Reviewed Mary 2002

First introduced to this book and its author at the August 2001 Toolbox in Eugene. Massimo lectured with slides about his research. Could not find this book on any bookshelves anywhere and had to order it on-line. (Got a copy for Mary at the same time) Finally had a chance to read it after finishing my Capstone. Polidoro does a wonderful job researching the primary and secondary sources giving us a unique view into the friendship of these two men. I noted many references to their personalities in the martins along with questions about tactics of Houdini. Polidoro explains throughout why Doyle was so stubborn and could not see his ignorance even so I still can't understand. Doyle admits over and over that sometimes mediums resort to cheating when the spirits don't choose to come through, why he can't see this as a problem I don't know. This book isn't here to convince us of the spirit world he is obviously speaking to the skeptic choir, it is a historical view of the time these men shared. I would to have liked to see more illustrations explaining the mediums room. I never really understood why Occam's Razer is never used, nor why controls were so lax and why everything had to be done in the dark?

5-2002 ( )

was so fascinated by this book that I read it in one evening. In a narrow sense, the topic is the discussion/debate between Houdini and Conan Doyle about spiritualism that first made them friends and then opponents. In a larger sense, I think that it has a great deal to say about the human mind and deserves a wide audience. It is an excellent example of how hard it is to consider objectively such subjects in which people invest so much emotion. Conan Doyle was so determined to believe that Houdini was a psychic that nothing Houdini said could deter him.

I have thought for a long time about the issue of trust and credibility. If I would believe someone if they told me that they just saw the bus go by, why don't I necessarily believe them if they tell me that they spoke to a spirit, or god, etc. As this book illustrates, these are issues which have historically involved some much delusion and deception that it is important to proceed with caution. (Of course, it would help if all prophets said the same thing.) I know that I will be thinking about it and quoting it to people for quite a while.

Polidoro is clearly on the side of the skeptics, and makes his affiliations clear up front. He remains, however, sympathetic to Conan Doyle and clearly admires the latter's kindness, intelligence and generally amiable and honorable character. Although he sides intellectually with Houdini, he doesn't attempt to cover his arrogance and boasting.

Recommended to everyone, except perhaps, convinced spiritualists, although even they might find it a useful cautionary tale, if not a convincing argument. ( )

The friendship between Houdini and Conan Doyle was truly a strange one. The first man made his living at deception, yet spear-headed a crusade to unmask other deceivers. The second man is famous for the logical-minded, methodical, and observant character he created, but as for himself, he must have been the most gullible man alive. Conan Doyle actually believed that Houdini had the power to dematerialize and was even fooled by the rather infantile finger trick -- by which a person "disconnects" the forefinger up to the first joint.

Although the topic is fascinating, sadly, the letters of Houdini and Conan Doyle are tedious and wordy. I found myself endlessly skimming them in order to return to the next seance or the next significant event.

Still, I found all the accounts of mediums and their spiritualistic shenanigans mysterious, in spite of Houdini's repeated attempts to discredit them. Some of the explanations presented by the author Polidoro are so complicated and unwieldy, it would be easier to believe in the spirits! Is it really possible to swallow a roll of gauze and regurgitate it later as "ectoplasm," for instance?

Worth reading for those fascinated with the topic (like me), but we could wish that the two principal subjects had been a little less tedious in their correspondence -- or that Polidoro had just summarized more often! ( )

brief summary, no spoilers at
http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/4698159 ( )