I originally became interested in reading Showmanship for Magicians by Dariel Fitzkee after Darwin Ortiz coined the phrase “the Fitzkee fallacy” in Strong Magic. The way Ortiz characterizes Fitzkee’s philosophy seemed objectionable to the performance of magic but especially so to the social performer. Recently, I chose to read it, if only out of morbid curiosity. Frankly, I approached Showmanship for Magicians fully expecting to tear Fitzkee’s philosophy to shreds. After all, if you are prioritizing other forms of entertainment to make magic more palatable, why are you even bothering to do magic in the first place? When Fitzkee attempted to shield himself with the claim that the criticism of amateur magicians was meaningless it only strengthened my resolve to take him to task.

Perhaps it is a mild case of Stockholm Syndrome, but as I read I learned to appreciate Fitzkee. Despite reading the book with the perspective of the social magician in mind, I still found a lot of very practical advice and valuable insight. This is not to say Showmanship for Magicians is perfect. Fitzkee is often repetitive, he was at the forefront of the bloated “list” content that would come to dominate the internet, his writing often feels very cynical, the book is blemished with old fashioned magic racism… and I still do not fully agree with Fitzkee at many points. But my perspective of him and his writing changed after reading Showmanship for Magicians.

In many ways, I think Fitzkee has become misunderstood over the years. There is this idea that Fitzkee does not believe that magic is inherently entertaining and that it needs to be combined with other forms of entertainment for the audience to choke it down. I would argue that really, he is saying that the usual presentation of magic as a puzzle lacks entertainment and that we should be looking at other types of entertainment to make magic interesting to the audience. At times Fitzkee does put other forms of entertainment ahead of the magic, however, I think his overall goal was to shift magic away from being for magicians and instead shift to what audiences actually want to see. He stresses the importance in not looking at what magicians are doing but rather to look outside of magic and see what audiences are spending money on.

Arguably, Fitzkee was ahead of his time in his audience-centric approach to magic.

Surprisingly, despite the heavy emphasis on selling an act and the professional side of magic, Fitzkee does mention that the material in Showmanship for Magicians is applicable to casual performances. Based on the list of chapters, I was skeptical. While large swaths of the book are made up of advice for those working professional shows such as advice on music, lighting and assistance, even those sections have advice that can be applied to the casual performer. We may not work with assistance but the people we are performing for are part of our act, even if that act is one effect at the café. The advice on casting assistance is still useful for how we interact with the audience, what we should be saying to them, and determining what role they are playing in the effect. We may not work with music (usually), but the role of tempo is still applicable to our performances, and atmosphere can still play a vital role in performing social magic.

I feel as though I would be doing Fitzkee a disservice if I did not mention that the book includes much of the standard wisdom of performing such as being well rehearsed, understanding your character and material choice. All of this advice is practical, however, it is by no means revolutionary and often feels repetitious. The amount of times Fitzkee feels the need to stress the importance of proper grooming demonstrates that not much has changed in the magic community since 1943. Still, the inclusion of such advice is applicable to the social performer and adds value to the book even if it is not particularly groundbreaking. Though the phrase “bears repeating” is taken a bit too literally.

There are several points where I disagree with Fitzkee such as his evaluation of comedy. Fitzkee suggests that when a magician adds comedy to their act they largely forget that they are a magician, that magic should be used when it can get a laugh. This is in sharp contrast to Tarbell’s analysis on how to make people laugh in Tarbell Vol. 3 in which the Doctor expresses that magic itself is based upon the psychology of laughter, and yet magic is not treated as subservient to comedy but rather the comedy is itself an extension of the magic.

Despite my objection, there are still ideas that I find interesting here. Fitzkee still breaks down various types of comedy and encourages us to find comedy that works with our style, comedy that fits our character. He encourages us to look not at comedy magicians but rather at those who are at the top of the comedy field to analyze why audiences enjoy those routines. I may object to the overall philosophy Fitzkee lays out, but his advice still manages to be incredibly practical.

Going into this, it seemed like it was going to be such a simple task to make fun of this dead man. I was prepared to write a scathing critique of Showmanship for Magicians, and how Fitzkee’s theory was inherently antithetical to approaching magic from a social perspective. Instead, I found myself with a begrudging respect for the book. Fitzkee may have intended Showmanship for Magicians to be focused on selling an act and providing advice for aspiring professionals but I was surprised by how much of the advice is applicable to the casual performer. Not all of the advice is earth-shattering, and I don’t agree with everything in the book, but overall there is still a lot to take away from Fitzkee’s writing even if you aren’t planning on selling a show.

Over time the synopsis of his theory was simplified and Fitzkee became a bit misunderstood, but really I think he was ahead of his time with a very audience-centric approach to constructing routines and rallying against presenting magic the same way it had been done for generations. Fitzkee urges us to look at entertainment outside of magic to create routines that appeal to our audience’s tastes and to put their desires ahead of our own.

I went into this reading with a heavy degree of skepticism and the full intention of debating Fitzkee’s ideas with a different perspective of magic. I still don’t love Fitzkee, but I gained a newfound appreciation for him.