He was a viilian because he was a killer on the run from the police
No, the story says he killed himself
I am going to have to go with Villian in this one. He was a card cheat who published the book just for a few bucks. It had nothing to do with advancing an art or improving magic. Granted, we can sit around and read his book and praise it for all the things we can learn from it, but that is because we can learn from evil around us.
I would dispute that, and argue that the book was written to advance the art. I know Erdnase said his motivation for the book was that "he needs the money", but I would say that's just a joke, a way of setting his work apart from the "whining, mealymouthed pretensions of piety" present in other crooked gambling literature. My reasons for thinking this are thus. Firstly, if you're an accomplished card cheat and you're in need of some fast money, surely you'd just find a sucker and take theirs. Writing and self-publishing a book is a lengthy and expensive process, and definitely not a handy way to make a few dollars when you're short of cash. Secondly, Erdnase gives away a lot of his own moves, and carefully considered thoughts. If he didn't care about advancing the art, and just wanted page-filler to make money, why give away such good stuff?
You bring up good points, but in the end what you say is speculation. The book isn't a book of magic, it is a book on cheating with a few effects of magic scattered here and there (so he could have some filler material). It wasn't at all for furthering the art, we just happen to read it as such. And if you know anything about cheats, they tend to look for money in as many places as possible. And if that meant publishing a book to get a few extra bucks, then by all means, go for it. It was his idea of fast cash.
Erm, I don't want to be overly confrontational, but nothing that I said was speculation. I presented an argument, backed up with facts and evidence, and ending with a question. Unfortunately, the argument you present is based on faulty premises. First off, there aren't "a few effects of magic scattered here and there in the the book". If you discount the title page and other preamble, the book is almost exactly fifty percent "Card Table Artifice", and fifty percent "Legerdemain" in terms of quantity of pages. The other point is in regard to the psychology of cheats. Most, if not all, professional crooked gamblers that I know anything about have lived on a wildly inconsistent income throughout their career because they live in the moment, blowing their cash when they have it, trusting that the next sucker will be just round the corner. In other words, they don't tend to plan two years ahead to a time when they think they might be out of cash, and write a book as a way of insuring against that penury. That's no-one's idea of fast cash, apart from being a massively risky enterprise. In fact, it would seem probable that Erdnase lost money on his investment, given the halving in price within the first year of publication, and then the quick offloading of large quantities of copies.
I have already quoted exactly what the book said, that it was for money. That makes it fact, not speculation. Need I mention that Wesley James, a leading researcher of Erdnase, agrees. You are going off of, "Well, if you study the psychology..." That is speculation. Every now and then you will find someone with a bit of sense to write a book, and I have met people with poor money management skills who have tried this. So when you start citing your sources (as I have now two cited in my arguement, both supporting, we can continue this conversation)
OK. You seem to have misread what I said. You defend yourself against an accusation of speculation. That was what you addressed to me, I said you based your argument on faulty premises.
I didn't say that you need to study the psychology of cheats. I began a sentence with, "In regard to the psychology of cheats", as that was something already under discussion, and I was clarifying that it was to that point I was referring. I cite Erdnase himself in support (who was, I'm sure you'll agree, an even better Erdnase expert than "The Man Who Knows Erdnase"): "The average professional...knows little of the real value of money, and as a rule is generous, careless and improvident."
As evidence for Erdnase's use of ironic stylistic flourishes (of the "he needs the money" type), I refer you to, "If terrific denunciation of erstwhile assoiciates...are a criterion of ability, these purified prodigals must have been very dangerous companions at the card table."
Are there any other points on which you'd like me to cite sources? Also, my central point remains unchallenged, which is, in what way could writing a book be a method to make quick money? If you had a commission and advance from a publisher, then yes, maybe, but not when it's self-published.
In the end, I think this is just one of the topics that we are going to have to agree to disagree on.