From: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 11:33:32 GMT

Paul Haban has said:

>also used to believe that the use of gimicks indicated some lack of
>talent.  After a few years of practice and studying performance, I dont
>think anything could be farther from accurate.

My real introduction to magic (other than as an observer and interested kid)
was through things like "scotch and soda," "the invisible" and "Zvengali"
decks, the "chop cup," etc.  I was taught, as it were, to use such things to
make the manipulation easy so I could concentrate on performing the effects.
I'm not wonderful at either performing or manipulation since it is just a
hobby at this point, but I never felt gaffs of this nature were indicative of
lack of talent IF the magician did something interesting with them.  That is,
if the magician demonstrated some creativity in applying them rather than just
doing the routines that came with them.

>                                                I mean lets follow the
>original logic 
>  -accomplices are unethical
>  -gimicks are unethical

Even if I accept these -- and I do not do so categorically -- it is not so
obvious and clear to me that it

>follows
>  -slight of hand should be in the same category

since, while there is deception, it is a deception that the audience at least
expects to be a part of the show and may admire the magician for being able to
manage.

>which leaves...
>   Real Magic...time to move the discussion to alt.magick or pagan or
>whatever...

We certainly seem to get posts about this here occasionally anyway! :-)

>Seriously... we are creating the illusion that we can do something that
>others cannot... we are lying to your audience... we are decieving
>them...Magicians are just benevolent liars...

I have a hard time agreeing with "lying" and "liars."  If I do not claim I am
doing "real" magic and work within the reality that people know manipulation
(and even gimmicks) are employed (i.e., "there's a trick to it"), I do not feel
I am "lying" to anyone.  As to "deceiving" them...yes; however, in the context
of entertainment, people willingly (if your are a decent performer) suspend
that disbelief.  (And if you are a very good performer, may even be "fooled"
when they do not suspend it all.)

>                                              I cannot agree that
>gimicks, audience plants, elaborate off stage apparatus, or anything
>else you come up with is somehow unethical...

As I hope I've made clear, I don't categorically reject this at all.  In fact,
I find the word "unethical" inappropriate, actually.  If the misdirection,
manipulation,and gimmickry were used totally behind the scenes, not as part of
entertainment but as part of deliberate deception, then I could feel the word
"unethical" could be applied.  Folks who use magic in order to convince people
some really mystical experience is occurring in order to reap some financial
gain or other reward from the audience strike me as fradulent.  If they do it
under the guise of entertainment, that's one thing; if under the guise of being
a "blessed" person of some sort, that's fraud.

>                                              we create
>illusion...personally I like to do close up, so my off stage is non
>existent... but if you can pull it off, do it... there are no rules...
>we lie through illusion...

But it's what we "lie" about that, I believe, makes the difference.


Rahul Dhesi has said:

	[some example situations deleted]

>What is the difference between magic and cheating?  It is this.
>Sometimes you are asked to take something on faith without having the
>chance of confirming it yourself, or seeing some other member of the
>audience confirm it.  If what you were asked to accept on faith turns out
>to be untrue, you were cheated and it was not magic.

I think the examples were a stronger presentation of this idea than the state-
ment made above.  What I think the examples show that the statement is vague
about is just what you are asked to accept "on faith."  If a large part of
what you are asked to accept is that people involved in the effect are NOT
part of the magician's company and that they are serving as surrogates where
the whole audience could not, then they should be legit in most cases.  If
you are not only being "deceived" by the gimmickry, but also by the impression
that some fair examination of or participation in the effect has occurred, I
think that's "cheating."


Brian Harvey has said:

>Pfui.  Every time a magician pulls out a deck of cards, does the audience
>get to examine each card individually, to make sure it isn't (say) a
>Svengali deck?  No, they take it on faith, especially the ones who've
>never heard of a Svengali deck.

Nope...but if you claim it is a normal deck of cards or have plants certify
that it "seems" to them to be one, then it's, at least, disappointing since
the magician is "stacking the deck" (there I go again :-)) very heavily in
favor of his/her self.  It would depend on just how original or entertaining
the actual effect is, I believe.

>Personally, I think this inspector-from-the-audience business is a drag
>even if they *aren't* plants.  It slows everything down and it rubs my
>nose in the fact that the magician is trying to prove himself smarter than
>I rather than trying to entertain me.

I very much agree with this.  I have mentioned before in this newsgroup that
I am not much of a fan of boxes and cabinets and curtains, in general.

>P.S.  "Ethical" and "unethical" are strong words.  "Unethical" is representing
>yourself as able to contact someone's dead relatives and getting the someone
>to give you a lot of money.  I might even allow the use of "unethical" to
>describe the practice of seriously embarrassing someone in the audience in
>order to amuse the rest of the audience.  But using plants is, at worst,
>unaesthetic, imho.

I agree.

Speaking only for myself, of course, I am...
Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan)
                (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane  RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ  08854)
                (908-699-3910 (w)   609-452-9054 (h))