Thanks for the replies thus far...
I'm going to ask a followup question. You mentioned that none of the books would be helpful until one has about 500 shows worth of experience.

If somebody is at that point in their career, do you think that these books would have an impact upon a pro's development?

Or has all the necessary growth and development already happened prior to that?

Too often, books on theory are written by people who have little to no stage experience and are writing about how it should be, rather than how it is.

I am not a professional performer, but I am a teacher, and this basic question of how soon to study theory comes up in my job every single day.

I agree that it takes a lot of experience to be able to apply theory effectively. But there is still value in reading theory even before you can apply it. The theory you read as a beginner will affect the way your brain processes the experience you are gathering -- the same experience you need to fully appreciate the theory.

In other words I believe you will be best served to read some theory, then do 500 (or however many) shows, and then reread the theory.

Quentin makes a good point in referring to what Bruce Lee called "dry land swimming". Theory is all well and fine, until you are tossed into the deep end of the pool.

I would also point out that being reasonably good as a close-up magician does not automatically translate into being able to walk on a stage in front of 1,000 people, command their attention and entertain them. The skill sets are very different.

Actually even though it is common sense that the more shows you do the better you get it isn't always true. The magician could just be getting more practice at doing things the wrong way. After a while he could be doing things the wrong way for so long that the bad habits are so ingrained that he will never be able to get rid of them.

Mere longevity doesn't always denote a superior performer. I have seen people who have only been performing for a very short time who are actually better than magicians who have been doing it for years. They are fresher and more enthusiastic and it shows. And they are often more talented.

And someone who performs for years and years often drops little details along the way. He or she forgets the little details that used to work so well and one day wakes up and the act isn't any good any more.

I have personally seen one of the performers mentioned above deteriorate slowly over a period of 40 years or so. He still got standing ovations from magicians but he was well past his prime at the end.

No. Just because you have been performing for years and years doesn't always prove very much except that you have been performing for years and years.

No, the talent sets required do not overlap. A person who has developed an interesting character and charisma as a close-up performer has no head start on anyone else in learning to work on stage. It's easy as hell to make contact with someone standing a few feet away from you when doing close-up magic. It's extremely difficult to make contact with hundreds of people when they're far away from you when you're on stage.

I will say in a brief aside to Cugel that the skill sets required for a close up magician are indeed vastly different than those required for a stage magician. There can be no argument about this I would have thought. They are entirely different mediums altogether although I do take his point that there are certain qualities that would benefit both mediums.

I can do both reasonably successfully. However I must say that they are very different skill sets. On balance I found the stage more difficult to master as Mr Kaufmann states. Of course other people may well find the opposite according to their natural talents.

[quote=Cugel]

That's pretty much what I'm saying. But the idea that mastery of one form is inherently harder than mastery of another is incorrect.

Since you're a screen name without published qualifications, your opinion comes from what experience?

If you want to believe that succeeding as a top professional stage magician is harder than succeeding as a top close up magician, tell it to the ghosts of Tommy Wonder, Fred Kaps and Del Ray.

As a close-up magician:

you don't have to learn about lighting, agreed
you don't have to learn about makeup, agreed
you don't have to learn about music, that depends. Agree that most don't
you don't have to learn about acting, disagree
you don't have to learn about vocal projection, disagree - depends on the venue
you don't have to learn about the development of stage presence, absolutely disagree
you don't have to learn about how to be directed, agreed
you don't have to learn about movement on stage, but you have to learn about movement
you don't have to learn about stage misdirection, true, but you have to master a more subtle form of misdirection
you don't have to learn about working as part of a team, agreed
you don't have to learn about ... so much. disagree

[quote=NCMarsh]

I'm not sure what the point here is...all three names cited were highly, highly accomplished stage performers as well as close-up workers...

Does anyone who knows anything about Del Ray believe that he had any less work to do in devising, preparing, mastering, maintaining and fine-tuning his act than Roy Benson or Lance Burton or any other magician?

. . .it is easier to go from the stage to close-up than the other way around, as so many other pros have found over the years.

This is analogous to beginning writers who spend enormous amounts of time preparing to be writers. They buy endless numbers of books, attend seminars, workshops, classes, weekend retreats, etc. Many spend years preparing and never write a thing.

The real "secret" of becoming a writer is to write, learning the craft by doing, to the point that they can edit their own material as if it were written by someone else.

Absent qualified directors (of which there are scant few in magic), magicians end up being self-taught or, worse, copying someone else who may or may not know what entertainment is about.

In my experience of being both a professional close-up magician and a stage performer I found that my years of close-up work were not that valuable when I learned stage craft, but that my close-up greatly improved when I knew how to successfully work a stage.

In other words, it is easier to go from the stage to close-up than the other way around, as so many other pros have found over the years.

Often theory is written about by people who have little to no performing experience and write about performing as they think it should be rather than how it actually is. Sometimes the writer's performing experience is in a very narrow field of performing which means that what they write may be applicable to other types of performing and sometimes not. It takes experience and knowledge to understand the difference.

This is analogous to beginning writers who spend enormous amounts of time preparing to be writers. They buy endless numbers of books, attend seminars, workshops, classes, weekend retreats, etc. Many spend years preparing and never write a thing. The real "secret" of becoming a writer is to write, learning the craft by doing, to the point that they can edit their own material as if it were written by someone else.

Clearly, it was easier for you to go from stage to closeup. Maybe that direction applies to most -- I do not know for sure, though I appreciate your depth of experience. I do stand by my observation that for some, closeup is the more challenging and even frighening arena.

I am not going to argue that there are not, usually, many more complex details to be managed in the stage setting. It is a no-brainer. One either has mastery of all the elements of stagecraft, (that's a lot of work) or must hire experts in each area to contribute. Who manages all these people? If you are the performer-director, probably you (now you're a manager - yet another skill set). Or, you may be one performer in a larger production. The precise mix of skills you need depends a lot on your professional and artistic goals.

Is stage harder than closeup? Is my Dad stronger than your Dad? Are we really grownups here?

But damn, if you HAVE to read a book, start with the autobiography of Gus Rapp.

I pity the close-up magician who steps on stage and doesn't know what he's getting into, and doesn't understand how much more difficult it is.

No argument -- stage is literally more "difficult" than close up. Stepping either way though without knowing what one is getting into would be pitiable.

Agreed also, my analogy was not perfect.

An observation: it seems that the folks who suggest that you need to work thorough a bunch of shows (…find a place to “be bad”) before you read any theory all did just that. I haven’t heard from anyone who studied theory first and then started performing.

Is this a case of “I turned out alright” so it must be the right way?

Glenn...How wonderful for you! You had what must be one of the very last old-style magic apprenticeships we are likely to see.

Geoffrey was extremely generous in writing his book and putting to paper much good advice. In relation to its true value, it is quite inexpensive.

1, PRACTICE - Writing, Scripting and practice the magic routines over and over again when they learn it and then add it to their show. This would be the scripting and the rehearsing part as they learn magic tricks and learn to structure a magic routine - for close up or stage magic.