Assuming that it's time to start enforcing the keeping of secrets, what do we apply it to? Methods? Effects? Presentations? And who do we keep these secrets from?
It's hard to set up a universal code of conduct for it. In the last post on the topic, I outlined a sort of gradiation for secrecy that I witnessed in Minnesota, and it was a complicated one. To summarize... (1) Bob keeps some things completely secret from Steve. (2) Bob alludes to something around Steve, but gives no details. (3) Bob shares the details with Steve, but Steve cannot even talk about it around Dan. (4) Bob shares the details with Steve, and Steve can allude to it around Dan, but cannot share details. (5) Steve can share the details with Dan, but Dan must be quiet about it with Joe. And so on...
This sort of thing is meant to be approximate. It's less about definind a rigid structure regarding the categories of secrecy, and more as an illustration about the attitude that I think magicians could benefit from. It's this attitude that I've been trying to work with, and obviously the biggest trouble comes if you're at the level where Bob shares something with Steve, but Steve can't even allude to it around Dan, and Bob, Steve and Dan are all friends.
This is what ended up happening with a buddy last night. He shared a routine with the boys that used a move that looked very similar to something I'd shared with him in confidence. He and I had to have a quick discussion to sort it all out -- in the end, it turned out to be his own move (not the one I shared) but it wasn't immediately apparent. The interesting thing was this -- the question came up as to whether or not it would have been ok to employ something else for the boys in that context that really was something shared in secret confidence. This led us to trying to figure out the terms with which these secrets were going to be shared. In the end, I had to say something, that really bothered me to say, which was this. "If I thought that you'd do Move X around the boys, I wouldn't have shared it with you."
Yee-ouch. Sounds pretty harsh and confrontational, doesn't it? And yet it's the way it is, because in the end, that was the level of confidence with which the move was shared with me.
I guess the weird thing is this. When I think about the stuff that Tyler passed along to me, I can feel alright about him dictating harsh terms to me about the stuff's dissemination. But when I've got to turn around and start dictating terms to others, it gets more complicated -- essentially, because I'm pretty weak that way. (More on this in a second) I'm not used to having that sort of responsibility, and enforcing the secrecy. It's quite tough.
In any case, after an apology (on my part, to be clear, since it was his move he was performing) I think we managed to sort it out, although it's not really been talked about to the entire group, so I guess more awkward dialogue awaits. That said, if anybody out there is going to try to take on this same experiment that I am, keep in mind that there is potential awkwardness awaiting you. Better to make sure that this stuff is all clarified ahead of time.
As for which is most important to protect -- methods, strategies, effects, and presentations -- I don't think it's really that easy to say. There are obvious benefits to keeping a presentation secret, but sometimes all these things interoperate organically. Let's say you've got a retention of vision vanish that uses a brand new method. On the one hand, if you're using it for a standard coin vanish and reappearance that could be done in any coin flurry, it can be regarded as a standalone sleight. If, on the other hand, you've got a really unique presentation idea, and that specific retention of vision move fits perfectly with that presentation, you might see a stronger relationship between the two. I know that sounds vague, but it's highly possible. I already have this problem with a card move and the routine I've got in mind for it -- the move could have applications in other routines, but it is PERFECT for this routine, for a bunch of reasons. As such, I think it's possible that all this paranoid secrecy can apply to anything regardless of whether it's a move, a strategy, an effect, or a presentation.
I mentioned earlier about feedback on the past blog entry... Over at the Magic Hat forum, a discussion came up about the last blog entry which led to a discussion about the value of this sort of secret-keeping. One guy made the point that he envisions a community where magicians can come together and share secrets without fear or worries about it getting out amongst non-magicians. Setting aside my own personal feelings about this sort of situation, there's one BIG setback about this sort of ideal community, and that's this Tylerism: Sometimes the greatest gift that we can give another magician is the mystery of not being able to find out how something is done. This is especially applicable in this day and age when secrets are so easy to come by. The more we learn, the more cynical we get, and the harder it is to remember what it's like to be a regular person who is completely baffled by a trick, to have that burr in the back of the brain eating away at you. Those moments are infrequent and precious, and if there is a real benefit to throwing up some barriers again, it's that we can give ourselves a chance at that feeling, at understanding the experiences we want non-magicians to have, and all the feelings associated with that experience. Far from being harmful to other magicians, this sort of attitude can be immensely helpful to them, albeit in a tough love sort of way.
Finally, I wanted to reiterate that I really do know how hard it is to keep this shit quiet. Before, I offered the challenge of trying to come up with routines that nobody knew about and to keep it that way until the eve of 2010. Going into the New Year, I had two of my own. After four beers last night, I'm down to one, and unfortunately it's not the better of the two. I'm basically at another guy's mercy, and it's not a good feeling. Kind of like eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, there's an instant gratification followed by a belly-ache.
Here's wishing you better luck (or a better backbone, anyway) than I've had thus far.
14 comments:
hmmm
i don't know.
i think this post finally tipped me the other way.
i think that the idea of a secret as a possession that must be protected is the biggest illusion of all.
it's funny. especially considering stuff that you and i have talked about in regards to writing. you can always tell an amateur writer because they're mainly concerned with protecting their precious idea. they send themselves manuscripts to ensure copyright protection, the first thing they do after writing a feature script is to register it with the WGC or WGA.
what they don't realize is that ideas aren't the important thing. it's what you do with the idea that counts. that great notion of the basketball-playing monkey that becomes the president?... it's already in development at Fox! right now i'm pitching three ideas and there are variations of each of them already in development elsewhere... that said, it's my take on them that will give me the edge to take it to the next stage of development... or will allow the networks to say: "Next."
And let's say I'm one of the lucky ones... let's say I've got a show about a "the backstage antics of an SNL-type show". And I hear that there's another show with the exact same premise... Does it matter? It does if you're Live from the Sunset Strip instead of 30 Rock. And who would have guessed that 30 Rock would win that battle?
My point is... in the long run... secrets don't belong to anybody, any more than ideas do. Sure you can keep them to yourself. But if you do you can't even think that in any stretch of the imagination that it's yours. That cool move, that killer effect, has, is or will be performed by somebody, somewhere, sometime. In fact, the irony is sharing it is the only way to maintain the illusion of possession. "I'm going to show you MY move but you can't show it to anyone else."
And even then... Look at the Goshman... I mean, Tenkai pinch.
I think: share your ideas or don't. But it does you no good to claim them as your own... or Tyler's... or mine.
Thanks for posting, great stuff.
"Sometimes the greatest gift that we can give another magician is the mystery of not being able to find out how something is done."
That was a particularly resonant quotation.
I think trying to duplicate tricks by Cyril or Blaine et al. when I was younger with no knowledge of how they worked really helped get me thinking creatively.
I agree. I think that's a really constructive way to look at the "secrets debate".
Dave,
"I think: share your ideas or don't. But it does you no good to claim them as your own... or Tyler's... or mine."
Disagree with this. If the idea is new, it belongs to the person who came up with it. The quote "I think, therefore I am" belongs to Descartes. The concept described might have been inevitable, but the quote is not. If somebody else tries to pass it off as their quote, the general openness of dialogue in Philosophy means that the claim can be verified. In most cases, anybody who tries to make a living off the ideas of others has peer review as a failsafe.
In magic, the culture of secrecy is such that this peer review cannot exist on an effective basis. If Magician X rips off Magician Y, our audiences don't care, and Magician Y can capitalize on this. As such, basic decency dictates that we credit when another person's idea is used. Also, common sense says that if we don't want others to use our ideas, we don't share them with those who could use them. It's the only safeguard we've got.
As for secrecy of idea being the difference between the amateur and the professional, even in writing, I think that's pretty easily refuted by commercial writers who desperately make sure that key details are kept secret before publication, whereupon the work as a whole is claimed proper. For instance, look at the secrecy that surrounded then-upcoming Harry Potter books once the series became popular. Yes, the product must deliver, but in writing, the product is permanent and tangible. In magic, it's not. If I do my effect X my way, and another magician takes effect X and does it his way, what of permanence is there to differentiate one as being unique from the other, as one being a creation and one being a rip-off?
It's likely inevitable that the ideas will get out eventually, and thereby attain the status of belonging to everyone, but between now and then...?
Hey Andrew
Thanks for your reply. I think this is something that will have to take place in an actual conversation. Where there's at least a little room to manoeuver.
I don't think Descartes would ever say "Cogito ergo sum" was his. I think he would say the idea was the world's.
And Rowlings' secrecy around the book were for the readers' sakes. She wanted everybody to have the chance to enjoy the books equally... she wasn't afraid of somebody ripping off the plot. In fact, there are a ton of Potter knockoffs out there and their existence don't diminish the original at all.
But I do respect that when it comes to Magic as an industry... it's secrets that are sold. The recent blow up with Gerard's Energy Bill is a case in point. Magic is a business and nobody should kid themselves about that... and if that is the reason for keeping mum on things I think that's a different argument.
yr pal
dave
D-
Assuming he would feel that way, Descartes has the luxury of being able to say a quote like that belongs to the world, because peer review can verify that while it might "belong to the world", it was Descartes who came up with it. To put it another way, if somebody ELSE had said it first, it would be ridiculous of Descartes to say it belonged to the world. It wouldn't be his place.
As for Rowlings, her knock-offs are clearly identified by the fact that she precedes them, and the publication of the book marks that precedence. We simply don't have this in magic... our publication is performance, and it's impermanent. There's also something to the fact that many mediums have their own particular barriers of entry that make ripping things off difficult. If I find out Rowlings's plot JUST before her book comes out, it's going to take some doing in order to put out my own story in time to trump her. It's still possible, though (for instance, putting together an impromptu play onstage made up of the material, for instance, and then Youtubing it) and the only way to guard against that is secrecy up until the publication itself. With magic, though, the barriers are almost nothing. There's little to prevent somebody from seeing my trick and start doing it for other people -- unless I safeguard myself.
I know that there's a certain arrogance in thinking that I've got ideas that other magicians would want to rip off, and use that as justification for keeping things under wraps and encouraging a culture of secrecy around myself.
All I can say is that it's a judgement call. I learned some things in Minnesota which, when compared to what I've researched thus far amongst things already in print in the magic world, are both incredible and not widely known. If Tyler came up with Move X, then I can't very well say that the idea isn't his and feel honest about it. I could turn around and publish Move X as my own, and certainly use no end of rationalization to maintain a claim on it, and I'm sure Tyler knows this risk. The only thing that keeps that from happening is respect... respect for the secret, respect for the magician, respect for the idea of artistic creation. As such, when Tyler shares Move X with me, it's under his terms, and I've got to respect them.
In the end, it's a practical matter. I've got a vested interest in not violating his terms, and in keeping with his approach to magic and secrecy, because it's a system that works. It can make things a bit uncomfortable behind the scenes amongst magicians, sure, but if the relationship amongst magicians takes priority over setting things up for a spectator to give him the best possible experience, then we risk the relegation of magic as an art form to a lower level.
andrew
how can i argue with you when you keep shifting what we're arguing about? :)
neither nor anyone else would argue descartes said what he said, what i was arguing (as you known) was that the idea does not belong to him. (and that's not an invitation to equivocate on the words idea or belong).
and the rowling thing wasn't to argue about the nature of the knock offs (or the stories of magical children that were published before or since HP) but that her motive for keeping things secret wasn't a hording thing but a desire for her to have her audience in the same experience.
for me there are two problems about secrecy and magicians 1. is that magicians want it both ways. they want to be shared with... but they don't want to share. it's a hypocritical stance and doesn't acknowledge the irony that if it wasn't for people sharing most of us wouldn't be enjoying doing the things we do (although doubtless a small number of the tenacious among us would) and 2. that when secrets have become monitized as they have in the magic community where $$$ are the ONLY criteria for possessing secrets people start to believe that they deserve the secrets whether they can afford it or not...
which is why i totally agree with you that there has to be a new way of sharing... one based on a relationship other than consumer and producer... and that I believe that there already exists a sub-community where that is already happening.
and guess what?
you're part of it!
welcome brother.
I don't think I've been shifting arguments, Dave. Rather, I've been trying to address yours. My comment on Rowling's secrecy is based on your remark, "you can always tell an amateur writer because they're mainly concerned with protecting their precious idea." My comment about knock-offs is based on your remark "In fact, there are a ton of Potter knockoffs out there and their existence don't diminish the original at all."
There are going to be difficulties finding parallels between magic and other forms of communication specifically because of core phenomena in play. In any other field, the entirety of the product is out there for people to see at the point of publication. At this point, ownership of ideas becomes moot, because peer review can establish and enforce claims of originality.
We don't have this in magic. If you produce a mentalism set containing a bunch of original methods and presentations, there is nothing keeping other people from copying you directly, unless you take safeguards, which you have to enforce on a personal basis.
Regarding this: "1. is that magicians want it both ways. they want to be shared with... but they don't want to share. it's a hypocritical stance and doesn't acknowledge the irony that if it wasn't for people sharing most of us wouldn't be enjoying doing the things we do (although doubtless a small number of the tenacious among us would)"
I see where you're going with this... the mentality of somebody wanting to be the last one into the club and shutting the door to keep out all the others right behind him. That's not quite what I'm talking about. This secrecy isn't something I'm trying to artificially impose upon magic secrets in general, but instead, it's something that's been asked OF me in return for being shown inside stuff. It's a question of gaining something of value based upon my demonstrated commitment to the principle.
Obviously, I can't keep people from knowing about the DL or Miser's Dream or anything like that. Nor do I really want to. What I do want to ensure is that if I'm in a situation where I've got work that is unknown to the masses, that this information is controlled in a way that's in my own best interests. That can still include the possibility of opening the door up a little bit to help out somebody who could really use it. But in learning how to be exclusive with this largely unknown material, I think we have to develop a mindset where we truly know how to keep a secret, and that means looking at people whom you'd otherwise be willing to share with, and either saying, "Sorry, I can't." or else holding back the idea that the stuff even exists in the first place. We need to practice that, because at the moment, it's like a muscle amongst magicians that's atrophied.
As for who owns Descartes's phrase, that original example was used to illustrate a point -- not every discipline, or community surrounding a discipline, takes accreditation of ideas equally. With some it's taken as a given, and attempts at theft would be laughed at because the proof of theft is so easily verified. The quote is his, and the way it gives shape to the idea is his. If he chooses to share it with the world, fair play to him, but credit belongs to him, not the world. Unfortunately, in magic, the tradition for respecting originality is not as strong, and it's up to us to enforce it by ensuring that credit is given when credit is due, and as creators, the only safeguard to maintain originality is to make sure nobody can copy us.
Besides, keeping something like "I think, therefore I am" a secret makes no sense. That's ultimately the product, and it's meant to be shared, much like a performance of a magic show. If Descartes had some sort of hidden device that gave him insights like the one in that quote, then it'd be a different thing altogether.
Secrecy for me is a little tricky on two parts: this first is that I'm a complete amateur-I'm learning to perform for friends, family, and potentially for groups I'm connected with. I've no intention of performing for pay outside of what enjoyment I can create. The second is that I'm a research scientist and sharing is what we do (though in my case, it's circumscribed as I rotate between business and academics).
That said: I see the need for secrecy with professionals and semi-pros. I sincerely doubt that Jay Sankey shares anything he's not done with or didn't specifically create to sell. If I were a professional, I'd not share anything until I was done with it in my regular routines. If you've got something wicked cool, you should keep it to yourself for a bit.
I'm fairly cynical--I'm an avowed skeptic--training the sciences can do that. I know all magic is tricks whether it's sleights, mathematics, or psychology. I like magic without knowing how it's done for the same reason I like a good book.
For the record: I auditioned for a certain magic television show, with a piece I am very proud of, the closer in my closeup set. Needless to say I did not make it on to the show, but someone who did now features the almost exact same effect in his touring act....
I am now very careful with who I show or tell things about to (though I am a little bit flattered that someone of that level of success would steal from a no-name like me).
I'm wondering though, Natan. If your experience demonstrates the need for greater secrecy or the folly of it.
There will always be people "stealing", "borrowing" or imitating.
Lately I've been thinking the job of the magic artist (as opposed to the generic magician) is to make an effect so much their own it's essentially impossible to steal because its so tightly tied to their character.
great thread.
I'm not so sure.
If I do a routine only for lay audiences, I really don't need to worry about it being stolen. Outside of large-scale public performances (hah, which are still a long way off for me) I think one can operationally protect his or her original routines. I imagine that if I had never performed that routine in that audition it would remain exclusive to me (as that is the only time I have performed it for a non-lay audience)
I'm the guy that envisioned a utopic community of secret sharing. After reading this second part, I still feel exactly the same way. I disagree fundamentally with your "Tylerism."
I'm going to delve into magic theory, so it's obviously not absolute, but it's the difference between effect and method. As a performer, methods are secondary to the magical moment, which is usually the result of an effect, not a method. It is not our methods that astonish audiences, but our effects. It's the transposition of two cards presented in a magical manner that astonishes an audience, not our smooth spread pass.
My point is simple; it's not "not being able to find out how something is done" that is magical, but the very moment of magic that we create through our effect and presentation.
If a magician fools me, I don't have a magical experience. I was simply fooled. The desire I have to know how it was done is so that I can create a moment of magic for other people. The feeling that "I have to know how it is done" is simply a manifestation of a compulsive attitude. It has nothing to do with magic.
If my goal as a magician were to simply fool or deceive an audience, then my stance may be altogether different (I may for instance, become a lawyer instead of a magician). But since it is my goal to astonish and create that emotional experience that I refer to as a "magical moment" I don't find that brain eating burr to be of paramount importance.
I could write paragraphs more on the difference between astonishment and deception/foolery, but I think the point is made. Tricking a magician is not a giving a gift...it's simply annoying him.
'I'm the guy that envisioned a utopic community of secret sharing. After reading this second part, I still feel exactly the same way. I disagree fundamentally with your "Tylerism."'
Ok.
Post a Comment