Editrivia

A stack of mail came in this month, but a letter that impressed me muchly said, in part, “I want to save the Cups and Balls lessons by themselves, but find important matter on the backs of the pages, all of which ruins the rest of the issue. Couldn’t you put something else, like Editrivia, on the other side of the series ?” That, my readers, accounts for the displacement of this page, starting with this issue. Does anyone wish me to break off my arms and legs just so they can bind the torso ?

Even cartoonists take an occasional crack at us despite the fact that our own trade journals burn page after page writing that there is nothing wrong with magic. Lee Falk and Phil Davis, in their Mandrake the Magician comic strip recently portrayed Manny sitting in front of an agent in an effort to sell his services for a production. The booker’s reply (and a familiar one, too !) was “So you’re a magician, huh ? Well, I can’t use you ! — Listen, magicians are a dime of a dozen. I’ve got all my acts signed up. My revue is going to be the biggest, the most lavish, etc.” Naturally, it being a strip about Mandrake, a magician, he is 1 to 10 to come out on top, but the point is that outsiders, people who live on the public pulse, recognise the fact that magicians (as a classification) can be bought cheaply and are not a worthy adjunct to a costly production. When a producer casts a show today, and looks for a luminary to whom he ear marks from $2000 to $4000 per week in his budget, he doesn’t look for a magician, not by a spavined longshot ! He goes for an international comedian or reputationalized movie star who has B.O. value with the public. Many magicians have B.O. value, too, but it’s the kind looked upon with askance by advertisers and not the kind that gives work to blonde box office ticketeers.

Verily, with which word the late Oscar Teale once flayed my senses, you can count on your two hands the number of present day magicians who are capable of playing ONLY a part in the modern musical production. I want to be interpreted straight now, as I am not saying that a magic man could not possibly feature and carry a show. I’m a certain believer that it could be done, provided that the book were written by one of the recognised “light” writers of our day, and the play casted with an actor of recognised ability and B.O. appeal. Lionel Barrymore could do it. Muni could do it. Even Walter Hampden could do it, were the story to be written around a possible escapade in the life of Cagliostro. It’s simply a question of a sound magically based story with a good actor, and not a bag full of tricks, one after the other without rhyme or reason, presented by someone who nails down carpets during the day and does “tricks” at night before 69 members of the Associated Group of Hereditary Heretics for from $3 to $8, considering himself a magician in the sense of the word. 999 out of 1000 of these same persons wouldn’t spend the same amount of time on a single item in their program as does an acrobat learning a simple headstand, and I’ll have to admit (even while in this mood) that acrobats average less in earnings than magi.

Only a man with space to waste should go into a tirade like that above. Magic, as an Art, has lived through many centuries. The past advocates have benefited, and undoubtedly those of the future will also. We of the present are in a transition. Magic of coming eras will be of a different sort, with a different appeal. This decade does countenance a type of magician whose progeny will rise to the heights experienced by those from Houdin to Houdini. Then, again, will he who is called “magician” rise to a degree worthy of his hire, rather than exist as a glorified amateur. One point missed by all is that there can be respected amateurs in every line but show business. When you start entertaining the public, you are either a professional calibre or else you are just plain lousy.

Little Johnny Jones is well known to us. It’s what he calls himself, and it’s what he becomes to me, at least, with the current spread of two page exposures of SMALL tricks. One of these days, the Jinx will sponsor a poll, the greatest and most exhaustive ever known to the world of magic, and just one of the various queries will be “Did you ever divulge, in a medium placed before the public at large, the contents of which did not depend upon your contribution or a number of such, and which was devoted substantially, for acknowledged sale purposes, only to the general welfare of the human being physically, and what was current in world happenings of interest to the human being mentally, ANY DEVICE, OR METHOD OR PROCEDURE WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE, WHICH YOU, YOURSELF, MIGHT OTHERWISE OR DID PREVIOUSLY PUT TO PROFITABLE USE IN THE FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT OR WONDERMENT, YOU TO RECEIVE PAYMENT IN CASH OR PUBLIC ACCLAIM ?”

You, perhaps, can think of something that doesn’t cover. I can’t. And the above is just ONE of the simple questions in the poll !

My vanity has been blown up a bit. Last month, I mentioned Mulholland’s Story of Magic as of Gimbel Bros. N.Y.C., at 49 cents. Then a treasured subscriber sent me a letter wherein Gimbel Bros. did say they couldn’t supply it. I went over and asked for it. The keeper of the tomes told me they picked up ten copies, didn’t have one in stock, and would like to know why in hell the rush was on. They never advertised the basement bargains (which are shopworns, pickups, and so and soes) but 19 mail orders had come in for that book. Perhaps I should have started this paragraph, “John Mulholland’s vanity should be blown up a bit.”

The rabbit on the next page represents the most subtle trick of the month. Half black and white, it can be placed on its side in a top hat, and with the black side outward, the topper can be shown apparently empty. Yet instantly, and with no fumbling or fakes or gimmicks, the rabbit may be produced, with, of course, the white side out !

Albert Guissart passed away recently. Only a few of the present day magi knew him, but I had the pleasure for about eleven years and appreciated him a lot. Mr Guissart would have liked the Sphinx obituary, but he would have been much happier had it been mentioned about his S.A.M. affiliations. Around fifteen years ago his heart was cracked when he and Clinton Burgess were expelled from the S.A.M. only because Houdini didn’t like a letter Burgess had written about Houdini in connection with the book Elliott’s Last Legacy and which letter Guissart only translated to French. Mind you, there was no exposing. Just a letter. But BOOM ! Moral : Expose if you wish – but don’t criticize !