Should I be allowed to divulge the secret?

[Brown]

Just this week, I created a magic trick. As far as I know, it is an original magic trick, and is not performed by any professional magician.

I created this trick by accident. Basically, something unexpected happened while I was handling a common household object. I said to myself, "Whoa, I'll bet I could fool somebody with that!" After a couple of minutes, I worked up a little presentation to accompany the trick.

The trick is a piece of fluff. Basically, you can pretend to show a spectator a lame magic trick. You let the spectator "think" he's figured it out. Then you "show" him that he hasn't figured it out at all. When the spectator again thinks that he has figured out the trick, then you "show" him that he still hasn't got it.

No sleight of hand is needed, just a little bit of acting ability. An average person can do this trick with any of several common objects.

Should I be allowed to divulge the secret to a trivial trick that I created myself?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Should I be allowed to divulge the secret to a trivial trick that I created myself?

Absolutely -- if you've done the due diligence to assure yourself that it is actually new. I would definitely ask around in a few fora -- the magic and illusion one, for example, and see if anyone knows of a similar effect to make sure that you're in the clear.

If so, you have a right to give it away or sell it as you like -- its your intellectual property at that point -- IMO.

NA

[no one in particular]

Hmm, quite interesting. So, if you come up with this trick on your own, true, it is your intellectual property and, as such, you are free to divulge it. However, do you know that someone else did not independently come up with this same trick and is making a living with it? For example, let us presume that I have come up with a simple levitation illusion. Let us also presume that I know very little of magic and I certainly have never heard of David Blaine. Would it be wrong of me to divulge my secret even though I may unknowingly hurt David Blaine’s career? After all, as far as I know, I made it up altogether.

[Cain]

Oh god, intellectual property! Property schmotery, how is the trick done?

You could at least be a little clearer in explaining the effect (without giving away the secret); so far this sounds very vague.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain
You could at least be a little clearer in explaining the effect (without giving away the secret); so far this sounds very vague.

Here is a basic presentation, from the point of view of a spectator.

I pick up an ordinary object, such as car key, with my left hand, and put it in my right hand, making a fist. I describe the magician's well-known technique of "palming," in which I can hold an object unseen in my hand. I demonstrate by raising my right hand, with the palm facing away from the spectator, and opening my fingers. I might say something like, "You can't even tell that I'm holding the key."

The spectator should notice, however that my hand does not quite look quite "natural," and he will disagree with me. He will say that it DOES look like I am holding the key. I might agree, and say, "Yeah, my hand doesn't look quite right, does it? What if I do this? Does this make it look more natural?" I then open my fingers wider (still keeping the back of the hand facing the spectator). Eventually, I flex my fingers back as far as they can go. Then I wiggle my fingers, then I shake my whole hand, rather violently, with my fingers fully extended. Then I say to the spectator, "NOW it doesn't look like I'm palming the key, does it?"

At this point the spectator might protest that I never had the key in my right hand in the first place, and that I only pretended to put the key in my right hand.

But I close the fingers of my right hand, and with a flourish or two, present my closed fist to the spectator. When I open my fist, the key is there, and I lightly toss it off my palm for him to see.

As I say, this trick is a piece of fluff. From my standpoint, the entertaining part is that the spectator might think he knows what's going on, but he really doesn't.

(My car lease expires in about six weeks, and the leasing company has put my name on a bunch of mailing lists. Accordingly, I receive several promotional letters every week, and many of them include car keys, some of which look quite real. It was by handling one of these car keys that came in a promotional letter that I came up with this trick. I did not modify this key before using it in the trick, nor did I create any special apparatus for manipulating it.)

[Leif Roar]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Absolutely -- if you've done the due diligence to assure yourself that it is actually new. I would definitely ask around in a few fora -- the magic and illusion one, for example, and see if anyone knows of a similar effect to make sure that you're in the clear.

If so, you have a right to give it away or sell it as you like -- its your intellectual property at that point -- IMO.

NA

Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on a TV show, but I do believe that the term "intellectual property" has a much narrower meaning than what you imply - it only covers patents and copyrights (and possibly buisness secrets, in as far as they are covered by law.) Ideas and inventions (that have not been patented) do very explicitly not have any protection under law.

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Here is a basic presentation, from the point of view of a spectator.

I pick up an ordinary object, such as car key, with my left hand, and put it in my right hand, making a fist. I describe the magician's well-known technique of "palming," in which I can hold an object unseen in my hand. I demonstrate by raising my right hand, with the palm facing away from the spectator, and opening my fingers. I might say something like, "You can't even tell that I'm holding the key."

The spectator should notice, however that my hand does not quite look quite "natural," and he will disagree with me. He will say that it DOES look like I am holding the key. I might agree, and say, "Yeah, my hand doesn't look quite right, does it? What if I do this? Does this make it look more natural?" I then open my fingers wider (still keeping the back of the hand facing the spectator). Eventually, I flex my fingers back as far as they can go. Then I wiggle my fingers, then I shake my whole hand, rather violently, with my fingers fully extended. Then I say to the spectator, "NOW it doesn't look like I'm palming the key, does it?"

At this point the spectator might protest that I never had the key in my right hand in the first place, and that I only pretended to put the key in my right hand.

But I close the fingers of my right hand, and with a flourish or two, present my closed fist to the spectator. When I open my fist, the key is there, and I lightly toss it off my palm for him to see.

As I say, this trick is a piece of fluff. From my standpoint, the entertaining part is that the spectator might think he knows what's going on, but he really doesn't.

(My car lease expires in about six weeks, and the leasing company has put my name on a bunch of mailing lists. Accordingly, I receive several promotional letters every week, and many of them include car keys, some of which look quite real. It was by handling one of these car keys that came in a promotional letter that I came up with this trick. I did not modify this key before using it in the trick, nor did I create any special apparatus for manipulating it.)

Sorry you are not the first to try this trick a well known magician has been using this for years you have been reported to the forum administrator!

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on a TV show, but I do believe that the term "intellectual property" has a much narrower meaning than what you imply - it only covers patents and copyrights (and possibly buisness secrets, in as far as they are covered by law.) Ideas and inventions (that have not been patented) do very explicitly not have any protection under law.

"Intellectual property" is a much broader field than that, and protection for it extends beyond patents, trademarks and copyrights.

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on a TV show, but I do believe that the term "intellectual property" has a much narrower meaning than what you imply - it only covers patents and copyrights (and possibly buisness secrets, in as far as they are covered by law.) Ideas and inventions (that have not been patented) do very explicitly not have any protection under law.

My understanding -- I am a lawyer, but not on the intellectual property side -- is that a number of things outside patents or copyrights are protected -- the patent gives a date certain when your idea is officially protected and allows certain presumptions under the law, but your ideas are still protected, regardless - you just may have a harder time proving your entitlement, and therefore a slightly harder burden of proof under the law. Writings and ideas may be intellectual property, even if never filed anywhere.

[Leif Roar]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


My understanding -- I am a lawyer, but not on the intellectual property side -- is that a number of things outside patents or copyrights are protected -- the patent gives a date certain when your idea is officially protected and allows certain presumptions under the law, but your ideas are still protected, regardless - you just may have a harder time proving your entitlement, and therefore a slightly harder burden of proof under the law. Writings and ideas may be intellectual property, even if never filed anywhere.

This might be a difference in US and Norwegian law, but I was under the impression that ideas are never protected - patents only protect an actual implementation of an idea, and copyright only protect a particular embodiment of ideas (the concept of 'derivative works' does make that a little fuzzy though), and trademarks (which I should have included earlier) only protect a particular name or graphical design.

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown

"Intellectual property" is a much broader field than that, and protection for it extends beyond patents, trademarks and copyrights.

What further legal protections are there?

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Baker
Sorry you are not the first to try this trick a well known magician has been using this for years you have been reported to the forum administrator!

I realize that I have given some clues (including at least one really big clue) as to how the trick is done, but I don't believe I have given away the secret... have I? (Smirk.)

Basically, I have followed the technique of some books on magic, which divide the trick into "Presentation and Effect" and "The Secret." I have provided the "Presentation and Effect" part.

Seriously, if there is well-known magician who performs this feat, where he tries to convince a spectator that he's palmed an object, then tries to convince the spectator that he hasn't palmed the object, then tries to convince the spectator that he has palmed the object after all... well, I wonder if I've ever heard of him/her? Does he/she do birthday parties?

Seriously (again), the closest thing I can ever remember is a conjuror named Slydini doing a bad palm on the Dick Cavett show, and Dick (perhaps thinking the bad palm was part of the misdirection of the trick) pointing out the bad palm to the audience. Dick's remark that Slydini's hand looked unnatural actually spoiled the illusion that the conjuror was trying to create.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leif Roar
What further legal protections are there?

This is an excellent question, and I wish I had time to provide an extensive answer. This should probably be the subject of another thread.

There are a lot of things that are considered to be intellectual property (not a tangible "chattel" or "real," i.e., related to land) that are protected in various ways by various statutes and legal doctrines.

Patents, trademarks and copyrights have been mentioned. Trade secrets have been mentioned. There are all sorts of things that involve intereference with another's property or are related to intellectual property, such as passing off, palming off, reverse palming off, unfair competition or trade practices, false advertising, license interference or breach, and so on.

Some law schools teach a whole course on the various kinds of intellectual property and how they can be protected, without ever going into patents (which is a highly specialized legal area).

[Lavie Enrose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Should I be allowed to divulge the secret to a trivial trick that I created myself?

You have created your own unique piece of magic. Why would you want to ruin it by revealing the secret?

[Brian]

Although the presentation is yours, it sounds like it works by using a standard principal of magic.
I don't think you'd be allowed to disclose the principal here.

[wert]

It just sounds like you are pushing the rules my friend.

If you have truly come up with something original, why not keep it to yourself or share it on an actual magicians forum?

Aside from pushing the rules here, why else would you want to expose principals of conjuring on these skeptical forums?

[Andonyx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown


(My car lease expires in about six weeks, and the leasing company has put my name on a bunch of mailing lists. Accordingly, I receive several promotional letters every week, and many of them include car keys, some of which look quite real. It was by handling one of these car keys that came in a promotional letter that I came up with this trick. I did not modify this key before using it in the trick, nor did I create any special apparatus for manipulating it.)

That's funny, I used to get those same keys.

I used to put them on my keyring with the others, and then use them to demonstrate, "The Gellar Effect."

Anyone who has played with these keys for any length of time knows what I'm talking about.

Not that that has anything to do with how Brown's trick is done.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by wert
It just sounds like you are pushing the rules my friend.

If you have truly come up with something original, why not keep it to yourself or share it on an actual magicians forum?

Actually, I don't think I'm pushing the rules at all. And this trick is really too trivial for a magician's forum. (Some of the best tricks are the simplest, but this one is really trivial.)

I have made a decision, however: I do not intend to reveal here how I accomplished the trick. I have already mentioned some techniques that I did NOT use, but I have not mentioned the precise technique that I did use, and neither has anyone else.

[Baker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
I realize that I have given some clues (including at least one really big clue) as to how the trick is done, but I don't believe I have given away the secret... have I? (Smirk.)

Basically, I have followed the technique of some books on magic, which divide the trick into "Presentation and Effect" and "The Secret." I have provided the "Presentation and Effect" part.

Seriously, if there is well-known magician who performs this feat, where he tries to convince a spectator that he's palmed an object, then tries to convince the spectator that he hasn't palmed the object, then tries to convince the spectator that he has palmed the object after all... well, I wonder if I've ever heard of him/her? Does he/she do birthday parties?

Seriously (again), the closest thing I can ever remember is a conjuror named Slydini doing a bad palm on the Dick Cavett show, and Dick (perhaps thinking the bad palm was part of the misdirection of the trick) pointing out the bad palm to the audience. Dick's remark that Slydini's hand looked unnatural actually spoiled the illusion that the conjuror was trying to create.

I have no idea if anyone has tried it before it just seemed like an amusing reply.

[GroundStrength]

Brown,

What is the flourish or two. I can repeat this using a standard move. So what did the hands do during the "flourish"?

Thanks

[Earthborn]

Brown, I saw a trick similar to this on Discovery once, in a program called the Secrets of Magic, or something similar. It was done by a magician who did something with eggs, explained what palming was and managed to trick the audience several times that they figured it out. At the end of his little magic lesson, he does something totally unexpected... Unfortunately I can't remember the details of the trick.

If someone else saw the program, he was the guy who joked about palming: "I used to practice it at the local supermarket..."

By the way: I think I have a pretty good idea how you did it, but I am a bit confused about the magic rule and will not present my theory.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by GroundStrength
What is the flourish or two. I can repeat this using a standard move. So what did the hands do during the "flourish"?

If by "standard move," you mean a sleight-of-hand move, there were no real sleights in this trick. Part of the presentation, however, includes moves that magicians make that often disguise sleights, this may provide misdirection, but it also provides a delay between the time the spectator sees me put the key in my right hand and then open my right hand (palm facing away from the spectator).

Let me be a little more vague. This trick does involve manipulation of the object, to be sure, but no sleights. The moves would be easily learned by someone having just a single exposure to the trick, and would not really require any practice to master.

Basically, one purpose of the flourish is to provide another delay, in particular, a delay between closing my fist (after demonstrating that I couldn't possibly be palming the key... or could I?) and opening my fist to reveal the key. The flourish can be any movement of the hands that creates the delay.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Brown, I saw a trick similar to this on Discovery once, in a program called the Secrets of Magic, or something similar. It was done by a magician who did something with eggs, explained what palming was and managed to trick the audience several times that they figured it out. At the end of his little magic lesson, he does something totally unexpected... Unfortunately I can't remember the details of the trick.

Yes, I've seen Mark Wilson and Lance Burton do variations of this. They appeared to stuff a handkerchief into their hands, and then open their hands to reveal an egg. They would then show "how" they did the trick using a false egg. The finish involved showing that their explanation, which seemed plausible, was actually not correct, because the egg turned out to be real (as they proved by breaking the egg open into a glass)!

[Lavie Enrose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
...I am a bit confused about the magic rule....

What is it about the rule that is confusing you?

[RSLancastr]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
I created this trick by accident. Basically, something unexpected happened while I was handling a common household object.

This isn't The Disappearing Hairbrush, is it?

[Earthborn]

Quote:

What is it about the rule that is confusing you?

In this thread: Ideomotor Communication and Art I discussed to a potential claimant the reasons for blinding an experiment. For this I presented a magic trick, which I later explained how it worked. (This was before the rule was instituted). I got much praise from people for my meticulous, patient and logical responses. And I think Aster, who is pretty smart, really understood what I was saying. Now if I were to do this again, whould I violate the magic rule? How else am I supposed to explain the importance of certain procedures, if I can't use such examples?

In short: how can we educate people by keeping secrets?

[GroundStrength]

I can see the point about debunking those who claim paranormal abilities, but there shuold be no reason to expose the secret of "card in lemon" magic trick.

It may seem disingenuous to just say to "believers" something along the lines of "Oh, thats just a magic trick" when debunking something like a seance. Doesn't really work in my book. In some case I feel that you need to be able to say "The guy is doing ..." to make to point.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

but there shuold be no reason to expose the secret of "card in lemon" magic trick.

Do you mean by that some sort of trick whereby the magician cuts open a lemon and pulls out a card?

If so, what if someone claims to be able to paranormally materialize objects in fruits? Or if someone claims to be able to grow apples with banknotes in them?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Do you mean by that some sort of trick whereby the magician cuts open a lemon and pulls out a card?

If so, what if someone claims to be able to paranormally materialize objects in fruits? Or if someone claims to be able to grow apples with banknotes in them?

The fact that many different magicians - who have no claim for paranormal powers - can duplicate the effect should be evidence enough.

If the fact that numerous magicians can perform the same stunts is not enough, then I sincerely doubt that extra information about how its done will turn the lightbulb on over someone's head. After all, the fact that you -could- perform the feat via trickery is (as Randi himself says) no proof that the psychic is not doing it through sheer mental power. It just means that he is doing it the hard way.

NA

[GroundStrength]

Earthborn,

Point taken, but most magic shows are just that..shows, entertainment.

But I am of the mind that it is okay to expose any secret that someone is using to pass themselves off as paranormal (as opposed to abnormal, which most of us magicans are)

[Earthborn]

Quote:

The fact that many different magicians - who have no claim for paranormal powers - can duplicate the effect should be evidence enough.

I don't think it is. If someone cannot understand how something is possible without paranormal powers, why would this person assume these magicians do it without?

And I disagree that magicians don't claim to have paranormal powers. Have you ever seen a magic show? Did you ever hear "After the break, David is going to pretend to walk through the Great Wall." or "Next, David is going to make it look like the Statue of Liberty is disappeared." ? I don' t think you have.

The suggestion is given that he really is going to do these things. That's a paranormal claim. People who watch such a show are expected to be critical enough to know that is just pretend. I'm sure that's how those television psychics justify their actions to themselves.

Problem is, many people are not critical enough. There are lots of people who believe David Copperfield has magical powers, just because they can't imagine how they are being tricked.

Quote:

If the fact that numerous magicians can perform the same stunts is not enough, then I sincerely doubt that extra information about how its done will turn the lightbulb on over someone's head.

That is your assumption. I disagree. You assume that they are too dumb anyway. I say they are kept dumb, by not telling them how they are being deceived.

Quote:

After all, the fact that you -could- perform the feat via trickery is (as Randi himself says) no proof that the psychic is not doing it through sheer mental power.

No, but if people know how it can be done with a trick, they can look out for the signs of trickery. It is irrelevant whether they continue to believe there might be people who can do such things with paranormal powers. What's important is that they are educated enough not to fall for obvious frauds.

Quote:

But I am of the mind that it is okay to expose any secret that someone is using to pass themselves off as paranormal

Okay, great. I hearby claim to be able to do all the things David Copperfield can do without resorting to tricks. Please expose me as a fraud by showing that it can be done with trickery...

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
And I disagree that magicians don't claim to have paranormal powers. Have you ever seen a magic show? Did you ever hear "After the break, David is going to pretend to walk through the Great Wall." or "Next, David is going to make it look like the Statue of Liberty is disappeared." ? I don' t think you have.

Reputable magicians make such disclaimers regularly. Penn and Teller, for example, have, as have a number of mentalists. Moreover, the context of the performance is one of "magician," thus implied trickery, and not "magic powers." Many - perhaps even most - magicians do not make a disclaimer before every performance because they do not expect the audience to believe that they have supernatural powers to begin with. Most disclaimers are made by mentalists for the reason that the mentalism field is open to more confusion and has more risks in that area.

Quote:

The suggestion is given that he really is going to do these things. That's a paranormal claim. People who watch such a show are expected to be critical enough to know that is just pretend. I'm sure that's how those television psychics justify their actions to themselves.

TV psychics may try to excuse what they do similarly, but it doesn't pass the smell test - nor do I think it comparable. When asked point blank, magicians will say that it is trickery. Within the profession, members come down hard on those who come close to the line of pawning themselves off as mystics *cough*David Blaine*cough*. People who try to profit off such a reputation and claim such powers open themselves up to legitimate criticism.

Quote:

Problem is, many people are not critical enough. There are lots of people who believe David Copperfield has magical powers, just because they can't imagine how they are being tricked. That is your assumption. I disagree. You assume that they are too dumb anyway. I say they are kept dumb, by not telling them how they are being deceived.

The above isn't very clear to me, but you seem to be putting words into my mouth. I don't think that the people who really believe in mystics are dumb - many are quite intelligent. Neither are they necessarily ignorant, as you state. They, in many cases, simply -want- to believe. Look at how many people will champion Geller even though the exact methods of his cheating -have- been exposed, repeatedly.

Quote:

--- interior quote----
But I am of the mind that it is okay to expose any secret that someone is using to pass themselves off as paranormal
--- end quote---
Okay, great. I hearby claim to be able to do all the things David Copperfield can do without resorting to tricks. Please expose me as a fraud by showing that it can be done with trickery...

(1) I didn't write the original quote, so I'll allow that person to answer you, and
(2) You can claim anything, but the debunking comes second -- first you'll have to make the Statue of Liberty disappear, only then will I worry about whether to tell a secret that earns illusionists tens of thousands of dollars regularly.

NA

[RSLancastr]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
And I disagree that magicians don't claim to have paranormal powers. Have you ever seen a magic show? Did you ever hear "After the break, David is going to pretend to walk through the Great Wall." or "Next, David is going to make it look like the Statue of Liberty is disappeared." ? I don' t think you have.

True, but you also never see commercials for tv shows which say "Tonight, the actress who plays Buffy and an actor playing a demon will pretend to fight to the death!" This doesn't mean that anyone is trying to actually fool the audience into anything. It's all simply part of a dramatic presentation.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

TV psychics may try to excuse what they do similarly, but it doesn't pass the smell test - nor do I think it comparable. When asked point blank, magicians will say that it is trickery.

Maybe so, but both are trying hard to undermine people's confidence that the world is an understandable place.

Quote:

Penn and Teller, for example

For Penn and Teller I make an exception. They often tell how things work. They even use transparant props, to show that no magic is involved, only incredible skill. Even though they don't tell everything, people who watch their shows will feel more confident that things are explainable.

Quote:

They, in many cases, simply -want- to believe.

Why do they want to believe in obvious frauds? Is it perhaps because there are people undermining their understanding of the world by not telling them how they are tricked?

Quote:

(2) You can claim anything, but the debunking comes second -- first you'll have to make the Statue of Liberty disappear, only then will I worry about whether to tell a secret that earns illusionists tens of thousands of dollars regularly.

Oh, you think I can't do that, hey? Well, I can. I can do it in the exact same way as David Copperfield did. Even if I don't do it, I can still claim that Copperfield did it by paranormal means. Now prove to me that usch powers are not necessary!

Quote:

True, but you also never see commercials for tv shows which say "Tonight, the actress who plays Buffy and an actor playing a demon will pretend to fight to the death!" This doesn't mean that anyone is trying to actually fool the audience into anything. It's all simply part of a dramatic presentation.

True, but then again actors are listed by their real names, and in interviews they are willing to tell them what they did and how they did it. It is pretty difficult to keep believing any of them is who they play on TV.
And special effects experts don't start yelling that people are revealing their trade secrets if someone shows how the tricks work. They reveal those tricks themselves!
Just imagine if SFX experts had the same magic code of magicians, and people saw all those hyperrealistic monsters, and people with superpowers. Don't you think people would become insecure about what is real and what isn't? Don't you think people become scared... How could they be confident that these monsters aren't bred in such underground lab especially for the film?

You can say of course that even though people are shown how these creatures appear on film without such genetics labs, there still is no proof that some filmmakers don't it this way. But very few people believe that this is what happens... Why? Because they are educated enough to know there is a simpler way. Magicians are denying them such an education about card tricks and sawing people in half...

[davefoc]

Earthborn's reference to a thread where she talked about how the mentalist communicated with an assistant was the kind of thing I thought of when the don't disclose magic trick secret rules was put forth.

Orson Welles, towards the end of his life, went on tv talk shows claiming to be some sort of psychic, which disgusted me even when I was fairly young. One of his stunts was to show the written out prediction of something an audience member was going to select. Of course this was nothing more than having several different versions of the answer written out and hidden in different places. I am fairly sure that discussion of simple mentalist trickery like this is not covered by the rule. But am I right?

[Earthborn]

Quote:

I am fairly sure that discussion of simple mentalist trickery like this is not covered by the rule. But am I right?

I can't imagine why these tricks would not fall under the magic rule. After all, all magic tricks are basically very simple. If we are allowed to reveal simple tricks, I can't see why I wouldn't be allowed to reveal how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. The first time I saw it on TV (and I wasn't half as good at figuring out tricks as I am now) I thought: "L-a-a-a-a-m-e-e-e-e!".

I can't imagine what exactly is permitted under this rule. If I invent a trick myself, revealing it still teaches someone some principles of magic, allowing him/her to instantly see through a trick by a professional magician. Since we are supposed to make sure people will still marvel at the magic (keep them ignorant), it appears to me that we can't tell them anything except "oh, it's a trick..."

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
I can't imagine why these tricks would not fall under the magic rule. After all, all magic tricks are basically very simple. If we are allowed to reveal simple tricks, I can't see why I wouldn't be allowed to reveal how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. The first time I saw it on TV (and I wasn't half as good at figuring out tricks as I am now) I thought: "L-a-a-a-a-m-e-e-e-e!".

I can't imagine what exactly is permitted under this rule. If I invent a trick myself, revealing it still teaches someone some principles of magic, allowing him/her to instantly see through a trick by a professional magician. Since we are supposed to make sure people will still marvel at the magic (keep them ignorant), it appears to me that we can't tell them anything except "oh, it's a trick..."

IIRC, Penn and Teller once demonstrated on television how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

People will still marvel at magic even if they know how the trick is done. The idea that divulging magician's secrets will cause a loss of income for magicians seems bogus to me.

[Lavie Enrose]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO
People will still marvel at magic even if they know how the trick is done. The idea that divulging magician's secrets will cause a loss of income for magicians seems bogus to me.

Go learn a single, simple, good magic trick. I don't care which one. Learn it, and practice it so that you can do it well. Perform it for someone. Note the reaction of the person to your trick. Then tell the person how it was done. Note the reaction you get from the person when you reveal the secret.

Do the same trick for that person again sometime, and compare the reaction you received when she/he did not know the secret to how it was done, to the reaction you get when she/he knows how it is done.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose


Go learn a single, simple, good magic trick. I don't care which one. Learn it, and practice it so that you can do it well. Perform it for someone. Note the reaction of the person to your trick. Then tell the person how it was done. Note the reaction you get from the person when you reveal the secret.

Do the same trick for that person again sometime, and compare the reaction you received when she/he did not know the secret to how it was done, to the reaction you get when she/he knows how it is done.

If I did that, I would be a lame magician.

A good magician would be able to entertain the same guy with the same trick, but do it in a different way. Not everyone is up to Penn & Teller's standards.

Now that gatekeeping is going by the wayside, magicians will have to do more than buy some tricks and learn them to make a living. They will actually have to think and be entertaining.

You can't stop people from revealing the secrets they learn or that they figure out on their own. You can only deal with the reality.

[wert]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO


IIRC, Penn and Teller once demonstrated on television how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

Proof? I think you're quite mistaken here, but would be willing to be persuaded otherwise by actual evidence.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by wert
Proof? I think you're quite mistaken here, but would be willing to be persuaded otherwise by actual evidence.

I might very well be quite mistaken here. This is why I added, "IIRC". I was also very loose with my wording.

I said: "IIRC, Penn and Teller once demonstrated on television how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear."

I should have said the television show demonstrated one of the possible ways that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

What I remember is a show on television. It was within the last 5-6 years. Perhaps it was that masked magician guy on Fox; I can't find reference for the actual show anywhere.

If it wasn't Penn & Teller, I probably attached Penn & Teller to the revelation because I know of their lack of respect for David Copperfield.

Although I haven't been able to track down who I saw revealing one of the possible ways to make the statue disappear on television that night, I have found the same possibility described, in detail, from a quick google.

I would give you a link to click, but I am pretty sure a link is not allowed here on this forum. Hell, maybe I can't even tell you what words I used in a search engine.

In my research this morning, I have found some really good interviews and articles. One interview ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...teller1229.htm ) with Teller that the Washington Times published was especially good.

Here is a quote:

Quote:

Arlington Virginia: I've read that the illusions for which you and Penn reveal the mechanics for how they work, are illusions the two of you have designed and not illusions designed by others (or classical magician's tricks). Is that true?

I can understand why: who want's to get kicked out of the Magician's union?

Teller: That is true. But the reasons we have to design the tricks ourselves is because regular magicians tricks are so damn dull when you reveal them. I mean basically it all comes down to palming, mirrors and trap doors. okay a little "black art" once in a while but that stuff is so dull that even that gooney guy on fox in the mask couldn't make it entertaining. so we have to think up really clever tricks to expose otherwise you'd just shrug.

I even spotted our friend James Randi in a picture on page 80 in Penn & Teller's book "How to Play with Your Food"

The note at the bottom of the page says, "Without Randi, there would not be a Penn & Teller."