I'm aware that he has at least 5 titles in print on the theory of magic.

I have Ortiz's Strong Magic which is great. How do the Burger books differ and what would they offer that Ortiz's book doesn't on the theory of presentation?

Thanks

I don't have the books, but taking a look at the performing styles of these artists tells me that each of them has a some what different view on the philosophy of magic.

Eugene's style is more bizzare, and kind of on the dark side if i may put it that way. His theory on presentation most likely is on telling a story during the routine.

Just so you know Eugene is rated as one of the top close-up magicians of all time

By whom, lyndon? I'm not disputing you, and agree that Eugene is top-notch. I am just fascinated by these sorts of characterizations that I see in promo literature and always wonder who bestowed the honor.

I want to be named Supreme Close-up Magician of the Universe in All Dimensions and Times, but have not found an organization which claims proper jurisdiction-- other than a couple of on-line churches.

:nose:

Jd maybe you just have to get a liitle older and grow a large white beard to be classed amonst the likes Of Mr. Burger sir.

Actually, Eugene and I are about the same age. Guess I'll have to settle for Supreme Clean Shaven Close-up Magician of the Universe in All Dimensions and Times.

Thanks for your PM. I have figured out a way to get the title: I will found my own club and will be the only member. My promo material will proclaim: "Voted Best All-Round Magician of the Millenium." I mean, if these sorts of elections are good enough for Saddam Hussein (and George Bush, come to think of it!), it's got to be good enough for me.

Go ahead Jd and make me some kind of important person in this club. kinda like colin powell or something

To: jdclarkson

John,

Boy!! What set you off regarding Eugene? (grin) I read as many of your posts as I see in my surfing the Magic Café site and I don't recall any other responses by you quite so ascerbic.

Are you suggesting that a magician cannot be viewed as one of the top close-up magicians of all times unless he has won a major competition such such as FISM? Or unless he is a "knuckle-buster"? Or what?

I'm confused as to the basis for your mild rebuke to lyndonwebb.

You later agree that Eugene "is top-notch"--so what's left for Eugene to "achieve" before you might be willing to accede that Eugene is top-rated by magicians? If a person is "top notch", can he become "more top notch"? (This kinda reminds me of the definition of "pregnant" or a "virgin"--either you are or you are not.)

In my reading of many of your posts, I have come to value your opinion and I'm certain that you also value your opinion. If you don't feel that your opinion (that Eugene is top notch) is valuable or valid, to which magicians must we now turn for such an opinion to be relevant and valuable?

I respectfully suggest that Eugene's primary "jury" (his many many lay audiences) have spoken in a voice possibly more important that that of the magic community.

IMHO (and for what it's worth since I am NOT a top notch magician), Eugene throughly entertains his audience and leaves them well satisfied for having paid their money and experienced his performance. There is an emotional bond between Eugene and his audience that mere "knuckle-busters" sometimes forget and many times fail to achieve.

I have 1st edition copies of Eugene's "Secrets and Mysteries for the Close-up Entertainer" and "Intimate Power". These have been well read and are two of my most valuable reference works. Why? For the magic tricks involved? No!! Rather, for the valuable insight into presentation and what makes an effect important in the eyes of the audience.

Look at the "mileage" that Eugene is able to achieve with dumb magic tricks. (Your mileage may vary) In Eugene's hands, a magic trick transforms into a memorable effect. I respectfully suggest that that is the mark of a true master.

Eugene repeatedly describes what it is it that the performer MUST do to cause the audience to make the emotional commitment towards the performer and his effect--and to leave the audience well satisfied at the end of the performance?

I should also point out that I own many of Eugene's many performance books and pamphlets and I find them all invaluable in their primary thesis: Presentation, presentation, presentation!!

Eugene can cause an emotional bond between his audience and himself using a ham sandwich. To me, that is the mark of a true magician/performer.

John, sorry, for the long post just to say I agree with you (that Eugene "is top notch").

I'm just not certain exactly what the rest of your point(s) was/were. And, what criteria you insist upon before a magician you rate as top notch can be legitimately viewed by others as top notch--And shouldn't we also distinguish between lay audience evaluation and peer magicians' evaluation?

Best regards (and respectfully submitted),

Turk

Turk,

Your response makes me wonder if perhaps I've done a poor job of expressing myself. My posts have nothing to do with Eugene, whom I respect immensely! I like him, I like his work, I think he is, as I said quite clearly, top-notch. I wish I were as good as he... I admire his abilities and presentation. Let's see.... can I make it clearer?

My posts were not a rebuke. I intended them to be a mildly humorous poke at two things:
(1) the hyperbole used in descriptions; (2) my own ego.

The original post proclaimed: "Eugene is rated as one of the top close-up magicians of all time" which raises the question, "rated by whom?" Moreover, phrases like "of all time" make me smile. I worry about hyperbole because, not only is it often meaningless, but also because it dilutes sincere compliments. For instance, we now commonly say, "I just LOVE it." My goodness. What are we supposed to say when we truly feel love ("I really, really, REALLY love you-- and I really mean it this time.")? Driving down the Strip in Las Vegas, you will see bulletin boards for various magicians: Voted Best of the Year; Magicians of the Century; Magician of the Year. All this excess has the opposite effect: it makes honest descriptions unbelievable.

Please don't overlook point (2). I was ridiculing myself (and the concept of hyperbolic description), not anyone or anything else. I regret it wasn't clearer. I intended to poke fun at my own ego, ambitions, and mild delusions of grandeur. Clearly, at least with respect to one reader, I could have done a better job of it.



OK, but you'll have to pay your dues. And, more importantly, if there is ever a tied vote, especially with respect to conferring titles of nobility, my vote will count double.

John,

Thanks for clearing up my mis-understanding of your comment. As I said in my post, I have read many of your posts and could not understand your comments; that post in question just seemed so atypical and out of character of what I had come to expect from you and your posts. Hence, my post to try to get clarification. I'm glad that I mis-read your comments and your intentions.

Perhaps, it was the late hour, perhaps..a Senior Moment.

Thanks again for the explanation.

Respectfully,

Turk

Turk,

Late hour or Senior Moment? I can identify partially with that. However, in my case, the categories are becoming progressively mutually exclusive: the more Senior Moments I experience, the fewer late hours I have.

Eugine berger...a good performer, I don't think he is on the dark side, or i don't think he seems to be on the dark side. I have one of his videos...he has a deep voice, but its from smoking.

Returning to the original question, there are a lot more than five books on magic theory.
Try Al Schneiders site for a free Lesson, lots of other sites which I don`t think I`m allowed to name give them to.
Eddie