The lay audience seldom knows who published what. When is the last time you saw a layperson who could tell you who Walter Gibson was? If they are more than 50 years old, chances are that they read some of his material -- not necessarily his magic publications, but perhaps one of his other books. He was a very prolific author.

How many laypeople do you think can tell you who Professor Hoffmann was?

What about Tarbell?

You are playing in an imaginary forest.

Bill your making my point.

Danny and Bill, you are both 100% correct. I think, however, we have our lines crossed.

the register is for the purpose of magicians. that way when one magician publishes it another can contest its origination and have proof; it's not for lay people. it's to keep your world in check. too many of you seem to be angry because so snd so published this or that. this is just a way to show that so and so didn't come up with it. that's all.

Danny, I'm with you. I don't care what the world thinks of my stuff 100 years from now; not even 30 years from now.

So what your saying C. Loubard, Dannydoyle and Bill Palmer is that the books that John Scarne published did not make him known to the lay audience and magicians and were not part of his promotion?

The books that John Scarne wrote did not make him an authority on gambling and card sharp techniques? And did not help him get jobs like being the technical advisor to movies like the "Sting"? Or on television shows in the early days with Jack Parr?

And those Castle films that John Scarne did another form of publishing - that played in theaters that exposed card sharp methods - they did not help John Scarne become an authority at all?

Sorry I don’t agree. In my opinion publishing is a very important part of modern day promotion and advertising.

But that is just my opinion.

Bish I am saying this and only this. That in your example no it was not his public publications that got him the work. IT WAS HIS WORK AND ABILITY. Read that again for it is an important concept. He did not get anything simply because he has published.

I am not spacifically talking about anyone just a general attitude. To publish just so people know who and what you are in the future does not help magic in general. To publish as an attempt to keep things chronicled for the future does help. There IS a difference.

I am also telling you that 9.9 out of 10 people do not know Scarne today and probably not in his day. I count cards in casinos and guess what? Hardly anyone who gambles knows him either. So known to the lay audience? Hardly.

Sorry Danny the published work of John Scarne in my opinion was part of the promo package of John Scarne. This included the books he wrote, the magazine articles he wrote, the TV appearances and his movie work.

In my opinion people do look at the promo and often see the promo before they meet the entertainer and see the skill and ability of the performer.

It was written in his book Scarne on cards that he got a grand for a gig back in the about the 50's and the 60's. It must be remembered that John Scarne was never a vaudeville "star" he performed a card act in vaudeville and later did an act for privet parties that was using card effects, the egg bag and the cups and balls with baby chicks and the eyeless vision.

In my opinion it was his published works that promoted him to being the authority on gambling and later launched his game corporation. And helped him get the money he charged for a job and helped him get the jobs.

But that is only my opinion

Yes Danny there is a difference. Some publish to pass on what they learned or invented. In my opinion that was what Paul LePaul did when he wrote the card magic of LePaul.

But others publish as part of their promotion and advertising. Another person that wrote books as part of a promotion was Mickey McDoogle the card detective. He was one of John Scarne’s competitors.

Sorry again Danny I have no idea how you pull numbers out of the air like 9.9 and how people remember John Scarne in some casino that you might happen to be in. To prove some kind of an argument. That is very weak. My point is that John Scarne was known in his day because he promoted himself and booked and got the money he charged because he used as many tools that he could get his hands on to promote himself. This included his published works such as books, newspaper articles, TV appearances, movie work etc.

All this promotion helped him get the money he charged for a lecture or a show.

If he is remembered today is a moot point. But he is remembered today by a lot of magicians and people in the gaming industry. I know this because I have contacts in the gaming industry and magic.

Would he be remembered at all today had he not published so many books and things on gambling and magic?

I don't know.

But he sure used his promotion skills to get the money in his day.

Just my opinion.

Bish,I didn't say that at all.

I do agree with Danny, his ability got him the work, and wasn't "solely" because of his publishing.

Now, the fact he was published gave him credibility and opened doors. once those doors were opened, he had to prove himself with his ability.

Bish, if you come into my restraunt and hand me promotional material that tells me your published, you've performed at the castle, you come from a lineage of magicians, etcetera, I am going to give you the opportunity to audition before someone who doesn't come in with said credentials. This doesn't mean he's any less skilled than you, in fact, he may be better, but it was your credentials that got you the opportunity. Now, your skill and ability better be good during the audition or you're not getting the gig.

Yes C. Loubard - that is my opinion to.

I could write story after story about how publishing and promotion open the doors to opportunities to get work.

Bish I could share stories about faux experts who got gigs and kept them but didn't have the ability they preached and or published about. of course, it is not in the magic field and their lack of ability is easily hidden by the position they're in... talk about a con, hehe!

So your saying naturally that publishing makes an expert? Hardly.

Getting and keeping gigs are 2 different monsters.

And as I said my ONLY point, and Scarne is not involved in it anyhow he is a straw man Glenn concocted, is that to publish only to get your name out there and not to keep things chronicled not only clutters the literature, but really does help people to expose. It IS part of the problem.

Bill is right, this is playing in an imaginary forest.

Yes I totally agree!

Posted: Oct 14, 2007 2:37pm
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
So your saying naturally that publishing makes an expert? Hardly.


No Danny what I am saying is that publishing can make some performers "look" like an expert in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of his clients. Looking like an expert can help get a booking and lead to better bookings.

And it can make some performers "look" like an authority on the subject that they publish on. If they are judged as an authority that is just the personal opinion of the person reading the text or viewing the video or promo.

But that is just my opinion.
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
Getting and keeping gigs are 2 different monsters.


Well that is an opinion - my opinion is getting the gig and doing the gig requires several different sets of skills.
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
And as I said my ONLY point, and Scarne is not involved in it anyhow


Yes he is in my opinion. He was a magician. He did publish. And he had his own reasons and his own personal agenda of why he published. And I gave my opinion of why and how I relate it to this topic.

To say that magicians that publish is part of the problem - in my opinion is not a realistic look at the problem. Ethics is also not a realistic look at the problem. Magicians have published in the past. They publish today and they do it for many reasons.
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
And as I said my ONLY point, and Scarne is not involved in it anyhow he is a straw man Glenn concocted, is that to publish only to get your name out there and not to keep things chronicled not only clutters the literature,


Perhaps if magicians would study a little more they would not have such a hard time confusing promotion with history.
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
but really does help people to expose. It IS part of the problem.


What people do with a product after it leaves the hands of the producer or publisher is anyone’s guess. This in my opinion is like blaming a gun manufacture for the problem of unlicensed guns. Talk about a straw man argument?
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
Bill is right, this is playing in an imaginary forest.


Thanks for that opinion but I don't think that this kind of dig is worth responding to.

Posted: Oct 14, 2007 3:11pm
Quote:


On 2007-10-14 13:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
So your saying naturally that publishing makes an expert? Hardly.


As much as I don't enjoy anyone putting words into my mouth. I would like to add a few more thoughts to this publishing thing. One of the people that I admire in magic is Dai Vernon. In the early days when he published one of his early manuscripts the 20 dollar manuscript. He had the help of Faucett Ross to write up the ideas. Then they had a secretary type it up and it was sold through the Sphinx Magazine.

20 dollars was a lot of money in those days. But the interesting thing at the time was Dai Vernon and the reputation that he had as a magician. So he was able to charge that price for his printed manuscript.

The first time I read this story it was in the book Early Vernon published by Magic Inc.

In my opinion Dai Vernon is one of many magicians that are remembered today in magic - partly by his "Published works". In my opinion it is partly because he published in magazines like the Sphinx, the Phoenix, in Tarbell there are a few Vernon ideas, plus the Vernon touch in Genii column, the stars of magic, and the Vernon books.

Outside of magic in the lay audience world I don't think that many lay people would know who Dai Vernon was. But in my opinion he is remembered in magic partly because of his published works. The same as John Scarne in magic and in some remote different circles.

If I were asked - does publishing make you an expert?

Being a true expert might be a judgment call and an opinion of whoever is reading the text, or promo or watching the performance live or on film or video.

But in my opinion people that do publish seem to be remembered in certain circles and for different reasons.

Just my opinion.

How many lay people would be able to pick him out of a lineup?

Another moot point?

My point in bringing up Dai Vernon and the story of the 20 dollar manuscript was to give my opinion that Dai Vernon had the reputation in magic to be able to "sell" the manuscript for the very high price of the day 20 dollars.

There are some that may feel that 20 dollars is not a big deal but it must be remembered - this was the time of the great depression. Getting 20 dollars of a manuscript was quite an amazing thing in itself in those days.

Dai Vernon books still sell today.

I guess a few magicians have heard of him. I guess there are magicians that publish for different reasons and some of them will be remembered partly because they published stuff.

Just my opinion.

Now we are back to the imaginary forest. It is odd you pick me to make this point too as I am saying it does not matter in one way or the other to what I had said.

Vernon sold so many of those by the way he had to cut sillouettes right? Can we stop with the straw man debates as they get old. Maybe it is the point you are trying to make, and wonderfull you have made it. I have no idea why, but you have.

Here we are again - It is my opinion that this is not worth responding to.

If you are going to talk about Dai Vernon I suggest you read up on Dai Vernon - This story of the 20 dollar manuscript was told in the 4th book of the Vernon Chronicles.

From my understanding he printed an amount and sold them for 20 dollars. Then he did a five trick manuscript for 3 dollars. Later they were copied and the routines got around. After they got around the value was less in dollars and they later became part of the book called Early Vernon.

I think both manuscripts and some more stuff like the Vernon poker deal is what they used for the book Early Vernon. In the Vernon Chronicles he talked about how he did not like writing the stuff up himself and had others write it up for him.

Yes he cut silhouettes and did shows for Francis Rockefeller King. He did a lot of things to make money and had a family to support.

What is your point Danny? That Dai Vernon wasn't as famous as a magician like Howard Thurston? Most of the magicians of that day are not remembered by the lay audience with the exception of Houdini.

Oh yeah - Houdini promoted himself and part of his promotion was publishing books to in my opinion - and there is a lot of great stuff about the relationship John Scarne had with Houdini in the book The Odds against me - by John Scarne that is in many public libraries, along with a lot of John Scarne's other published books.

Just my opinion.

Well you end each point with, JUST MY OPINION, yet you let nobody else have theirs.

The Vernon supports get defensive when anyone makes any comment about him. Me, I’ve gone back and forth in my admiration for him. As a young man, he was magic. In the seventies he was the professors and you looked at him like a demigod. Then when I saw Tony Slydini on Cavett, I changed my mind. He was someone that is superior I thought. Now that I’ve met Vernon and seen his body of work, I can look at him both ways. Sure everything that is said about him may be true, but whose perfect.

Vernon was very complex. I don’t think any of us really know the man. This includes the ones that love him and those that don’t. I suppose this can be said of most people, but Vernon it was especially so. He had a Bohemian look on life. He lived in the moment and loved his craft. Maybe he didn’t perform as often as he should have, but magic was still a craft to him none the less.

How does me saying my opinion stop you or anyone in having an opinion?

I am sorry but I do not tilt at windmills or live or play in some forest. Your entitled to your opinion Danny - but then again SO AM I!

Then stop sniping at me personally.

Pick another to address your arguement to please.

That is very funny Danny. How in by my having an opinion on the subject of ethics in magic. And my opinion on people that invent and publish magic are not to blame for exposure problems? And in my opinion should not be blamed like some kind of a witch hunt?

Then having the opinion that different magicians publish for different reasons - some to advance the art - some to make money - and some to promote and become an authority on the subject matter? Or use it to promote their family business?

How is that sniping you personally?

Gee - if one reads this one could take the opinion of others trying to snipe me. But that might be just an opinion as well.

By the way I don't argue magic.