talkmagic.co.uk

At the risk of keeping it alive...
I've been really disappointed by this thread. And by some of the responses of people I hoped would know better.

I got lost at the part where booze got into the subject.

Mr. Goat writes, in part: ". . .So, pray tell us what he did mean?", referring to Houdin's misquoted dictum.

Mr. Goat, I believe I told you (and everyone else who can read) what Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin meant

JakeThePerformer wrote:I got lost at the part where booze got into the subject.

Yes. Er. Sorry about that...

Peter Marucci wrote:Mr. Goat writes, in part: ". . .So, pray tell us what he did mean?", referring to Houdin's misquoted dictum.

Mr. Goat, I believe I told you (and everyone else who can read) what Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin meant

Well, I saw a post where you posted a literal translation of the French, but not one with any analysis of what this meant.

Mr.Goat,

Here -- yet again -- is Houdin's quote: ". . .As for Robert-Houdin, what his oft-misquoted piece meant was that a conjuror was not the same as a juggler. His (translated) words are: "A conjuror is not a juggler; he is an actor playing the part of a magician; an artist whose finger have more need to move with deftness than with speed." His much quoted (albeit, wrongly) statement in full is far removed from what those, who would put their own words in his mouth, mean to say. "

Maybe this further information will be more useful than a repetition. It is from the preface to The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic (I have emphasised the parts where the author gives his analysis of what Robert-Houdin meant). I found this here.

This book holds the keys to Robert-Houdin’s philosophies, many of which magicians have adopted as basic foundations of the art over the ensuing years since its publication. You will encounter his famous statement about the magician as an actor, but in its original context. Contrary to what many magicians might expect, the phrase does not appear amidst advice on scripting and theatrical techniques; instead, Robert-Houdin drops in this important thought as he examines the word prestidigitator, stressing that quick hands are less important than the feeling of magic the magician creates:

A conjuror is not a juggler; he is an actor playing the part of a magician, an artist whose fingers have more need to move with deftness than with speed.

But even casually mentioned, that idea took hold in the consciousness of magicians worldwide and led them to concentrate on acting like real magicians instead of merely demonstrating shiny apparatus for their spectators.

On reading the quote it is perfectly obvious to me that Houdin was chattering about finger flinging and fast moves (which is still a major fault among foolish young magicians today) rather than jabbering on about "scripting" and "blocking" and taking lessons at drama school. And I know for a fact that Robert Houdin didn't read that daft Henning Nelms book.

Exactly!

Is Mark Lewis the only one here with the cojones to say that the emperor is naked in his 'new clothes'?

Hi Peter,
I think Mark's reply (and, dare I say it, mine) was much less cryptic than yours. To be honest, I'm not sure I understand your 'emperor's new clothes' analogy either. Why be so coy?
Regards,
T.

I understood what Peter meant and I do thank him for giving us all the true context of Robert Houdin's remarks. It is the first time in a lifetime of magic that I have discovered the full translation of what he actually said. I wish I had known earlier.

It seems to me that his famous statement has been taken out of context and quoted with the wrong meaning for years and years on end. I am surprised nobody has debunked this before.

On another matter and I hope it doesn't go off too much at a tangent around 30 or so years ago I had a magic mail order business in Blackpool and I received an order from France. However the sender neglected to send any money so I wrote back saying that when I received the money I would send the goods.

I received back an angry and indignant letter from a 90 year old man saying that his word was his bond and he expected to be billed and he would send the money in due course. It dawned upon me that he lived in a different age when business was done that way. He further stated that his name was Maurice Sardina and he was terribly famous in France having written "Where Houdini Was Wrong"

I realised that this was THE Maurice Sardina who had debunked Houdini who had written "The Unmasking of Robert Houdin"

I told him that I knew who he was and would be honoured to send him the goods he requested for free. He was in a state of great delight that anyone had actually heard of him and his book and sent it to me autographed.

Years later I foolishly sold the book. I wish I hadn't now.

OK. You can go back to arguing again.

Ted writes, in part: ". . . I'm not sure I understand your 'emperor's new clothes' analogy . . . "

Lordy, don't tell me I have to explain kids' fairy tales to you!!!!

I'm sorry if you thought I was being coy; in future I shall be less 'coy' when suggesting YOU ARE A DOLT!

BTW, Mark, thanks.

I keep trying to commit the phrase to memory. Let me practice on here. I will not look at previous posts.

"A conjurer is not a juggler. He is an actor playing the part of a magician. An artist whose fingers have more need of deftness than of speed"

Now let me check and see if I got it right or not. I nearly wrote daftness instead of deftness but quickly realised that it probably wasn't correct.

One moment please while I check back.

Damn! I got it slightly wrong.

Now you all know why I don't like learning "scripts"

mark lewis wrote:I nearly wrote daftness instead of deftness but quickly realised that it probably wasn't correct.

Force of habit?

Peter Marucci wrote:Lordy, don't tell me I have to explain kids' fairy tales to you!!!!

Of course not. I am quite conversant with the tale to which you allude. What the point of your allusion is, elludes me however.

(And I don't think you are required to be quite so uncivil.)