The depth and value of a secret should be directly related to the difficulty and intensity of the search.

Most any “secrets” that Jim Steinmeyer reveals can be found detailed in the books two to the left, or two to the right on the same shelf his book was found upon. Books are the safest place to hide secrets. Someone has to be willing to search them out and read through the book to discover them.


Tony Iacoviello

What does should presume?

"Should" presumes in a near perfect world that would be the case. Alas our media frenzied world is far from that.

Near perfect for who, and to what end?

Why would someone not in this craft have any need to know how tricks are done or performed? IE what benefit is there to giving the irresponsible the mechanics of guile? Oh yes, you can offer it as a sort of pornography - naughty naughty you really don't want to know this secret but if you stay tuned after this break we will show you how...

:(

Jonathan

The same can be said of any profession or area of knowledge. Should all books that teach anything that can be part of a profession be removed and restricted?

Many professions have general release books on their topic and specialty books that have more limited and targeted release (usually through an organization or private publisher rather than a general book seller).

Let me ask you, how does one enter into the craft?

The real secrets of performance are given away each time we perform, our presentation and stagecraft. The "how" we do something is the smallest part of the art.

It seems to me, the only way to keep our secrets safe from prying eyes would be to not publish, including trade publications, and never perform outside our own bedrooms, but be sure to keep the curtains drawn, you don't want to give anyone a peek...


Tony

Describing our craft in the same way as ANY other (except perhaps "intelligence") seems inappropriate. The policeman is not there to fool you with his badge and the lawyer is not expecting to win a case in court by driving a bigger car to the courthouse than his opposition. The brain surgeon does not expect to trick a stroke victim into wellness and the waiter does not expect the size of his tip to depend upon revealing that the total on the bill was written in on a postit under your desert plate. What we do is unique - we bring the audience into the show by leading them into a situation where things which only happen in stories can happen right in front of them. Whit described a magician as a person standing on our side of a doorway with their foot jammed into the door to pry it open a little and their hand firmly on the door so only a little of what's on the other side can be seen occasionally.

IMHO those with a bent toward deception or entertaining will find their way just fine. Just because some have set up an open market where anyone can walk into a shop and pick up whatever their wallet can carry does not imply such is congruent to the study of magic or even the well being of the craft itself beyond its disgrace and reduction into a commodities market - which would be IMHO the antithesis of what folks are supposed to be bringing audiences (something special and wondrous).

Let's also kindly quit hiding behind "the secrets of performance" as that's part of the open theater and most here have not gotten director's notes or had a role in a play. Playing the part of a wizard is not so easy as dressing up and performing an expensive/contrived version of Carrot Top's act or littering the stage with boxes while one's wife pretends to enjoy picking up the litter or being mutilated. Try either at home and watch the wife's reaction

In summary -
0) Those who embrace guile as a means to please others will find ways to start exploring magic on their own
1) Ours is not like other fields/professions
2) let's presume that those who wish to perform will get their grounding in theater arts at the theater. It really makes us look odd to cite Sankey or Swiss for things taught by Shakespeare and Stanislavsky.

BTW most I've met from that culture do like magicians - but see our behavior as pretentious and ill informed of the basic skills one needs in both playwriting and acting. There's a book on Broadway flops that describes "Merlin" nicely - and kindly. Yeah, they see us as the autistic kids with nice toys - but still like us and wish us well and even willing to help.

Okay - we've gotten rid of half the cobwebs here - now how about studying the thing we pretend to portray in performance - you know - magic? There's more to conjuring than a fetish for expensive props - and some of those props are supposed to help you accomplish something meaningful. Got meaning? Got intent? Got will? Care to share some of that with an audience? Is that wand loaded?

WHOA! Jonathan, WHOA!

I'm used to cryptic, almost Delphic utterances from you. But that post was as clear as a spring rain. Thanks.

"Autistic kids with nice toys" is a phrase that should be in Tarbell.

Thanks - I was having a blue pill moment there - you can see some red pill stuff on the other thread about "what is magic" link

I think you misunderstood my reference to books and other professions/specialized knowledge. Many professions express concerns over material published and available to the general public concerning their specialized knowledge.

Law enforcement books that go into detail on interrogation techniques, forensics, and a myriad of other topics concern: Where a survey or introduction may create interest and lead a person into a field, too detailed a source can lead to misuse of the information. The same holds true for psychology, chemistry, medicine, and many, many fields.

In fact, most specialized fields have concern. The reasons why may differ, but the concerns exist as do ours.

I just wanted to make that clarification so that you and anyone else reading this understands what was meant.

Tony Iacoviello

So, for instance, if you shoot a gun at someone, but miss and the bullet strikes a tin can that was on the ground, and it kicks up and lands in a trash can, why waste court time charing you with attempted murder... or, really any "attempt" crime. If your armed robbery gets thwarted, no harm no foul. Interesting.


"Judgment" is one of our highest attributes as human beings. Stigmatized though the word seems to be becoming, I think I'll keep using mine.




I'm not sure where your definitions separating ethics from morals come from. Various definitions of "ethics" -

"A system of moral principles."
"Moral principles, as of an individual."
"That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions."
-Random House Unabridged.

"A theory or system of moral values."
"The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy."
-American Heritage.

"The science of morals."
-Online Etymology Dictionary.

"The philosophical study of moral values and rules."
-WordNet 3.0 (Princeton University)



The word "ethos" from which ethics is derived, implicates morals/morality/etc. in its etymology.

I think with respect to the "ethics of magic," the definition most people mean is most like:

"The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession."
(also American Heritage)

Without sure consequences there is pretty much just tepid air - or is that fetid?

Dank, perhaps, but I doubt fetid...

Maybe those who claim to know right from wrong and choose right also choose to have a few tic-tacs when around you.?

Fallacious claims laid bare, for they choose wrongly.

If the last two men on earth are in a forest, and nobody is there to hear or dish out consequences when one of them murders the other, there is still a wrong.

Murder is the name of a crime. One is not a murderer until convicted.

Anyway, what does the hypothetical have to do with the last assertion?

That's incorrect. One whose actions and intentions meet the definition of murder is a murderer, whether he's convicted or not.

Conversely, being wrongly convicted of murder doesn't make one a murderer.

Citation?

Well, both American Heritage and Random House dictionaries say a murderer is "one who commits murder," not "one who is convicted of committing murder."

Okay... and when you look a little deeper and find words like 'lawful' in the definitions... where do you wind up?