What's the Matter with Kids Magic Today?
By Wesley James
This is America. Anyone can say, write and publish nearly anything they wish. We are not, however, obligated, nor can we be readily compelled, to write or say anything we don't choose. In magic, as a matter of honor, we have agreed not to reveal the secrets of our craft through speech, action or word. It is a part of the oath of every magic organization. It is understood that this constraint applies to the public but not others in the fraternity. In spite of this well know trust-- even lay people know this to be dogma-- from time to time someone breeches the trust, exposing our secrets. Usually the motive is money. The world being what it is, we can understand such a choice. It is no less dishonorable or disreputable but people do much worse for money every day. We recognize that such things happen. Recognizing its inevitability does not excuse the behavior, we are merely forced to see it as a relatively minor offense in the grand scheme of things.
When a fourteen-year-old, from a reasonably affluent family, breeches the trust, money is not the motive. In the instance of the recent book by Micah Lasher, a brief perusal of its pages suggests his motive, EGO. How a fourteen-year-old (who began the project when he was twelve) becomes egotistical and dishonorable enough to betray the fraternity that has embraced him is more difficult to fathom.
I have discussed this matter with others in the fraternity, trying to put the best face on it. I have come to some conclusions. I am convinced that young Mr. Lasher is driven by ego. He does not, however, believe he broke a trust. His ego may be a problem for him, his parents and perhaps, a good analyst. It is no concern of mine. The reason he doesn't feel that he broke the trust is the responsibility of the fraternity. It is a far more important issue and the subject of this piece.
Nevertheless, before I get into examining the responsibility of the fraternity, let me acknowledge that every magician, whether or not they read the book, will have an opinion about it. We all have opinions about exposure. What needs to be said, apart from the exposure issue, is that the book is of small consequence to anyone but Mr. Lasher, his family and six impressionable kids in Nebraska. In terms of its magic content, there isn't an original item in the book of any important to anyone who is even reasonably well versed in the craft. The book has nothing to say to the art. One could expect little more from a boy of such tender years. The book is reasonably well written, "readable", but full of inferior handlings, albeit accurately described. Readable is like cute. It means too good to say anything bad about but not good enough to commend. There has been a flurry of rumor and innuendo suggesting that young Mr. Lasher didn't write the book himself. Those who are so persuaded argue that the book reads too maturely for so young an author. Some are vehement in their position. It seems to me, he probably wrote the book. It would be unreasonable, however, to believe that he didn't have a healthy amount of help from an editor. Moreover, whether or not he wrote every word matters not the slightest. Many writers rely heavily on their editors. The book can be disregarded by the fraternity no matter who wrote it, and it should be. Moreover, the name on the cover reads Micah Lasher; he is responsible for its content.
The relevant issue raised by this book is far more important than the book itself. The six kids in Nebraska will find their way to magic with or without the book if they were meant to do so. Our issue is, how can one know the scope of the trust we demand? How is one to know when they are about to break the trust? It's not as if we've offered clear guidelines or shown consistency. That, brothers and sisters, is the problem. Many endorse Penn & Teller, the Dover publication of our classic books and the Gary Ouelett's penchant for using exposure as a feature of the magic specials he produces. No one applauds these exposures. We make a little noise about them among ourselves, but that's about it. Ultimately, we grudgingly applaud these works because they "promote" magic to the public. After the fact, there isn't much else to say about the work. It is as good or bad as the individuals associated with it. Our inconsistency is in how we regard the disreputable individuals that exploit and betray the secrets of our craft to fill their pockets.
None of this is new. We've been consistently inconsistent. We applauded the Henry Hay Encyclopedia... and Jean Hugard's Expert Card Technique, Scarne on Card Tricks, all of which were published by lay publishers. We revere Bruce Elliott, Walter Gibson and Clayton Rawson as well. We honor the memory of many departed magicians who've blatantly broken the trust, Houdini and Blackstone among them. In short, there has been no practical consequence for acting dishonorably. It's as though we've passed a law against theft, then caught perpetrators red handed. Logically, we should prosecute and penalize. Instead we pat our criminals on the back for a theft well executed and applaud the evidence of the crime. That's the way we deter theft in magic. Magic, it seems, is a toothless tiger.
Before we can decide if we're actually powerless to do anything about the theft of our secrets and betrayal of our trust, we need to decide what we are trying to protect. Toward that end let's examine the core of the issue.
Magic is either an art or it isn't. If it is an art then like other arts it succeeds only to the extent that it communicates at an emotional level. If it communicates at any other level, so be it. Entertainment value, amusement and many of the other values that are so often vaunted are commercial considerations, not artistic ones. Secrecy is less of an issue to the furtherance of these values. Those who elevate these values argue their desirability as if they were mutually exclusive from artistry. They are unrelated. Such practitioners go on to justify their inferior technique and lack of artistry under the rubric "It gets by laymen." I have no problem with others proposing criteria for art but I believe the requirement that a craft communicate something emotional beyond itself is a minimum.
If magic is not an art, we are left with the alternative: considering magic as purely craft, amusement, recreation or whatever else. This would require that we reevaluate all we are about. I find this diminished perception of magic unacceptable. If magic doesn't express something beyond itself, many of us have frittered away a great deal of our lives on triviality. I find no comfort in that judgement.
Part of the inconsistency in attitude and behavior regarding our secrets probably stems from the ambivalence of some of our ranks about magic. If magic is merely amusing tricks, why should we care about protecting it? There may be other issues that have impact but I believe ones respect for our secrets is proportional to ones regard for the art in magic. I don't, however, expect that those who harbor such ambivalence will admit it. That, I'm afraid, is food for another article.
In any event, if we agree that encouraging respect and regard for the artistic aspect of magic is desirable, then awareness of our history and theatrical nature should be a minimum requirement for sharing our secrets. Respect is born in knowledge. I take it as given that respect for our art derives from knowledge of its history and the legacy in which we share. It does not seem unreasonable to me to insist on an awareness of our history and artistic nature before revealing our craft. I am persuaded that, without regard for the traditional rationale, audiences appreciate magic more when they don't know our methods. Moreover, the public is not entitled to know our methods. We are within our rights to demand a historical and artistic context for our craft. If we don't require it, we can and will likely be regarded as an amusement for children. Sound familiar?
Returning to the original context of this article, I was not present but a reliable source informs me that when young Mr. Lasher was questioned about having exposed so many secrets to the general public he brazenly ventured a defense. He reportedly said, "It's not exposing; It's teaching." While the result is the same, one may argue that this is not a distinction without a difference. Many of us got our start in magic from books that were available to the laity. Many of us obtained these books from a public library. Every one of these books represent exposure or teaching, depending on ones perspective. Unless we condemn all such works, some distinction must be made that allows us to determine which it is.
After much thought, I am persuaded that no author can make such a distinction. It is the reader who determines whether revealing a method is teaching or exposure. The mind-set of the reader dictates the difference. From my point of view, this means that no exposure should be permitted in books for the public, none. This does not preclude books on magic for the public. Every other aspect of magic; history, state craft, personalities, etcetera; would be valid fare. The only subjects that should not be broached are method and technique. There are many such books written on most other arts. Books about painters, featuring their work, are published without teaching painting technique. The same can be said of music, theater and most other performing arts, including variety arts. Consider the success of Ricky Jay's Learned Pigs and Fire Proof Women. Discussion of the craft should be reserved for those who wish to pursue performance of the art. How one locates magic dealers, who sell such wares, could be offered in books that discuss other aspects of the art. The information would then have a context. Such a constraint would help insure that an individual have some perspective on magic as an art before becoming involved in the craft. This simple change could do a great deal to improve our art. It could go a long way toward improving magic's respectability in the eyes of the public and in elevating the goals of our future crop of talent. Frankly, it is my solution of choice.
Let's go a step further. Let's say we wish to make an occasional exception and allow some exposure as part of teaching. We could, as a fraternity, set up a screening committee made up of an appointee or more from each of the major magic organizations: IBM, SAM and MDA at least. Others voices could be included as deemed appropriate. This committee would be tasked with reviewing any book intended for the lay public. If approved, pre-publication, it could then be published with approval and a seal to signify its compliance. If an author or publisher chose not to submit a book for approval, action could be taken to undermine the potential success of the book. Legal action, charging theft of trade secret, might become possible. Organized boycotts against the publisher might be effective. Letter writing campaigns aimed at book sellers might also yield results. Organized protests outside the venues of offending performers might help demonstrate the seriousness of the fraternity. Further thought would, no doubt, reveal other reprisals that might prove effective. What is unacceptable is doing nothing. Inaction, is tacit approval. As individuals we can do little; as a group we can influence the future. With clear cut guidelines in place, most authors would comply willingly. Those few who do not should suffer our scorn.
I can end here. I don't need to solve this problem alone. I believe there are a host of others who love magic as I do. They can be called on to help. I can not be the only one convinced that we need to clarify who we are as magicians and what we wish to do with our secrets. If I am, there is no possibility of success. We must resolve among ourselves what we want if we expect our secrets honored. For me that means that for now, unless and until other arrangements are made, all books that expose our secrets should be decried. The authors of such works should be considered pariah, thieves, scoundrels. They should be rebuked or at least ostracized by the fraternity and should not be given access to additional secrets with which to betray us. They should be expelled from all organizations, IBM, SAM, The Magic Castle and the like, to which they may belong. Dealers should remove them from their mailing lists and reject their business. Their performances should be boycotted and their backers excoriated.
As an example, for the case in point, Micah Lasher is a tick, a chigger on magic. He is annoying and painful but inconsequential. He should be swatted, chased away and largely ignored. He clearly has no regard for our art and if ignored will go away. He will move on to seek his ego gratification from another group. Magic will survive his betrayal but his ego cannot survive being ignored. Let us ignore him but not the problem he represents.
Finally, let us assume that I am completely wrong about Lasher, his motive and the disrespect he has shown magic. Let us assume it is a misunderstanding born out of our lack of clarity about the treatment of our secrets. He still owes those of us who love magic and have endeavored to protect its secrets an abject apology. Those who are not offended, for whatever their reasons, can defend Lasher, Oulett and Penn & Teller. Those of us who are offended are owed an apology. We should not hold our breath waiting for it but we should accept no less.