talkmagic.co.uk

Hey Everyone,
Recently, as I'm sure you all know, Wikipedia has been exposing the secrets of magic. For the last few months I've been looking for solutions to this problem. In those few months I've had to create several accounts, most of which are now banned indefinitely. But luckily I've managed to come up with 2 good short term solutions to the exposure problem.

Solution 1: Since magic secrets are for the most part unknown to the public; not many people other than magicians can know whether the secrets on Wikipedia are in fact true. So if you find a page that exposes magic you just edit the page and put an incorrect method. For example in Wikipedia`s article on the famous trick Chinese Linking Rings I changed the method that was shown on Wikipedia to my own fake method. (If you’re curious to what the fake method was, I said that the there is a slit in every ring and the slit can be closed using a remote control held in the performers hand, obviously a spectator watching a show thinking that this was the secret would never find the real secret). Anyways my method stayed on Wikipedia for a solid 3 months! (If you’re interested in viewing my discussions on the Wikipedia validating my point, check out the discussion portion of the Chinese Linking Rings page on Wikipedia)

Solution: This is by far a better solution than my first. I am sure that almost everyone at Talk Magic has tried deleting entire pages on Wikipedia, only to have them reinstated a couple minutes later. However, there is one way to delete certain pages without the method getting reinstated. You see on Wikipedia everything MUST be well sourced or it gets deleted. So if there are no references at the bottom of the page relating to the method of the trick on that page, you can delete the method and write on the discussion tab, `I deleted the method because it was unreferenced.` Now if there is a reference you can still delete it using an excuse like `The reference is unreliable or if the reference is a book say that the book doesn’t talk about a method. Just remember to ALWAYS give a reason in the discussion tab on the page.

I have two more tips to give away. The first tip that I would like to lend anyone wishing to try my methods, is that you should appear that you like exposing magic and that you want all the methods to be accurate. I found that when I joined the Wiki project magic (which is the main group that attempts to expose magic) my odds of getting rid of changing the methods on various pages we`re greatly amplified because the exposers think you`re on their side. The second is if you wish to change a method, make up a fake reference to a book or something that anyone checking the validity of the reference would have trouble finding. I usually make up a non-existent book like `The complete guide to becoming a magician`by Dr. Theo Jones, which of course does not exist. Or if you wish to be more believable you can create your own website using a free domain such as www.sythasite.com which will allow you to make your own webpage. Then on that page post your fake explanation and use that website as your reference.

Well, that`s all that I could figure out in my attempts to stop exposure on Wikipedia. Please if you have any questions or comments post them on this page and I will do my best to answer them. Good Luck!!!

I am only going to make one point here as this discussion has probably gone on from the begining of magic and will continue till the last roach has left the planet.

So, as for giving a fake explanation you are not helping the situation. You are still taking away from the magic. The mystery is gone once the spectator believes they know it is done and it doesn't matter if they are correct or not. Basically you are still telling them how it is done.

The best way to combat this is to forget about method and just do the effect so well, and entertain them to the point that they are not going to care how it is done because they are too busy experiencing the magic.

bmat- I agree with your point that it takes away from the effect a great deal. However, and I want you to answer this question: If the layman is checking Wikipedia for the method and the method is shown on Wikipedia, would you rather they get the real explanation and then run the risk of exposing you in a show, or get read the explanation that a someone changed and eliminate that risk all together?

Anyways like I already said, just deleting the method is the prefered option.

Thats my 2 cents anyways...

Thing is, though - if a layman is hell-bent on finding out how any particular effect is performed, there are numerous exposure sites out there where they will be handed the secret on a plate.

What we're talking about here is trying to ensure that secrets aren't easily stumbled upon, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

In fairness, anybody searching Wikipedia for specifics generally tends to fall into the former group, so I'm not entirely sure your efforts are really going to make much of a difference

Most of the methods on wiki are not legally Secrets. As I understand it, Only the mention of a copyrighted name, or copying an exact text to a certain amount, is illegal.
As I understand it , it is not illegal to expose a method in many of the situations wiki does it in.
I don't think it is a big danger. I believe if your audience is truley entertained by your performance, and are people who actuallt enjoy magic, (Not people who say
"I hate this stuff. Its all fake anyways!"), they will not search for the explanation. From what I undertsand, many people who love magic refuse to here the explanation.
If you're in magic just to say, "Ha ha, You'll never figure this out," then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
I have said before though, and will say again, I will not expose others' methods without their permission, and will only expose it for good reasons, For example: if I know someone could properly perform an effect
and is very interested in performing magic, and I feel they are ready to hearthe secret.
Besides, It's not ALL about the "Trick" or "Foolingness" of performing magic. People can really figure out magic for themselves if their smart enough. Before I became a magicians, I saw an clean online performance of an ambitious card routine, and I quickly figured out he must be doing a DL. At that point I obvioulsy didn't know the name, or know it had a name, but I understood how it was done.
I would never post a method to a trick on wiki. But I don't think you can stop other people from doing it.I don't think you should fuss over it so much
I'm not FOR exposure , but I hope you understand what I mean above.
If you have a disagreement in what I said above, please PM me. I'd like to hear what you think.

Thank You,

-Ben

plus if they dont know they name of the trick it would be difficult to search for.

The only way any of us learned magic was through exposure.

REAL MAGICIANS AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT EXPOSURE... it really is that simple. If you really are a dedicated student of magic/theater then it does not matter one little bit that some idiot out there has exposed something. Hell, I just watched a fool on AMERICA'S GOT TALENT expose a $15,000.00 illusion because he didn't rehearse it... sadly, it was my effect (Shadow Vision)... if you look around you will find that more "exposure" happens via the shlock performers in our world than you will at Wiki or wherever else. Some of these performers have even been Vegas headliners and on Tv, so let's not think it's the newbies or weekend warriors that are most guilty of such.

If you are a "Magician" then you know more than one way of doing this or that effect and if you are wise, you change-up on things as needed, OR you find an alternate approach to using the very technique that got exposed and yet, you have placed it where there is no "heat" i.e. Rick Maue's "Turning the Tables" (Book of Haunted Magick).

One of the biggest debates one would over-hear at the Magic Castle (back in the early 80s) would be Vernon, Jennings and the crew bitching about TTs and how to conceal them... I'm not positive but I believe it was Jules Lenear that came in on this debate and started demonstrating some great bits typically associated with a TT but Jennings (in particular) couldn't catch him working with the gimmick... not until the very end when it was discovered that he was working with a rather brite chrome TT... nothing close to flesh colored and in the course of how Jules handled things no one was the wiser... I've seen similar stunts done in which several TTs were nested and stuck one onto the other so as to create a four or five inch long thumb and yet, it went completely unnoticed.

My point being, if you know your job and how to work with the device in question, it simply don't matter!

Oh, one other thing you may want to consider... the majority of the laity already know that we use threads, super thin wires, mirrors, dummy parts and mechanical body parts as well not to mention a plethora of lighting, scenery and hydrolic/pneumatic bits of technology in order to do what we do. They are even aware that we have some very special, over-priced funny looking contraptions that allow us to do this or that to ourselves or our unfortunately assistants.... THEY AREN'T STUPID!

The "Stupidity" sets in when inexperienced enthusiasts start getting paranoid over "exposure" rather than looking at themselves and what they do and figuring out how to improve their act, their technique and their sense of character so as to redirect the public's thinking in a way that totally destroys the idea of this being how "it" works. Believe it or not, such things aren't all that difficult IF you are a genuine student of the craft who seeks to build upon the foundation bits and pieces we are handed via the books, videos, lectures, etc.

I happen to love 4th Dimensional Telepathy and have featured it in most every show I've done over the past 15 or so years. The catch is, I have at least five different versions of approaching and presenting that effect, which allows me to throw off the smart azz know-it-alls. The rule applied years ago when I was doing traditional magic; the Cigarette thru Quarter being one of my standards to which I had about a half-dozen variations including three different type of gaffed coin for doing it... when the L.A. Times did a full Color expose of said piece as part of their feature article on Johnson Products I was in the position to still present said miracle using the paper as my close-up pad and asking those gathered how I could have done all of the things they witnessed, using a clunky piece of stuff such as what was pictured???

These aren't boasts or ego statements, just examples as to what real magicians do and how we plan so that when this sort of unexpected expose occurs, it don't hurt us in the least... we just keep on doing our thing knowing that we aren't part of the wannabe whinner's club that fret over such issues simply because they are learning how to do tricks rather than cultivate and develop MAGIC!

This is not a major problem because I can't really see a plumber coming in from a hard days work and go I know Ill find some magic secrets tonight. It's usually only people who are interested in magic who look for secrets in magic so I don't see the big deal. Also I have been out and seen someone show a trick to someone and then expose it and I have actually gone up to the person it has been exposed it and performed exactly the same routine with my own patter and they didn't spot a thing and thought it was something completely different. It's not a major problem providing you practise your craft well and you don't go out performing half rehearsed effects to lay people because that could be considered just has bad.

Mr.Mystery wrote:bmat- I agree with your point that it takes away from the effect a great deal. However, and I want you to answer this question: If the layman is checking Wikipedia for the method and the method is shown on Wikipedia, would you rather they get the real explanation and then run the risk of exposing you in a show, or get read the explanation that a someone changed and eliminate that risk all together?

Anyways like I already said, just deleting the method is the prefered option.

Thats my 2 cents anyways...

Seeing as you ask, Given the situation you present I would rather run the risk of them knowing how I did the effect rather them having them believe they have the answer when they don't. Now allow me to explain my reasoning.

A. If they are hell bent on ruining my act then they are going to try regardless of method. If they start yelling out how its done what are my options? Start arguing with a paying costumer and acting like a child in a spitting contest? (I say spitting cause they may censure pissing) Once I tell them that is not how its done I open another door, I would have to prove that is not how I am doing the effect which further interupts the flow of my show. And to what end? To show that I am greater then they are? They have, in this case already succeeded in impairing the act and they are going to believe their method is correct no matter what you say or do. The fact is they are ruining the act not because they know the method, they are ruining the act because I am not doing my job. And if it just a jerk in the crowd the usual response from others in the crowd is to turn on the person responsible for ruining the show.

B) Perhaps it is just me but I have no desire to really fool anybody or make them look stupid. I'm not one of these magicians who give fake explanations to people just to get them off my back. I'm a huge follower of Doug Henning who's main goal was to give his audience that 'sense of wonder' any explanation is going to ruin that wonder regardless of the actual method.

C) I can usually get people on my side. I've become pretty good at reading most people. If I get that feeling that something is going on with a particular person and if I can't avoid performing for that person I am pretty good at diffusing the situation before it even happens. And I have a number of ways to do this. The main thing is to get them to be a part of the act. They will usually bask in the spotlight as they are now 'in the know' they become the star of the show. My ego very much allowes me to step aside and let another enjoy my spotlight, I've been at this long enough I'll get another spotlight another time if need be.

D) I go back to my belief in that I don't want to make people feel like idiots. (I pretty much always feel like an idiot and I don't like it) Let us say we fed them some kind of bogus explanation then some time later they learn the truth, they will think back to my performance and explanation and it will just reinforce the attitudes that magicians are just a bunch of self centered egomaniacs bent on making people look foolish.

Granted in your scenario I'm not the one that fed them the lie in the first place but it is still going to reflect on me my friends in magic and the magic itself. So I stay as far away from discussions on method and when they inevitably arise I have, as I said before, many methods at my disposal for handling the situation. Which I use depends on the situation I'm in.

I'm (bizarrely) in total agreement with Craig Browning here. I couldn't give a rat's botty about exposure on Wikipedia. If people want to find something out they'll find it out.

In fact, when I first got interested in card magic I found some things out by internet exposure way before I bought RRTCM or any DVDs.

The thing is... even if a layperson "knows" how something is done, if you do it right it'll still look like magic. And if you have more than one way to acheive a result then you can prove them wrong by using a different method.

Layperson: "Aha, the card jumped back to the top because you picked up two cards!"

Magician: "Surely not. That would be crude. Here... examine the card yourself and return it to the centre" etc., etc...

Also, and much more pertinently, you will NEVER stop exposure. It is as fruitless a pursuit as trying to stop people sharing music mp3s on P2P networks.

Each to their own. Fact is, this guy is attempting to protect magic, so i think maybe some comments are a little harsh. He's giving tips to others who may feel the same and theres no harm being done. In fact, its a little misdirection. And there's a fair amount of effort going in to it.

At the very least, i think it would be nice for us amateurs to retain a bit of secrecy. We can't yet perform in such a way to throw away our audience's care for how we tricked them, or to disguise a particular trick in such a way that it cannot be recognised. Being sloppy and exposing through performance is one thing, but do the advanced practitioners really believe that those less experienced of us shouldn't be performing until we're at such a level as they are?

And of course, not naming the trick (or at least referring to the name to the audience) makes it extremely difficult for them to locate, unless it is particularly unique or has an obvious name such as "card through window".

MagicBell wrote:Each to their own. Fact is, this guy is attempting to protect magic, so i think maybe some comments are a little harsh. He's giving tips to others who may feel the same and theres no harm being done. In fact, its a little misdirection. And there's a fair amount of effort going in to it.

At the very least, i think it would be nice for us amateurs to retain a bit of secrecy. We can't yet perform in such a way to throw away our audience's care for how we tricked them, or to disguise a particular trick in such a way that it cannot be recognised. Being sloppy and exposing through performance is one thing, but do the advanced practitioners really believe that those less experienced of us shouldn't be performing until we're at such a level as they are?

And of course, not naming the trick (or at least referring to the name to the audience) makes it extremely difficult for them to locate, unless it is particularly unique or has an obvious name such as "card through window".

On the contrary, perform as much as you possibly can and to the widest amount of people. The more diverse the better. What I'm saying and I'm sure others will agree. Perform to the best of your ability, always strive for better, concentrate on entertaining and you will see that the methods just fall away.

bmat wrote:On the contrary, perform as much as you possibly can and to the widest amount of people. The more diverse the better. What I'm saying and I'm sure others will agree. Perform to the best of your ability, always strive for better, concentrate on entertaining and you will see that the methods just fall away.

Of course, that's what i expected you to say. But to begin with, most of us will need to perform tricks pretty much as scripted - no real technical difference to as we have read it in our 'how to' books. So perhaps we need the most protection from this exposure as our tricks will be the simplest, most unrefined, and most like those that are found in the texts. If the magic which is common to us in the magic know (not to over-rate my own limited knowledge) becomes common knowledge to those out there, then we won't be able to perform our simple tricks until we've found something superior.

Truth be told though, this is extremely unlikely. Not enough people can be bothered to find it, those who can will mostly forget, etc, etc, I think 'laymen' as they appear to be known around here, don't have enough interest to retain this kind of information so it floats away.

In an ideal world, wikipedia wouldn't reveal how tricks are done (except perhaps ones that are so well-known that they are in the public domain). There also wouldn't be exposure sites.

I think the truth is that the information age is here, and it's impossible to prevent this information from floating around somewhere.

MagicBell's earlier post was bang on the money. In some cases, there is realistically no way of doing the trick in a way that won't leave it open to someone Googling it later. I've had someone tell me she was going to search the internet for one of my tricks. And no, I wan't trying to fool them, or show how clever I was; people are naturally curious, and some will go out of their way to try and find out how it was done. In fact, I think she wanted to know precisely because everyone was so amazed!

So, I wish Mr. Mystery good luck, but I fear it is a Sisyphean task.