The Magicanada Project

Michael Kras

Ok ok, so for a while I was a shameless fan, Reuben probably remembers that time. But after a conversation with James Biss a few years ago, I began to rethink my feelings.

I realized he's pure %#$$. My realizations began after said conversation with James Biss, in which I showed him an interesting Jermay idea. He said "That's very interesting! Whose is that?"... I replied Jermay, and James' face went from a smile to a look of disappointment. After a bit of confusion, he explained his thoughts... and I started to agree.

After thinking about it and re-reading both of his books, I realize the Jermay actually doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. I get the sinking feeling that the man can't practice what he preaches either. Not only is some of the stuff pure *$%#, but most of his personal theories aren't backed up well.

The fact that he published his book, 3510, is a clue.... there was a missing half-method for one of the effects, too many spelling and grammatical errors to count, plus a FULL MISSING CHAPTER on suggestion. It's hard to take him seriously.

There, I have said my piece.

_________________
Michael Kras
Forum Administrator

Reuben The Great · Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Posts: 245

I honestly have no background about him, so I'm not qualified to make any judgements. All I know is he works for Criss Angel, so may god smite him wherever he may be.
_________________
"I lost a bundle of hundred dollar bills in an elastic".

"I found the elastic."

Ben Train · Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 268

First, shouldn't this be in the "magicians" section?

Second, so this isn't just random bashing, what made you change your mind about his work? Just the lack of spelling and poor production values? Couldn't that mean that he's just a bad editor... says nothing about the magic...

Finally, isn't it possible that James doesn't like him because maybe he bashed James' work? Both are fairly high profile, and James' book wasn't met with universal praise (though, for the most part, it was well received).

Just some random thoughts.

Michael Kras · Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:03 am Post subject:

Well, in the beginning, Jermay's book was foolishly my first book on mentalism (ironically, the last mentalism book I've obtained is 13 Steps... I know, I'm a bad boy). I had nothing to compare it to. Then I stumbled upon Anneman and Maven and my eyes were opened. THEY published GOOD mentalism. Jermay has a few interesting ideas, I am fully ready to admit, but a lot of it seems "half baked", impractical, or simply unworkable.
_________________
Michael Kras
Forum Administrator

Ben Train · Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 268

I'm not disagreeing with you (or agreeing for that matter), but I'll ask a question: Luke has been well received by most of the magic community. He writes for Magic (or Genii, can't remember), designs things for some of the big boys (Brown, Nyman, etc), and his lectures/work has been getting a lot of positive reviews.

Why do you think this is?

Michael Kras · Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject:

It could partly be the novelty of such a young "prodigy" or maybe they like his offbeat ideas.
_________________
Michael Kras
Forum Administrator

LIVR · Joined: 29 Aug 2008 Posts: 52 Location: Ontario

THe only think I really know about Jermay is through one column I read in Magic. He had some interesting thoughts about performing mentalism in strolling situations, but the "effect" he included as an example was entirely derivative and about as unoriginal as you can possibly get.

Part of the problem is that there is extremely little breadth of material in mentalism. I counted once with a friend and we found that there were 3 effects and (if I remember right) 8 plots. That's it! Everything else is a variation on a theme - change the peek, change the force, change the marking system, etc

You have to work pretty damn hard to break new ground in mentalism and most of it comes in the form of minute touches and subtleties, not "new presentations" most of which aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

James the pickpocket · Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 4 Location: Barrie, Ontario

Michael Kras · Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject:

Wow, some of this was pretty darn harsh of me.

It's clear that Jermay has a passion for mentalism and is admittedly extremely good at what he does.

This, having been 2 years ago, I cannot remember anything that Mr. Biss said in regards to Jermay.

I was perhaps mainly angry with his book "3510" at the time of posting this thread... the errors in it were inexcusable considering the price of the book, I was not a happy camper. The book has SOME good insight to stage mentalism (the chapter devoted to his "Touching on Hoy" is a personal favourite") but like I said, all sorts of annoying spelling and grammatical errors, half of a method missing from one effect (I believe it was some sort of Poker Deal... "Thanks To Chan" I believe it was, the effect inspired by Chan Canasta) and even a full missing chapter (The Penguin Magic Website still advertises a chapter on Suggestion, but it doesn't exist) make the book just barely tolerable... for me.
_________________
Michael Kras
Forum Administrator

James the pickpocket · Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 4 Location: Barrie, Ontario

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is missing from the Thanks to Chan 10 card poker deal?

Also, Chapter 13 deals with suggestion.

I looked at the penguin website, and chapter 11 says its suggestion, but in the book it says pre show work.

That does suck. But it doesn't make it a bad book. The pre show work is a good chapter, especially if you want to have a very strong mentalism piece in your act.

I find new ideas to work on with Luke Jermay's effects.

Maybe that's just me.

_________________
"My words improve trees."

Warren Ellis