From: joji@twics.co.jp
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: Skill vs. Showmanship
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:44:51 GMT
Organization: TWICS, Tokyo, Japan

>In <92255.154951HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu> HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>   If a magician can use a stooge to make an effect appear  MORE
>   ENTERTAININGand MORE MAGICAL, then by *all means* he/she should.
>   And without hesitation.
>
>   Lying to an audience is not immoral when you are playing the role of
>   an entertainer.  If you need to use some sork of gimmick to produce
>   an effect, and the impact of the effect would be lessened by the
>   audience suspecting such a device, than  LIE YOU SOCKS OFF.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

>Time for a repost.  Let the flames commence.

Ok, I'll bite.

>Date:    Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:26:10 GMT
>From:    dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
>Newsgroups: alt.magic
>Subject: accomplices ethical?
>
>It seems to me that there is something unethical about using plants
>(accomplices in the audience).  It's similar to using a camera trick on a
>televised magic show.
>
>Copperfield's trick of falling over the Niagara Falls could not have
>worked except through the narrow camera angle -- so I call it a camera
>trick.  So also (I suspect) were the tricks of the disappearing train and
>the disappearing airplane.  Now we have a plant helping in the "Flying"
>trick.

Ho hum.

>Is this the state of magic today?

You're a real card!  The 'state of magic.'  How rich.  Geez.  
What is the 'state of magic' supposed to be, pray tell?

How can people that discuss the modus operandi of effects in open
public consider themselves fit to pose doubt about the 'state of magic'?

>Consider some situations.
>1.   Magician shows you his hands empty.  Later you discover that they
>weren't, but you were fooled.  This is magic.

This is intriguing.  By a long shot, perhaps even 'magical'.  But for heaven's
sake, this is NOT magic.  What you are saying here is that if you are fooled,
it's magic.  It only looks like magic.

>2.   Magician shows you a box with a million dollars in bills, and
>invites bank manager to certify that this is real money.  Later you
>discover that alleged bank manager was an accomplice, and alleged money
>was flash paper.  This is not magic.

Is it any more closer to magic if the alleged bank manager was not bogus?
Is it any more closer to magic if the alleged bank manager was bogus and
the bills were real?  You haven't even described an effect!  What magic
are you trying to deny here?

>3.   Magician selects three volunteers from audience to think of a
>number.  Then he guesses what numbers they thought of.  If the volunteers
>are not accomplices, this is magic.

If the volunteers are not accomplices, and the performer really does
guess the numbers they thought of, INSTEAD of using a technique to deduce
these numbers, then YES, it is magic.  Its downright clarvoiyance!
What you have described is nothing more than an ad for yet another mental
effect.  If the volunteers are not accomplices, and the performer has a 
technique for deducing the numbers, it only LOOKs like magic.  Albeit
we are ignoring the factor of entertainment here.

>4.   Magician selects three volunteers from audience to think of a
>number.  You a suitably amazed, but later discover that the three alleged
>volunteers were all plants.  This is not magic.

Again, why are you so damn concerned about how the effect is done.
What does it look like for chrissakes?  Does it look he/she outright asked 
his/her employees their phone numbers?  No.  It looks like he/she picked 
three people from the audience, and guessed numbers that they were thinking 
of.  Sure its not magic, but it looks like magic.  You were suitably amazed
weren't you?

>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.
>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.com>
>also: dhesi@rahul.net

If you saw a magician doing Triumph, and the magi was pointing out how
topsy turvy the cards are using a routine display sequence, say, the 
Puerto Rican gambler's display sequence by Daryl, are you going to say 
that the audience is being cheated because they are compelled to accept 
'on faith' that the cards are mixed up, when in reality (you know better) 
they are not?  According to your hypothesis, the cards appearing
to be rightfully topsy turvy is cheating if you find out later that such
was not the fact.

Furthermore, what you are saying is that the 'state of magic' dictates we
all go out and use a stripper deck for the Triumph.

As for your 'state of magic' nonsense, we would not be in such a sorry
state, if that is what you are trying to purport in your reposting,
if there weren't pseudo magicians like yourself trying to expose the art 
like it was light chitchat that you could either take or leave.

At this time, I would like to do a repost of my own.

|The fact is, that unless you have a high appreciation for the art, a lot of 
|his effects will simply disappoint you.  These are the kind of secrets that 
|you'll wish you never asked.  They are good effects.  But to get the 
|audience reaction that David gets, you need to be able to deliver a 
|presentation as good as his.  And that is hard because his presentations 
|personalize his effects.  Don't go out and do something that magicians
|like David Copperfield or Doug Henning have popularized.  People that have
|seen these performers on TV will always compare your 'execution' to their
|'presentation'.

I don't think anyone said his effects weren't good.  But I do think that some
are disappointed, i.e., feel cheated, because he allegedly uses stooges.
I can understand it if you are a purist, (you know what a purist is in this
sense don't you?).  But even a purist wouldn't condemn or publicly talk about
the modus operandi of an effect he considered to be non-purist.  He simply
would not choose to do it, or maybe figure out a way to do it by sleight of 
hand, i.e., without the stooge, the trick photography, etc., etc.

Flame away people.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Joji Matsuo      | From the country where black art is used to control|
|Fujisawa, Japan  | pornography.                                       |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. I came back to this newsgroup after two fellow members asked me to
stay.  Thanks to those members and sorry to those whom are offended by
my presence.  Tough luck folks, I'm a magician and proud of it.
Newsgroups: alt.magic