me. If someone elses child asks about god I tell them to ask their parents.

With regard to your approach to reacting to an enquiry about learning magic. It's a sound one. I can't argue with it at all. I don't know how easy or difficult it was for you to get into magic, to find teachers. Perhaps your own experience guides your approach and attitudes.

For me it was difficult. Were it not for books in public bookstores and magic sets in toy stores, it wouldn't have happened at all until the invention of the internet. Perhaps my difficulty guides my approach of letting kids know that there is a way into magic. And perhaps my experience guides my feelings on why basic magic books and simple sets should be available in book stores and toy stores.

Which of us is right? Are either of us?

My over whelming sense when listening to your opinions are:
1. This is someone who's thought long and hard about this and who's opinions have been formed over a many years of study.
2. This is someone who cares deeply about magic, who thinks of it as more than a profession, or a hobby, but as a way of life that should be protected, just as the habitat of an endangered species or a native tribe should be protected.
Perhaps even more important than either of those things.

and
3. This is someone who's opinions about how things should be don't acknowledge
how things really are. These books are in book stores already, cups and balls, and all manner of gimmicks are available in toy stores already.
The 21 card trick is probably known by more people than the rules of poker.

We can't roll these facts back. We can only ask where do we go from here.
And this isn't a slippery slope to despair. Quite the contrary I don't believe these facts are killing magic, I see great hope in kids having an opportunity to get involved in magic. Compared to the alternative activities that a kid could be doing the facination with the 21 card trick seems to me to be a miracle in itself.

We need to ask is the 21 card trick or a cheap set of cups and balls a threat to magic? Is the Jay Sankey show a threat to magic? Did my Paul Daniels Annuals harm magic?

Too often these conversations start with the conclusion that these things are damaging magic and all that's up for discussion is how bad the perpetrator is. I'd like an honest open and positive conversation about what these things do for magic, as well as against magic.

For me shows like the Sankey show, the Paul Daniels magic annuals, the magic sets, the books from the local book store have all been positive. The kids I hung around with who read the same annuals and played with the same tricks are now as amazed as anyone at the things I can do.

It is only in the last year that I have really had the opportunity to learn from peole inside Magic in the way you describe. That option simply wasn't available to me prior to that. I'd be very keen to know how someone growing up in rural Ireland was supposed to learn magic, and whether or not you are happy to deprive such kids of that opportunity, in the hope of protecting some secrets that are no longer secrets at all.

Ultimately we need to agree on what's best for magic. More people with an interest means more hack magicians, but also more great magicians, and bigger audiences for those that perform, and a greater market for those to write about, innovate and sell magic.

Less people with an interest, means less hack magicians, less secrets making into the public domain, but also less great magicians, and smaller audiences, less money pumping into the Magic industry. Not that money is the be all and end all, but it is one way of measuring the health of an industry.

Until we agree on what we're trying to achieve we'll never agree on how to achieve it.

-Richard

I'm waiting to see the show before making comment. Anyone got a link to that TV show?

Jay knows that the price of putting magic on the mass market is having his stuff uploaded onto the internet so anyone can have all they want of his work for free.

The question is do any of us wish to risk that fate by associating with him? I value my work and privacy. Much as I would like to discuss things with Jay... I don't want to associate myself with him in public at this time.

Here's a link to a clip on their website: http://webcast.newswire.ca/archive/MMNR/......_300.wmv

It shows a couple of the more mundane things being exposed. I'm told that the card through handkerchief was recently exposed, although I haven't seen that particular segment.

- entity

Last week my daughter just called me downstairs to show me a magician on television that was "showing how the tricks are done"

It was Jay Sankey's kids show on TVO, not a bad kids show, but he was giving away a bit more than I thought was right, when he showed how to force a card. No big deal it generates intrest in Magic --- I GUESS !!

Funny thing is my daughter was more angry about it than I was, you see she is seven and hangs around the magic shop a lot, I always teach her to keep the secret, and here a guy was showing it on TV. Now I know that this is just a seven year olds reaction, but as a father and teacher, it kind of flew in the face of what I have been teaching her about magic.

As a magic shop owner I can only hope that in generates more interest in magic, although I can't help but think more interest would be generated if he left a cliffhanger every week where the children had to try to figure out how it was done.

Just random thoughts

Phil

Despite Jay's contention that this show is about sharing his "love of magic", in the end (and this is purely my opinion) I think it's about making a buck. Create more magicians, sell more product. Jay's got a wife and two kids now, and I think his "love of magic" is more about the love of the money he gets from selling magic secrets and effects.

- entity

[*yawn...*]

Throughout history, gentlemen (and ladies), from the DAWN OF FREAKIN' TIME, there have been conjurors ... street performers, fakirs, medicine men, call them what you may. Not a one of them went around exposing, or teaching, his secrets ... why? EVERY DARNED ONE OF THEM was in it because it was a living. From the snake charmer in the mud of an Indian village to the tuxedoed BigName-dini on the theater stage, they were putting a roof over their heads and clothes on their back with their skills - nothing wrong with that - and nobody in their right mind is gonna willingly spread around the secret of his meal ticket so the average Joe can do it too.

Only in this "age of leisure", when we have been able to stop scrabbling for dinner every waking moment, have we had "magic hobbyists" and amateurs get their underwear in a bunch because somebody showed somebody else how to do it. So Sankey is doing the show to make a buck, so bleedin' what? I don't note that the authors of any classic magic texts sent back the publisher's check.

"Exposure" has happened countless times, and the field is still healthy. Somebody showed you how to do it (ooooh, exposure!) - and now that you're on board it's time to close the door and make sure nobody else gets in. This is just so incredibly dorky, it's no wonder we get made fun of.

I've been "on board", Ross for over 35 years. I make my living as a Performer, and I don't get made fun of. I suspect you do (or did, since you no longer perform) because you are a clown, not a magician, at least, not in my interpretation of a Magician.

Hence, you see Magic from a clown's perspective. I'm not surprised you don't understand that pimping magic is not good for Magic or for Magicians. I'd disagree with your view that "the field is still healthy". While there may be more performers, and a few of them earn top dollar, brick and mortar magic shops are closing more and more frequently, fewer Magicians are being paid salaries equivalent to what top performers made years ago, and fewer and fewer magicians know much more about their Art than what they got off the most recent video.

You get made fun of, Ross, because you don't have the guts or the intelligence to treat Magic with the respect that it deserves. You call it dorky to want to keep the secrets of magic away from the public who tune in to a television show.

Stick to clowning.

- entity

One big difference is that giving it for free on the TV is not the same as publishing.

I for one am old school to the point that I hold people like Sankey in the highest of contempt.

What scum

I totaly agree with Entity and Johnathan who state my opinion in a far nicer way than I care to.


J ack

I never had much trouble with being made fun of, but look at the number of cultural references to "take themselves far too seriously" magicians. And magicians often earn it.

And I am a magician - never could stand being a clown unless the customer demanded it. And I think those who have read my other posts know the degree of my respect for magic.

Is it absolutely required, "entity," that when you feel defensive you have to behave like a jerk? Ah, well ... stick to what you know.

Well, with all your national recognition and publications, you just overshadow Jay Sankey into insignificance.

Whoever you are.

Folks

IHMO magic does not need to (indecently) expose its methods to recruit new talent. We have Harry Potter and Neil Gaiman doing wonders for us. And more works soon to hit the theaters.

I don't see anything useful to be gained in getting ad-hominem.

You're right Ross... Your posts speak for themselves.

- entity

Ross,

I truly do not understand your post to me.

Perhaps you might explain it?


J ack

My, how the list of "The most ridiculous things I have ever read" gets ever larger.
I love the concept of: "It doesn't affect me, so therefore it should not affect you".
O.K. here is a deal. I take away what you hold dear, you take away what I hold dear. You can't understand it can you? You do not have the right to damage me, you have the ability. You choose to use it, That is what the "Yawn" meant isn't it?
Unfortunately, you lose all moral authority to decide what rights you really need. I think you might have a few more things than you need.

I swear if I hear another magician say exposure is O.K. I'm gonna crack up. Hey! I know! If we show some people how some magic tricks work thereby making magic better, then let's show everybody how everything is done.

If you believe magic is only acting, ACT I'm sure you'll be great on Broadway.

Leave my stuff alone.

Of course this is only my opinion, since it isn't yours it isn't relevant.