|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
leechiswell Regular user England 108 Posts |
I also haven't read the e-book, but I read the review. I agree that is is overly harsh. If anything the reviewer could have at least contacted the author before posting the review, I mean he did take the time to contact Max Maven after all.
I was interested in the book before, and I still am. I think I might buy it now just because I can and I dislike the review. PS. Becky, I also think you deserve credit for your attitude! |
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
I do not claim neither the writing prowess nor expertise of Mr. Frame. In addition, I do not know Rebecca Harris and had not learned of this e-book until recently. While I do not possess the e-book, what piqued my interest was the fact that Tom Frame reviewed an e-book. (N.B. I see that it is also available physically)
When one makes an assertion, whether that assertion manifests in a peer reviewed academic journal or in this case a review, the assertion must be supported by substantive reasoning. Yet I am rather at a loss to actually find any cogent reasoning in this review that leads to his conclusion that "...this product shouldn’t have been produced." To whit: 1. Mr. Frame writes that "Miss Harris does an adequate job of teaching the material. The text contains a number of grammatical and typographical errors. These are merely annoying and they won’t hinder your ability to understand the methods." Implicit here is that Mr. Frame has a self-defined rubric against which to assess a work he reviews. This is of course a good thing as rubrics are necessary. The manuscript contains grammatical and typographical errors and one would assume that point one barely meets Mr. Frame's rubric for writing and editing. Nary a word is written about the quality of the product in terms of appearance and organization. So at point one, the harshness of the review and the unsubstantiated claim of its conclusion is without meaning. 2. Mr. Frame went to Max Maven for crediting sources. I would agree that crediting is crucial. However - and to be fair, Mr. Frame does write that "I have no reason to suspect that she was aware of this principle’s provenance. This situation seems to be a case of independent invention, albeit 48 years too late." Need I remind Mr. Frame that the extant magic literature is littered with cases of independent invention? Cardicians need to look no further than the Tilt/Depth Illusion controversy. I would argue that Mr. Frame's admitted need to consult a titan in the art - Max Maven - to track down the source, the rather obscure nature of the source itself in this case a United Kingdom periodical that, unless one is a collector, one would not have access to. Mr. Maven is quoted as saying "“I would imagine that the idea is much older, given that the basic principle goes back to about 1750, and the standardized mass-produced envelope shows up around 1850.” The principle in question is, in magic terms, relatively recent, but its genesis required the consultation of an expert. As such, does this merit a rather excoriating review my colleagues? 3. Mr. Frame writes that "[t]he author and her contributors use the Soothsayer principle to accomplish the following, familiar effects." Again, given the excoriating review written by Tom Frame that would make even Dario Fo blush, it seems to me at least that this is a case of familiarity breeds contempt. I hasten to add that I am in no way implying that Mr. Frame in anyway harbors an attitude of contempt toward Rebecca Harris. Yet the review's subtext seems to penalize Rebecca Harris and her contributors for teaching familiar effects. If indeed such is the case, then perhaps the extant literature needs to be re-reviewed - an Herculean task to be sure - because familiar effects are taught everywhere. I am left to wonder whether David Roth's exhaustive work on the coins across effect would have garnered such negative reaction. The well informed magician realizes that there is only a finite number of "things" one can do in magic, even though there are hundreds of thousands of effects. Plots are so plentiful that we have book compilations devoted to one plot! I am thinking of The Ambitious Card Omnibus, Mentzer's Card to Wallet treatise, the newly released Best of All Worlds, and I believe there is one devoted exclusively to Walton's card warp plot. The review of Rebecca's work would seem to imply to the reader that the aforementioned books would be unworthy of favorable review since they present approaches to familiar plots. I find the statement that Rebecca's Soothsayer's Envelope should NOT have been produced (paraphrase) to be without substantive reasoning as to WHY it should not have been. Tom Frame's reviews are valuable reading. His expertise is obvious, and usually he provides substantive arguments as to why a certain resource should or should not be purchased by the consumer. However, in this review, he makes an extremely excoriating statement that it should never have been produced. Yet, a close reading of Mr. Frame's own verbiage does not support his own claim. His final verdict of "Not Recommended" leaves the reader wondering why this is so. Rebecca, as many have already stated, your attitude and response to Mr. Frame reveals the true professional in you. You are to be applauded for such a graceful response. अहिंसा Vlad PS: The effect "Stigmata" received favorable reviews in the journals, yet, NONE of the reviews stated that the principle is actually found in Hugard's Magic Monthly!! |
|||||||||
Parson Smith Inner circle 1937 Posts |
I don't know Ms. Harris, but I also found the review to be a bit harsh in tone. But I say that without having read her work.
All of this brings to mind a greater problem. Almost all magicians are consumers of magical apparatus and information. In the past, information was usually supplied by magicians who knew what they were talking about.(I am not at all suggesting that this author does not know her subject.) Unfortunately, with the advances in ease of publishing, a whole batch of people write stuff that is completely unusable. A few years ago, I bought a piece from Lybrary. It was total and complete junk. I contacted the guy who sold it and he basically said, "Tough. That's the nature of magic." If I bought a book from Barnes & Nobles, started reading it and found that it was material that I had previously read, I would return it for a refund. This is not possible with ebooks. Consequently, "buyer beware" seems to be more important than before. I know of several sites that sell ebooks. It amazes me how many of these are just copies of cheap, useless information. But somebody, somewhere has your two dollars and you are just out of luck. There certainly are some exceptions to this rule and I would be amiss not to name Elliott Breesler. His method of doing business makes him above reproach. There are some famous(among magicians) people who put out many, many pages of junk. You could easily spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars buying self-published "stuff" and end up with little to show for your money. We live in a new age with new opportunities and new problems. Today, you will find some very well known people who are selling the Balducci effects(both card and levitation.) To me, this is just somebody else's scheme to try to get money without effort. I would cherish the opportunity to discuss the possibility for solutions to this consumer problem. But to me, for now, the prospects look slim. Parson
Here kitty, kitty,kitty.
+++a posse ad esse+++ |
|||||||||
ablanathanalba Loyal user Can't really boast with only 288 Posts |
Does anybody know if this is still available?
|
|||||||||
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
Have you PM'd Rebecca?
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ebooks, PDF's or Downloads » » Soothsayer's envelope (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |