Magical Myth Busters: Volume 2

Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Intro

The first in the series had some success. Here’s volume two in which I take a huge swing at some memes, clichés, and misconceptions that are like a rash on my thighs. Some of these myths aren’t necessarily magical, but you see them a lot in the artistic community and need to be put down. There are some things a man just has to do.


Myth #1: Closing/deleting threads is violating freedom of speech.

Some of you probably already know how badly this one gets under my skin. This is the default argument of stupid people, and children who don’t want to admit that they broke the rules. Freedom of speech gets thrown around like beer at a college house party. There’s just one problem. According to the United States Constitution (which is what people are inevitably referring to), the first amendment states this:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”

Last time I checked, the staff of magic forums are not Congressmen. Especially in cases like my fellow moderator Brendon Selley. Kind of hard to hold a seat in government in a country you don’t live in. Also, forum rules are not legislation. Shocking, I know.

In a privately owned space, actual or virtual, the owners dictate what is and is not acceptable under their roof. Some people don’t allow guests to swear in their house. They’re allowed to do that. I don’t allow guests to speak ill of Adam West, Bruce Campbell, or William Shatner in my house. I’m allowed to do this.

People who talk about freedom of speech a lot also inevitably compare that which they don’t like to nazis/Hitler, or communists/Stalin. Let me ask you something. Do you think Henry Kissinger would close negotiations by saying that anyone who didn’t agree with the treaties he proposed was a nazi? No, because that would be stupid.

The nazi/commie analogy is used almost exclusively by people who were kicked off the debate team for not making any sense. Why? Because you’re trying to compare the enforcement of forum rules with men who commissioned the totalitarian oppression of entire countries and engaged in acts of torture, genocide, and the liberal application of force in place of actual diplomacy. Calling someone a fascist does not work unless they actually are a fascist, which includes but is not limited to a belief in corporatism, nationalism, and militarism.

If after reading this you still think it’s okay to call people you don’t like fascists or commies, then you’re probably also the type whose vocabulary is so weak, your only other rhetorical weapon is gay jokes.

Remember when someone says magic is too political don’t prove them right by making it literal.


Myth #2: The definition of exposure is subjective.

No it isn’t.

The definition of exposure is a tricky business, and everyone seems to want to keep the definition as flexible as possible, resulting in some rather embarrassing moments for the magic community in general.

Celebracadabra in particular has become a hot button issue now that the Chicken Littles of magic have figured out that no one’s listening anymore once they start screaming about YouTube. People are saying magic is exposed on the show even though they never actually watched it. And then when they learn about the free trick Brad Christian teaches, all bets are off. The howling and flinging of excrement begins with a fervor and vitriol seldom seen outside of a British soccer game.

Accusations of exposure are thrown at everyone and everything that displeases a magician. Criss Angel, Adam Sandler (Click), Ben Stiller (Night at the Museum), and really just about anything else that threatens a magician’s tiny microcosm of elitism in which they don’t want to share their table with anybody else. It’s obscene.

Rick Maue in his tome of wisdom and effects The Book of Haunted Magick said that exposure is “the senseless and destructive revelation of secrets with no positive magical intent.” If you can find anything about that definition you don’t like, keep in mind that you’re wrong. I’m not trying to be cute; I’m dead serious.

The reason magicians refuse to agree upon a standard definition of exposure like that is because they’re still hung up on their vendettas. Exposure is one of the worst accusations to level at another magician. Performers in general love to use it to attack those they don’t like, and in order to do that they need to keep the definition vague.

Unfortunately, this just creates more divisiveness among the community and distracts us from dealing with real problems in a proactive manner. Internet petitions to YouTube fail every time, but every few months we get someone wasting everyone’s time by trying to resurrect the idea. FOX is going to continue airing the Masked Magician specials every few years, regardless of what a bunch of high school and college students have to say. And there’s always going to be some punk in your school who buys DVDs just to show everybody the methods in a shallow bid for attention and social status.

How about instead of sounding the klaxon every time one of these events comes up, you just practice more? I know what you’re thinking. “Alex! If people know how to do a pass, how can practicing it ever help?” I never said to practice your sleights. And if you think of asking, “What else is there?” keep in mind that you will be personally responsible for me once again attempting suicide with cheese fries and vodka.


Myth #3: Rules about props and style are absolute.

Hot on the heels of the last myth, here’s another one that bugs me that's on the opposite end of the spectrum. The idea here is that every other magician seems to think his rules for props are gospel for everyone else, confusing those who prefer to let people use their own personal styles and infuriating those who take the same absolutist attitude but for a different reason.

Say for example one magician prefers to only use props he bought from Office Depot. If he has the sort of character that makes that sort of thing work, who would argue with him? The problem comes when he starts insisting his way is the only way.

We see this all the time. We see whimsical magicians who abhor bizarre magic and spirit theater, impromptu-styled magicians who want custom decks banished from this earthly plane, and bizarrists who take their characters way too seriously and insist that everyone else should as well.

People who subscribe to these mindsets often namedrop as part of their arguments. The problem with namedropping is that it’s easily countered with more of the same. Jay Sankey says never to use suspicious-looking props, but Mark Edward (resident medium at the Magic Castle for those not in the know) says that a small collection of props that have a healthy amount of character to them can greatly enhance some shows by adding an air of verisimilitude to the story.

So basically, we’re left with a group of voices all conflicting and vying for our attention. Where do you go?

You experiment. You listen to everyone. You test things out with real audiences. And you find advice from people who are willing to take the time to understand your character.

Not all magic is suited for everyone. The simple truth is that it all comes down to personality. Some have the persona it takes to use custom decks, some can perform séances, some are more cut-out for bare-bones mentalism, some are better at comedy magic… Trying to turn your style into the industry standard is not only pointless, it’s also arrogant and egocentric.

The root of the problem is the same as many others: most magicians don’t actually talk to their audiences. They project onto them. I used to believe some of the myths I’ve mentioned in this and the last installment. When I went professional and started busking, I started talking to my audiences and learned that many of the memes going around didn’t apply to the average person. They’re not magicians, so they don’t think of things the same way we do.

Your approach may work for you, but until you interact with another performer’s audience, don’t profess to tell them they should be more like you.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,699
1
34
Let me bust this particular myth once and for all.

Myth: Fascists and Communists are the same thing.

Fact: Fascists and Communists are complete idealogical opposites. They hate each other. Saying that something is "communist/fascist" does not make sense.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Fact: Fascists and Communists are complete idealogical opposites. They hate each other. Saying that something is "communist/fascist" does not make sense.

That myth can generally be dispelled the same way as Myth #1 in the main article: not sleeping through civics and history class.
 
Aug 31, 2007
13
0
Hey Steerpike... ever notice how all the people who complain about the threads being closed and stuff like that don't reply when they read threads like this?
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Hey Steerpike... ever notice how all the people who complain about the threads being closed and stuff like that don't reply when they read threads like this?

Of course they don't. A little hard to use talking points when they've been pre-emptively destroyed.

And I've also noticed a trend that a lot of people who complain the most about moderators, whether it be here or anywhere else in cyberspace, are typically the ones who contribute the least constructive material short of lurkers. But hey, at least lurkers are peaceful and don't cause mischief.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Intro



Myth #2: The definition of exposure is subjective.


Rick Maue in his tome of wisdom and effects The Book of Haunted Magick said that exposure is “the senseless and destructive revelation of secrets with no positive magical intent.” If you can find anything about that definition you don’t like, keep in mind that you’re wrong. I’m not trying to be cute; I’m dead serious.

The reason magicians refuse to agree upon a standard definition of exposure like that is because they’re still hung up on their vendettas. Exposure is one of the worst accusations to level at another magician. Performers in general love to use it to attack those they don’t like, and in order to do that they need to keep the definition vague.

May I respectfully suggest you spend a little more time exploring our art, learning it's history, and honing your own craft prior to making dogmatic statements backed with facts.

Brad Henderson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
May I respectfully suggest you spend a little more time exploring our art, learning it's history, and honing your own craft

And where do you suggest I start?

The reason I subscribe to Rick Maue's definition of exposure is because it makes more sense than any definition anyone else has given me. It goes straight to the heart of the issue without the superficial crap of all the teenagers shoving anti-YouTube petitions down my throat. If you have a better one, believe me that there is no sarcasm when I say I would love to hear it.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
The reason I subscribe to Rick Maue's definition of exposure is because it makes more sense than any definition anyone else has given me. it.

Thereby proving that the definition of exposure IS subjective.

Here's a place to start: Base your definition on the history of exposure and not make up a claim that it has always been rooted in vendettas. When your definition becomes congruent with history, then you have a good starting point.

B
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Here's a place to start: Base your definition on the history of exposure and not make up a claim that it has always been rooted in vendettas.

That wasn't what I was saying. My experience is that the people who scream the loudest about exposure are the ones who refuse to accept a clear definition. Any attempt to narrow things down by introducing nuance into the equation is either ignored or met with cop outs such as, "Well, that's your opinion."

The problem I'm trying to address is that a vocal section of the magic community is going on a witch hunt. Any attempt to objectively define what makes a "witch" is disdained in favor of more sensationalism. The problem is that they've begun repeating the memes so often, that other people begin to unconsciously internalize them and as a result, fewer people question the bad logic.

Do you recall a thread a while back in which you yourself tried to point out the holes in one person's definition of exposure, and were just met with a lot of rationalizations, double talk, and eventually just ignored?

I'm not just pulling this out of my backside.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
To assume that chatter on a message board is an accurate reflection of a discussion that has been ongoing for years is a huge mistake.

You used the phrase, "my experience." That's the problem. You are placing yourself into a position of authority when you have no experience.

Take your time. Read more than you write. Listen more than you speak. Right now, your "position" while passionate is based on conjecture and the ill founded notion that what you the way you have approached magic is the same as everyone else has.

It isn't.

I applaud you for your passion, but you are writing fictions not histories. You can't p[pontificate when the basis of your ideas have no bearing in reality or history.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
To assume that chatter on a message board is an accurate reflection of a discussion that has been ongoing for years is a huge mistake.

You used the phrase, "my experience." That's the problem. You are placing yourself into a position of authority when you have no experience.

Take your time. Read more than you write. Listen more than you speak.

You think I came up with all this in a vaccuum?

I concede that I talk more to my audiences more than other magicians (and I confess it's because I often prefer their company), but don't assume I'm that out of touch.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,699
1
34
Might I recommend some books, since we're now on the topic of magic history?

"The Great Illusionists", Edwin A. Dawes

"Malini and his Magic," Dai Vernon

"The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero," William Kalush

Also, even though it's fiction, "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay," Michael Chabon

This should be a good start.

I would also pick up David Blaine's book. It's a good starting point into the history of magic and it has some additional references worth looking into.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I'd also throw in that anything by Jim Steinmeyer is gold.

Hiding the Elephant
Art and Artifice
The Great Deception

The third title is still on my wishlist, sadly. Lack of funds, and all that...
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Steer, so often you make statements that contradict everything that has ever happened in history. You make statements assuming your unique experiences and wishes somehow correspond to what is normal in the world of magic. You are often, and I'm sorry if this comes off harsh, wrong.

This is because, I think, you are basing everything on your thoughts, feelings, and limited experiences. You are not taking into account everything that has come before you, or the possibility that others have very different experiences - that magic is a big house, with many rooms, and you have only been in one or two of them.

I encourage you to explore your thoughts here, but to be so bold as to claim that you have the answer - when the answers you have ignore everything we know about the history of ideas in our art - is ludicrous.

Brad
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results