talkmagic.co.uk

Hello all.

Recently i have started performing magic - using various of the different types out there, to attempt to get a feel for what suits me best.

I particularly like the Mentalist route - but i am probably somewhat influenced by this area.

I am however stuck - i understand that i cannot exactly quote a trick or explanation, so i will attempt to use a trick name instead and hope that some of you understand what i mean, and can assist with my particular dilemma.

There are some interesting tricks by "Luke Jermay" - that i have attempted with a few people - and suffice to say, the main "working" of the tricks has upset a few people.

In one case, a working requires the use of projectiles - i condone this ability in people anyway - and to perform it myself and not have a willing volunteer be disgusted by it is something i have yet to see.

In a second case, a willing volunteer forgets a piece of information. This appears to be impossible to do - even with the fancy linguistic banter that accompanies the trick, i personally feel that you cannot simply forget something that you have just been looking at or are currently thinking about.
I have read alot about this principle, and keep getting referered to Derren Browns "trains of thought" routine - but this is not a help as it is a televised "hit" sequence and not an explanation of how it works and why it works and the volunteers journey through it.

The endgame of the above sequence also seems a little unfair to me - we all believe it so you must accept it - does not seem to hold water with me. Indeed one "volunteer" became so angry that she assumed a practical joke had been played on her!

Any ideas? I have been told i am very polite, and i always try to keep the volunteers entertained, however i am beginning to think some of this material that is on the market which i have paid alot of money for might not be the actual workings of the tricks and techniques.

Also to be noted - i am slightly Autistic - this does affect my ability to generate voice tonality that is always engaging - any advice here would be welcome too.

My apologies for an incredibly long post in a very packed forums.

"Heavy"

I think you should do the Linking Rings and the Torn and Restored newspaper trick instead if I were you.

It's just that Luke Jermay is way too advanced for you at your stage. You'll need to do a lot more crawling and walking before you try to run.

I'll go down the well-worn path and say six words: Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic. This is a big book that's widely available for a low price -- really very low if you're willing to buy secondhand (I got mine for £5). It has a good selection of tricks in all branches of magic, including mentalism, so you can try them out and see what suits you best.

If you're sure about mentalism, move on to Karl Fulves' Self-Working Mental Magic. Wilson and Fulves might seem like "baby stuff" at first glance, but their stuff is good enough for the likes of Derren Brown, so it should be good enough for you. If you don't like the outward presentation of a particular trick, start thinking about how you might keep the basic mechanics but change the presentation.

After Wilson and Fulves, you can start your really serious study with Corinda and Annemann. But I won't go on any more when you can look at this thread for more suggestions.

And after going through Mark Wilson, you might decide you prefer some other branch of magic after all!

People on the autistic spectrum always seem drawn to mentalism. Maybe this is because we've spent all our lives studying hard to understand how people's minds work. But if you want to be a good mentalist, you'll have to be able to read expressions, tones of voice, etc. and be able to control them in yourself. If you're too autistic for that, maybe a more straightforward branch of magic would be better for you.

Ok, above replies noted - not entirely sure if they answer what ive written above but will condence it for clarity.

I understand the principle of the tricks - i can perform the tricks well - the audience and spectators are either:
1) not impressed as "the tricks" appear to bully spectator into submission i.e crowd suppress volunteer response

2) the working and wording of the patter to produce an effect has no effect on the spectator i.e

To tell someone to imagine a scene and then word in so they forget something does not appear to have an effect - why would it? I fail to see how this works?

I appreciate that i probably should be starting at bunnies in hats but having been through alot of 'stuff' in a short time im looking at effects with a genuine wow factor. A good example - Out of this world - performed at my level and got a genuine shocked response. A trick by a certain performer - spectator is wet and hasnt forgotten playing card - do you see my point?

Heavy on the Magik wrote:In a second case, a willing volunteer forgets a piece of information. This appears to be impossible to do - even with the fancy linguistic banter that accompanies the trick, i personally feel that you cannot simply forget something that you have just been looking at or are currently thinking about.
I have read alot about this principle, and keep getting referered to Derren Browns "trains of thought" routine - but this is not a help as it is a televised "hit" sequence and not an explanation of how it works and why it works and the volunteers journey through it.

The principle that this is based on can be found in any psycology book that deals with long and short term memory. Short term memory works like a kind of filing cabinet. Most people average at about 9 drawers. Imagine a cabinet with drawers numbered 1-9, with 1 being the top, 9 at the bottom. Each one represents a piece of information that is in your short term memory. The first piece gets stored in number 1, the next in 2 etc. When the 9 'drawers' have been used the brain goes back to the 1st drawer and chucks out what was there to store the next piece of information. You then forget what was in number 1. This is repeated for each drawer.

jim

Makes alot more sense now - thank you.

It reminds me of:

Hi this is Fred. Recently i hit a car while i was travelling at 30 miles an hour. He was travelling at 60. My insurance company wanted to pay up but i was convinced it was his fault. Even though they came up with details proving it otherwise my neighbour Bill said it was clearly his and his mate Steve said that Bill was right even though i didnt think so, but after some clever thought i decided Steve was right and so i paid up after all.
Whats my name?

Thats not 100% accurate i admit but i have a poor long term memory

You can't please everyone, this doesn't just apply to magic, working in retail for example. People are really hard to please. So maybe try and step it down from Jermay's effects a bit, he has got some effects which are workable for most people. But alot of his effects are quite hard to master and get 100% hits on. I'd recommend looking into some of Andy Nyman's effects. I bought Get Nyman about 3 years ago and I've never looked back. Most of my show is based on the effects on the DVD.

There are lots of other effects out there that will probably be easier to perform than Jermay's and you'll probably get the same if not better reaction to these effects! Just look around and try out some other effects. I'm still not 100% about all of the effects I perform, but it's just trial and error and practice!

Heavy on the Magik wrote:Ok, above replies noted - not entirely sure if they answer what ive written above but will condence it for clarity.

I understand the principle of the tricks - i can perform the tricks well - the audience and spectators are either:
1) not impressed as "the tricks" appear to bully spectator into submission i.e crowd suppress volunteer response

2) the working and wording of the patter to produce an effect has no effect on the spectator i.e

To tell someone to imagine a scene and then word in so they forget something does not appear to have an effect - why would it? I fail to see how this works?

I appreciate that i probably should be starting at bunnies in hats but having been through alot of 'stuff' in a short time im looking at effects with a genuine wow factor. A good example - Out of this world - performed at my level and got a genuine shocked response. A trick by a certain performer - spectator is wet and hasnt forgotten playing card - do you see my point?

It is not the effect. It is the presentation of the effect. Which boils down to you.

Your posts indictate to me that you must adjust your thinking when it comes to magic. There are no 'small magic tricks' on small magicians. You said, "i probably should be starting a bunnies in hats...but im looking at effects with a genuine wow factor. Why would you think Bunnies in hats is easy? Why would you think they would not create a genuine wow factor? Obviously the effects you think create a genuine wow factor are clearly not producing that factor...for you.

For others that wow factor is indeed there. For others the production of bunnies from hats create that wow factor, and for others pulling a quarter from a spectators ear creates a wow factor from the audience. It is not the effect, it is the performance of the effect.

My advice to you would be to start with effects that are not so complicated, not so dependant on 'forcing' (for lack of a better term) a certain way of thought on a spectator. Until you know how to guide and handle your audiences a little better I'd stick to more traditional magic or even mental effects. Get out your ID. If you don't get a wow factor from that you absolutly know it is your performance. If you do get a wow factor start from there and work slowly into more complicated routines.

Heavy on the Magik wrote:I understand the principle of the tricks - i can perform the tricks well - the audience and spectators are either:

1) not impressed as "the tricks" appear to bully spectator into submission i.e crowd suppress volunteer response

2) the working and wording of the patter to produce an effect has no effect on the spectator

If the audience is unimpressed, then you're not performing the effect well, even if you've mastered the mechanical part of it. Performance is everything in mentalism.

This is why we're saying it would be better to start with effects that have a clear, visible, physical climax (e.g card mentalism, design duplications, book tests). This guarantees some "wow" at the end, even if your presentation is less than the best. You can work with these to develop your presentation skills in your own style.

Self-working tricks (like those in Fulves' book) are great for this, since you don't have to worry so much about working the physical part of the trick and can concentrate on the presentation.

Another reason to start with effects like these is that they are the foundations that mentalism is built on. Expecting to perform Reverse Gestalt Moment without knowing anything about card predictions and book tests is like expecting an art student to paint the Mona Lisa without knowing about shading and perspective.

Im beginning to realise there may be more to being a mentalist than knowing magic tricks - it would appear you need to be a bit like a pyschiatrist too!

Heavy on the Magik wrote:Im beginning to realise there may be more to being a mentalist than knowing magic tricks - it would appear you need to be a bit like a pyschiatrist too!

Got it in one!

Hello again - i didnt want to create a new post, as this one is still sufficiently recent to add too.

I cant appear to find alist of members on this site sorted by what types of magic they specialise in. I do see lots of website links from various posters which i have visited.

I have some questions regarding various areas of magic - alot in the Mentalism field but mainly curiouso questions - i want to ask and get some feedback. I didnt want to ask on the forums as i didnt want to get into revealers and the like in public.

Long story short, who do i PM to discuss the methodology behind various tricks ive seen?

I appreciate i appear very nooby and your probably a little tired of new people appearing and attempting to start too advanced but i have a genuine interest in this field and really would like to hear some feedback.

Thankyou in advance.

Are you talking about revealing methods or discussing methods you already know?

Nobody here will tell you tricks you don't know, but everybody's very helpful at general... um, helpfulness.

You can always ask questions. If you're discussing anything that could be considered a secret, just be vague or use abbreviations -- remember, you're talking to people who know what you mean. Have a read through old threads and you'll see the style. (Old threads are good sources of information, too, so don't neglect them.)

If you accidentally say too much, you can re-edit your post. Or it might be edited for you by Mandrake's eagle eye and swift fingers!

If anyone wants to answer you with more than they can say in the open, they'll PM you.

Above replies noted - have been pm'ed