Comment by brandnewlow | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brandnewlow | Hacker News Reader

This is a somewhat old article.

It's also very, very long.

It's also one of the greatest newspaper feature stories I've ever read. It was passed around the writers' circles I was part of when the Post ran it years ago.

Here's the gist (from memory):

1. Guy has a gift for connecting with little kids.

2. Guy has good sense of humor.

3. Guy decides to do magic shows at pre-school birthday parties for a living.

4. Guy targets the richest community of clients for his service.

5. Guy figures out what people are charging for pre-school birthday party magic shows and charges DOUBLE their price.

6. Guy markets his shows by hanging out around shopping malls where parents and kids wandered by, having fake conversations on his cell phone about non-existent work.

7. Guy works 10 birthday parties a weekend, charging $200 for a 30-minute magic show.

8. Parents feel guilty about dropping $200 on a 30-minute preschool magic show, but the kids ADORE the guy's funny act and tricks that blow up in his face. He's got a gift.

There's a great subplot about the magicians deep, dark secret, in fact it's what prompted the Washington Post reporter to shadow the guy for a few months. Parents were wondering why the magician kept showing up unshaven, with dark circles under his eyes, and why his gear was so beat up if he was making so much money.

I'll leave the surprises to those curious enough to read the whole thing.

The author of the article also won the Pulitzer for writing this brilliant piece about skill, art, and modern life:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04...

I've read it before, but this is too is worth a second look.

Thank you - that was interesting and beautiful.

... their son had strung rubber bands across his dresser drawers and was replicating classical tunes by ear, moving drawers in and out to vary the pitch.

Damn, I guess that answers the question: Would he still play music if he had been born to an illiterate family in a desolate rural part of a third world country? Yep, he still would.

Except many people in those parts are so malnourished that their minds don't develop properly.

Or they die before reaching 5 years old.

Thank you for the last couple of paragraphs of your summary that provided the motivation to actually read the article. To others here quick to dismiss it out-of-hand as just a fluff piece, it's anything but.

No problemo. I remember reading it at work when it came out, thinking...what the heck IS this thing?

It came to me originally from the mailing list of Warren Ellis, a cranky, foul-mouthed British comic book writer who hates and despises everything he sees, hears, and reads. That morning he sent an e-mail out to the 12,000 people on his mailing list saying: "Here's something that isn't terrible. In fact, it might be the best thing you read all year."

That's the sort of endorsement that encourages you to keep at it.

http://www.warrenellis.com

my first impression too was WTF? the entire first page tells you almost nothing. Seeing that there were 5+ pages, no thanks....

In this case, the first of 5 pages is nowhere near 20% of the story.

Thanks for the summary. This useless fluff piece lost me after the first page.

How can you render judgment if you didn't read past page one?

Not reading past page one is a judgment. It's one I make all the time about various articles and stories.

Certainly. But then you don't pass judgment on the work as a whole based on the little bit you read.

Perhaps not. But suppose I wrote 5,000 pages of pure stream of consciousness drivel. Would you feel obligated to read every page before deciding the whole thing was crap?

I'll let you know once I finish the other 4,783 pages that DaVinci wrote. It's kept me hooked so far, though. http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/dv/index.htm

So just write "tl;dr" and let us get on with it.

Maybe a different kind of summary would be helpful for certain people.

The article is roughly divided into two parts:

Part #1: How this regular guy, a college dropout, an apparently average Joe, can walk into a room full of parents and children and own them, making the children laugh uncontrollably, the mothers secretly want to sleep with him, the fathers impressed by him. Then they gladly PAY him and he earns six figures working only on weekends. At a business he started by pretending to talk to customers on his cell phone.

Part #2: How every business is made up of real people, with real personality and real-life problems. And how some people (all people?) who have fantastic qualities can also be deeply flawed in other ways.

Part #3: Yes I know I said there were only two parts. The third part is afterwards when you realize this essay that started off as a not-too-serious business article about marketing was in fact an amazing work of art and that it won a PULITZER PRIZE for a reason.

Now go read the whole article.

'This useless fluff piece'

I think your getting the wrong idea. A picture of a cat with a caption on it is a usesless fluff piece, a blog post of a video with someone talking about code is a fluff piece.

This isn't an article about start ups or code; but this article I'd argue will give you more as a human, as a entrepreneur, as a family member, as a citizen then any article you'd get from d2h or 37signals.

This article helps you use your brain in ways that people with engineering degrees have a hard time grasping sometimes. Sure you understand the deep intricacies of x programming language or you've got a really cool app, but it doesn't mean you understand people.

Almost every theory of intelligences says that there is more then one way to be a genius, be it in math, art, people, sports anything. And almost all theories will agree that people who are extremely smart in one area and never apply the brain outside of their specialty can be practically retarded in the other parts.

I've been thinking a whole bunch about this lately, as I go to an Engineering School and the sentiment is that Art Majors and Athletes and English majors are idiots cause they most likely won't be making money when they graduate.

I've been trying to make an argument that even they will agree to and understand, but to ask people to change their mind is like asking a rock to be more like sand.

The article is just toooooooo long. If want to develop my brain in some other way, I can always read some real literature, instead of newspaper articles. Or I could even visit some art galleries with paintings, sculptures and so on.

And even if the article is useful after all, if it's written badly, in a non-interesting way, people won't read it. That's why Joel is so popular. Because his articles are a joy to read.

Anyway, if I really wanted to know more about how people think, I would study Psychology (or Sociology) and spend more time with them in real life. Some people just aren't meant for this kind of stuff. The last universal man was Leonardo da Vinci.

P.S.: I loved your last sentence.

I really liked it. I read the whole thing in one shot, which isn't like me. I actually started re-reading because I was afraid I may have missed details at the beginning when I wasn't yet aware that it deserved my attention.

This is real literature, its writing in the purest sense.

Yes it is long but probably worth it. The last page itself is good enough to justify the article.

Studying psychology only gives you an understanding of the workings but not a feel for humans. Psychology mostly searches for patterns in humans, and often times misses the big picture.

Its tricky to understand but after reading that article and getting to the end to hear about what happened to create the person you read about in the beginning you feel like, or at least I did, you know him. You see that it takes a lifetime of experience to create any one person and lucky is the person whom gets to truly know someone.

What's with the downmod party? I've read 100s of feature articles and this one was pretty dull, especially at the beginning. It does get better towards the end, but there's just nothing great about this guy, or his life, or his life-in-words. He seems really pathetic to me. Makes decent money playing a clown, and then throws it away in Atlantic City on gambling (and probably hookers and blow).

Eh. Except for the "clown" part, how is he different from a million other losers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com