talkmagic.co.uk

If someone wants to write about a topic in magic, potentially for publication, what's the general view on how to discuss methodology without giving away secrets of specific routines, yet also wanting to acknowledge sources of inspiration?

I want to share my thoughts and analysis of certain methodology in mentalism. Any possible publication would be aimed at the pro or serious hobbyist. The aim would be to explain a methodology that is in fairly wide use, not specific to an individual performer, analyse its use and potential, and incorporate my own original material. The hope would be that this text/essay/book or whatever could lead to a wider appreciation and understanding of the concept, an understanding of how to think like a mentalist, and possibly inspire new methodology. So far a word hasn't been written, it's just an idea, and I need a views on the above question.

I've read quite widely and have been inspired by certain performers. I would not want to publish something with aknowledging them as a source of inspiration. But in doing so wouldn't it be giving away another's method, indicating that their trick/s must in some way incorporate the aforementioned method?

As a hypothetical scenario and example lets say Mr Bloggs creates a trick using a newish method called the centre tear technique. A few others have used the same method in the recent past for their tricks, it's not entirely unheard of, but is not well known by the public, so still a good source of material for performance. If I want to write a book on centre tear and it's potential to provoke thought and inspire, I wouldn't want others thinking I was trying to get all the credit for the method. So should I say Mr Bloggs inspired me to write this book? Or should I not make a mention?

A forum search has found a lot for me to consider on publishing and revelation, but hasn't answered my underlying question, so I'm keen to hear views.

There is no comitee which decides these things, so fortunatley its just personal opinion.

My opinion is that its basic ethics that you give credit where credit is deserved. Plus, it is always very useful to have points of research and to be able to go to the origional source of information; In acedemic journals they have citations and references which is great and something that would be greatly helpful in magic literature although the neccessity is not as prevelent.

Generally too, it can be interesting to read how a certain idea came about- including, obviously, inspiration.

Claiming credit for anothers idea is unethical. Always credit as many sources as you can, and go the extra step of determining sources by research or asking several experts. Nothing is lost by giving credit. A lot is lost by using someone else's work or ideas, and not giving proper credit.

Amygdalin wrote:If someone wants to write about a topic in magic, potentially for publication, what's the general view on how to discuss methodology without giving away secrets of specific routines, yet also wanting to acknowledge sources of inspiration?

My opinion is that you should not give away secrets of specific routines. You can refer to them so that your reader can go and buy the relevant book or whatever. For example, say you have come up with a new theme or handling of Koran's medallion effect. You would not have to explain the method of the effect, and nor should you. But you could explain how you have changed something.

E.g. When you come to the special move, as all owners of the original will know, there is a tricky part. If you slide x over y, I've found that it's easier.

E.g. When you've finished the routine go straight into Paul Curry's Out Of This World. (Don't then explain *how* to perform OOTW, though!)

T.

This is why the phrase ... BY YOUR FAVORITE METHOD was invented.


As others have pointed out, it is unethical , and potentially damaging to you as a writer/performer, if you do not give full accreditation where ever you can.
you have to remember, particularly if you are pitching this work to the serious hobbyist, that performers reaching that stage will have a good working knowledge of moves, sleights, and effects, and will spot your attempt to palm off others work as your own, a mile off.

Within the magic community, theft..( and lets be honest here, that is what it is if you take someone’s intellectual property, and have people believe that it's your own) Is looked on as something worse than exposure.

And rightly so.


with research tools like the internet, it has never been as easy to have acreditations checked, and verrified.
there is NO reason what so ever to not credit .

If you wish to publish effects, the very least you should do, is have a seperate section at the back, with a bibliography, informing the reader where they can find the moves referenced within the book.

You should also list right at the front of the book, a long list of thank yous to the people who have inspired the work.

Look in the front of Paul Harris's books for example. Now if ever there was a man who didnt need to credit, it's him.. yet he does. He's even credited me in one of his books.( Reality twister)

daleshrimpton wrote:This is why the phrase ... BY YOUR FAVORITE METHOD was invented.

Absolutely. If someone bought a routine from me and then republished parts of it, with credit or not, I would not be very happy.

There are some things that are acceptable to explain, though. Classic sleights such as palming, double-lift etc probably aren't going to cause any problems.

T.

EDIT: Just re-read your original post. If you are aiming at Pros then you can be sure they know how to perform a centre tear etc so you don't even need to explain the methods.

palming , maybe.. as long as you name the palm needed.. But a D.L could be a push off, or a strike, or any of the other hundreds of variations...... again its down to those words Favorite method.

in the case of the DL, Then it would be good to point the reader towards your favorite method, giving reference to say Vernon, or who ever published it.
Colour changes, is another area where it's best to name the sleight, and reference a source.

And in the case of pros who release things, with the old excuse of, I havent read so an so... this is something i came up with independently. The fact that it IS exactly the same, and they still release it is fine, simply because they are more well known. Surely this is hypocritical to claim originality, when it has already been done, there are plenty of cases where i have seen NEW material that is exactly the same as some older less known texts. I wont mention any names, but I'm sure you can bring a few to mind.

I can give an excelent top notch 100% guarenteed example of acredditation in action.
Google my name..

you will find it all over the world,( I found my name in china the other week) in refference to the effect Pocket Calculator, on the Submordalities d.v.d.


It says Pocket Calculator (Dale Shrimpton & Stanton Carlisle)

I shared the credit for the effect with somebody i have never met, and who is as far as i know, no longer with us,.Why? because i was inspred by an effect of his.

This might be a little extreme, but perhaps if in the magic buisness we were forced to write under psuedonyms we would completley undercut the entire problem of people plaigurising in order to become 'a name'.

Like I said about the publishing of acedemia, by citing things properly and having a rediculous level of scrutiny (Bogdinov brothers excused) from systems such as peer review, there is very little to no dirty tactics at play which actually prevent the quest for expanding knowledge, rather than repackaging it.

The other way in which this is a useful model is economically. In Magic we have people after money and retailers prepared to market any old junk if it will pocket them a few quid. Once again, in acedemia it is not about repackaging stuff and selling it comercially (Largley because it would be impossible!) but about the quality of the material. Journals are naturally quite expensive, but published papers are not there for the financial gain of the author(s). Largley it is production and distribution costs for a small economic 'demand' which account for the expense. In the current days of cyber publishing, you can now get free acedemic papers which obviously have no distribution fees.