Hey Guys,
The internet magic world is on fire these days amidst the controversy between Shawn Farquhar and Russ Stevens’ acts. If you haven’t heard anything about it, head on over to iTricks for the latest dish. But we here at The Clog would never stoop so low as to discuss a hot topic simply to attract hits to our site. We’re above that.

But I would like to discuss Fawn Sharquhar and Suss Revens. They are two completely different people than Shawn and Russ, but are going through a remarkably similar bout of mudslinging. I will assume you are familiar with the allegations and facts before moving on, and have watched both of these gentlemen’s acts.

Just so there are no questions; I am unequivocally on Suss Reven’s side of this debate. And I must hand it to him for being such a class act throughout the debacle. I don’t know if I would have been so diplomatic in his shoes.

What it boils down to is that I just don’t understand what Fawn is trying to claim as his. Sure, his act is different than Suss’, but is it different enough to claim as his own? I don’t need a magic eight-ball to see that all signs point to “No.” And if you think this is a purely subjective opinion, let me take you through some simple arithmetic to arrive at the conclusion:

- Take Fawn’s act.
- Subtract all the elements that Suss had previously established in his own routine. The song. The stool. Producing the cards named in the lyrics, etc.
- What are you left with?

A mediocre-at-best Ambitious Card routine done in front of a camera (which sadly only magnifies the sloppy technique).

So again, what is Fawn trying to claim? Obviously not Suss’ elements, as he clearly had precedence. So does he want us to marvel at his Tilt or break-getting abilities? I hope not.

Even if we were to pretend that Fawn developed his act independently, Suss still has precedence. I would get laughed out of the room if I said, “Well, it’s obvious to show two cards as one, so I’m going to claim the Double Lift.” Suss was there first and his groundwork should be appreciated, plain and simple. Let’s face it, it’s easy to pick apart individual parts: “Suss wasn’t the first to use a stool,” “It’s an obvious song to use for a card act,” (EVERYTHING is obvious in hindsight, by the way; that’s what’s so great about seeing hinds), “Fawn didn’t use a card sword,” etc., but ANY original act can be picked apart if it’s broken down to small enough bits. If we started viewing every element in isolation from each other, there would be no such thing as originality. They say, “The sum is greater than its parts,” for a reason. We need to recognize the people who make sums. We need to recognize Suss Reven’s contributions.

And for those who claim, “But.. but… the moves are all different!”Let’s look at it another way: if Fawn came out and performed a manipulation act almost move for move with what Suss had performed – but WITHOUT the music, stool, etc. – no one would have blinked an eye (or is it “blunk” an eye?). I’m sure even Suss would admit that his moves were standard. Because that’s not the point. The point is how he put it all together and made the magic relevant. And that’s what Fawn appropriated.

If FISM is granting awards for this type of magic, I think I might enter in Blackpool 2012 doing a one-handed card trick, shouting, “I can’t do it any slower!” (in Spanish, of course). But to show the judges how original and creative I am, I won’t do Oil & Water. It will be an Ace Assembly. And it will be AWESOME!

The sad part about the whole thing is that Fawn’s act (with all of Suss’ elements intact) is actually pretty good. And all of this controversy could have been avoided if he had just been open from the beginning, acknowledging that it’s a cool adaptation of Suss’ act.

Because that’s what it is.

Tyler Wilson

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am and is filed under General magic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.