talkmagic.co.uk

Klangster1971 wrote:Probably referring to Derren Brown's 'Absolute Magic'. Along with DB's 'Pure Effect', these books have gained an almost mythical status amongst the more casual practitioners - mainly because they're so hard to get hold of!!

In terms of content, I don't think that they constitute the term 'essential' reading. To be sure, there are some great thoughts and ideas that Derren discusses but they are really the sort of books that should be read when you are a confident performer, looking for alternative ways to develop your act.

So - I think, from Craig's perspective... it should stay off the list for the moment!

I'll agree with all of the above. I think their legendary status is partly because they're hard to obtain, and partly because they were written by The Man Himself.

But their content is highly advanced and not really related to mentalism. Both books concentrate on close-up, mostly, and consist of essays on how to add more magic and deeper meaning to your work. The information and inspiration can be applied to mentalism or any other branch of magic, but it's not mental-specific nor beginners' reading. In fact, beginners who get a look at the books usually admit they find them very disappointing.

I have many of these books but I want more.

Keep those ideas coming.

Whats next


???????

Robbie wrote:

Klangster1971 wrote:Probably referring to Derren Brown's 'Absolute Magic'. Along with DB's 'Pure Effect', these books have gained an almost mythical status amongst the more casual practitioners - mainly because they're so hard to get hold of!!

In terms of content, I don't think that they constitute the term 'essential' reading. To be sure, there are some great thoughts and ideas that Derren discusses but they are really the sort of books that should be read when you are a confident performer, looking for alternative ways to develop your act.

So - I think, from Craig's perspective... it should stay off the list for the moment!

I'll agree with all of the above. I think their legendary status is partly because they're hard to obtain, and partly because they were written by The Man Himself.

But their content is highly advanced and not really related to mentalism. Both books concentrate on close-up, mostly, and consist of essays on how to add more magic and deeper meaning to your work. The information and inspiration can be applied to mentalism or any other branch of magic, but it's not mental-specific nor beginners' reading. In fact, beginners who get a look at the books usually admit they find them very disappointing.

I'm not sure I agree. I read Absolute Magic a little while ago and thought that (although I'm not a very experienced performer) it helped me a great deal. It taught me loads which I take into account now whilst scripting my routines; things like how to make the experience more magical, more engaging to the spectator; things that as a beginner(which I admit I still am) I wouldn't have thought of. I mean I read it before I started performing, and well, the advice in it gave my, albeit amateur performances, a bit more substance.
But then again, like was said earlier if you are looking for 'mental-specific' or anything like that you may find it disappointing. Also, I agree Pure Effect isn't for beginners, oh no, no, no, I read it not so long ago and well...although it was interesting a lot of the things he talked about were beyond me. And more importantly (in regards to this topic) it doesn't focus on mentalism, it's more about Derren's close up work.

But what you read was not "FOUNDATION" material but rather "the next step" to things. That's the point!

People must learn to crawl before they can walk; walk before they can run. When you take in material that is too advanced and beyond your knowledge and experience base, you will typically find yourself getting frustrated while falling flat on your tukkis at the same time due to the lack of foundation.

The other thing folks forget is that Derren started in the very same spot this treatment places the student in because it is the starting point.

Yeah that's true, I'm aware of that, all I was saying is that it worked for me. I agree that it's not for beginners and certainly wouldn't recommend it as a starting point, nor did I read it with the intent of skipping steps. It was just something on the side that I thought would be interesting and found it useful. Sorry if it came across differently

Cassie wrote:Yeah that's true, I'm aware of that, all I was saying is that it worked for me. I agree that it's not for beginners and certainly wouldn't recommend it as a starting point, nor did I read it with the intent of skipping steps. It was just something on the side that I thought would be interesting and found it useful. Sorry if it came across differently

You didn't come across in a negative way. You shared an honest observation but without offering a background to that observation; the fact that you had already been "dabbling" in things and had at least a modicum of understanding to things. That's the whole point here; getting that foundation laid so that you can gain and better digest material such as the Brown book or even some of the less "popularized" tomes that are out there in the intermediate levels of study.

I forgot how priceless this thread was

Thank you Craig.
I look forward to reading this.

Joel.

What does Craig mean by "a truest"?

Bertoneski wrote:What does Craig mean by "a truest"?

The most true, as in "the truest sense of the word" would also mean "the most true sense of the word".

themagicwand wrote:

Bertoneski wrote:What does Craig mean by "a truest"?

The most true, as in "the truest sense of the word" would also mean "the most true sense of the word".

Strange... I've always felt more like the moss covered crag in a rock filled with mushroom fungi

thank you very much, having spent money on books that seemed to be useless this is very helpful, thank you again

Bertoneski wrote:What does Craig mean by "a truest"?

It's a spelling mistake for "truist".

By which he seems to mean someone of great professionalism, who knows the field thoroughly. As opposed to a dabbler or someone who just wants to do some mentalism because it's the trendy thing.

Robbie wrote:

Bertoneski wrote:What does Craig mean by "a truest"?

It's a spelling mistake for "truist".

By which he seems to mean someone of great professionalism, who knows the field thoroughly. As opposed to a dabbler or someone who just wants to do some mentalism because it's the trendy thing.

Spelling mistake only if you are using UK English spellings (my spell check is for American English... we changed the rules on things )

A "Truest" is someone that holds closer to the Old School mode of presenting Mentalism vs. those that want to promote the idea that it's just tricks. This is not to say that you must take on an esoteric image, only that what you do comes off as being "genuine" regardless your claim be it NLP, Suggestion, Hypnosis, or Alien Abduction

Most Old School workers however, hold to the Bob Nelson idea (for lack of a better inference) via which you are able to work the home parties, psychic fairs, and other such venues. The Dunninger Mold on the other hand (New School mentalism) robs you of such advantages, placing you on par with any other entertainer out there that depends on personal hustling, agents and hopefully honest clients that pay you (trust me, many a club owner will screw you!)

Today's more cynical attitudes towards most everything, make the Old School way of doing things a little less common though I have seen many that started off scoffing at this approach that ultimately woke up as to why it really means and how much greater advantage one has through it.