talkmagic.co.uk

abraxus wrote:a real one wouldnt want an "for entertainment purposes only" adendum at the end of their shows surely...

I suspect this has a lot to do with The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, see earlier threads here and here, and similar legislation. Even if genuine, results can't be guaranteed every time so they'd need to cover themselves with that get out clause just in case.

abraxus wrote:Would a real psychic "perform" in the first place? Wouldn't they do a little more than entertainment?

That's a very good question. Here's my experience of it:

Of the psychics and various shades of serious reader I've met over the years (I do like watching them work from the sidelines!) the thing that always separates them from entertainers is their matter-of-fact seriousness about it all. Almost an acceptance of a burden. The best tarot readers I've seen come over as having no concept of revelation or routine as we'd know it, no patter as such. The reading is one long stream of revelation in the form of seemingly accurate information. Okay, you can spot a poor cold reader fishing for a yes a mile off, but the adepts that genuinely believe themselves (or convincingly appear to do so) are just "natural" when they're around what they do. I've never seen someone who genuinely comes across as believing in their ability challenge a sitter to a feat of clairvoyance any more than you'd see a barman challenge you to see him pour a pint.

Reading "Tricks of the Mind" last night, one thing that Brown says far more clearly than he ever did in "Absolute Magic" is that anyone who snaps into an unnatural "performance" mode when doing his act will be seen as a phoney playing tricks. This sets up an expectation in the spectator that he's playing tricks. There's an understanding that he's just going to fool you with clever words and sleights rather than demonstrate some intuitive ability or other. Even if you perform the cleanest, most method-free mentalism imaginable, suddenly spitting out patter like a local radio DJ is going to tell the spectators that it's just a clever trick and doesn't need any serious thought beyond guessing how you did it.

In other words, the essence of believability is not to perform, but just to be you from start to finish, which is what a lot of psychics seem to understand. After all, they have to be believable above all else becasue some idiot at the back shouting that it's all cold reading can cost them a lucrative business.

"I am MARK LEWIS and i am here to tell you that i am the only real psychic on this planet...of course i can't really do it, as i would be absolutely covered in even more filthy dollars than i am already..."

sorry, bit of channelling there...

EDIT: for me, its similar to watching a film, you suspend belief for that time, you know full well that its make believe, but it doesnt stop you laughing,crying, experiencing all these different depths of emotions - just through a few actors standing around on bits of tape and saying something someone else wrote down...

the suspension of belief...there you go, what i've been trying to say or latch onto all this time...that sums it up for me - "entertainment, emotion and the suspension of belief"....

thanks again, alot of food for thought here. i really appreciate it fellas

andy

abraxus wrote:
EDIT: for me, its similar to watching a film, you suspend belief for that time, you know full well that its make believe, but it doesnt stop you laughing,crying, experiencing all these different depths of emotions - just through a few actors standing around on bits of tape and saying something someone else wrote down...

I have had people though who have been absolutely convinced that I have "real" psychic powers. It's not a belief that I encourage, nor do I discourage it. Most people of course know that somehow in someway you're fooling them, but you will get one or two who will really believe. And oddly enough they're the ones that you gain most satisfaction from performing in front of, simply because their reactions are so strong and they think you're so wonderful.

Remember that up until the advent of the politically correct age, all mentalists claimed to be "authentic". It was part of the act. Personally I'd rather fool people into thinking I was psychic than fool them into thinking I was using NLP/hypnosis/suggestibility techniques etc. etc. As long as I'm not claiming to talk to dead relatives or offering life advice, I see no harm in them thinking I'm some kind of demi-god.

I'd rather they thought it was all a very advanced mind control exercise. People certainly respect you if they start wondering what crossing you might bring...

let me clarify something though, I'm not critising anyone else's methods or ways of performing, all the stuff ive been going on about, is what i feel, but only for what i feel is right for me...

..i can offer suggestions and ideas, but its not my place to say "you should definately do it this way or that-a-way..."...

i've started doing (as a seperate thing) some palmistry and tarot readings, on one hand it can all be seen as complete rubbish and/or cold reading...

...on the other hand it could be seen as a way of tapping into the subconcious, and another hand (why have i got 3 hands?) it could be a way of somehow using these cards purely as visual aids which help the reader express what they feel is "around" the quierant (spelling)...

on an entirely different hand (someone elses) it could be something completely different...

there's no definitive answer i feel...only the answer that 'fits' you...

I shall let you all into a little secret. If you do magic combined with mentalism you will INCREASE belief in your psychic ability more than if you do mentalism alone. Hard to believe I know but I have written about this strange paradox before in greater depth and have put quite a bit of thought into it.

I can assure you there is something in it and I have no space here to explain why.

Suffice it to say that I am MARK LEWIS so therefore that alone should justify my statements.

So you SHOULD mix the two! One reason is that it will be more entertaining if nothing else. That alone will justify it. Osterlind agrees with me. Koran mixed the two and so did Dunninger. Kreskin still puts some magic into the act.

I do psychic readings for real all the time. It can be quite a strain. I prefer to get away from all that c*** (not the best) when I am performing and have a good laugh. ENTERTAIN the people and don't worry too much if they think you are real. You HAVE to be commercial despite what Craig says. You HAVE to be entertaining. You will find that there are still plenty of daft people who will think you are the real thing if that is the sort of thing that turns you on.

And even if you don't convince the believers so what? I would rather have people think of me as fake than as boring.

I like this thread and the discussion of how to build an act.

My two sets from last Saturday started with a mix of things which increasingly raised the bar on the mental side.

I then started my second set with some nice strong mental effects using a map of the world, a picture of me in Mongolia, a book on philosophers, and some body language demonstrations.

I was then approached after the set by one of the tables at the venue to join them and do some more mental effects, where I did some design duplication and thought reading.

These effects are all presented in the language of science, probability, and natural human intuition (on their part as much as mine, which does build ownership in your audience). I will continue to work on the structure of the act to take on board many of the excellent comments in this thread.

I have a 'biggie' coming up in December and I am working on the whole scripting of the event to hopefully create a slightly mysterious but plausible feel to the performance. I also think fallibility is key to creating a stronger effect. 100% correct all the time can put people off. Little feints, stumbles, and some element of struggle can add to the feeling of the event.

Whatever... magicians always justify what they want to do vs. what is supposed to be done... I remember a handful of young punks some 25 years ago going through a similar rue when it came to stage magic and how they were introducing strange, macabre and rock-n-roll type stuff to it all and "ruining" it... a group of nobodies... Kevin James, Nick Night, Franz Harary... I was even in that pile somewhere

The reason I get so critical on things when it comes to proper and effective mentalism vs. all the Mental Magic everyone is doing and calling such, is that I have always shot for realism even when I was doing the big box shows. I also like holding as close to the core of the art as possible vs. some of the "silliness" we find so readily sewn into it all.

Sure, there are a handful of commercial acts out there that encourage you to do sponge balls linking rings and a zombie then follow it all up with MoAB and Kinetic Silverware... 90% of these shows are hosted by admitted skeptics/Cynics not "truests" of the Mentalists craft e.g. to them it simply don't matter. Secondly, they don't care if they are "ruining" the craft for others... let's face it, certain of these heroes have exposed more magic than Val Valentino but under the excuse of protecting and educating the public. But then they get the newbies to side with them on certain things such as Being a Reader, because of the hype and idea of learning from a supposed "celebrity"... everyone knows that a big name has to know what they're doing and what they're talking about... they'd never pay a ghost writer to do the research and pull a book together for them, now would they? (that's a hint folks).

Yes, an act should be light and fun. Contrary to popular belief my shows are far from dull and typically have people laughing from start to finish because they are having fun and being amazed at the same time. But the point here is clear... folks would rather be a magician that does tricks that look psychic than learning how to do the job right in the first place... one can be readily done halfassed whilst the other requires a great deal of study, practice and "creative editing" as it were.

Do understand why I'm saying that... the fact that the majority of magic fans just want to learn how to do a trick and toss it into their "shows" the day after they got it in the mail. Little to no effort goes into actually LEARNING it, whether it's straight magic or mentalism; Peter Pit used to call it masturbatory reflex... But then that's one of those things a lot of folks forget about those pros they keep referring back to in challenge to the things I share... the fact that they do invest some time into learning material and LISTENING to their consultants so that everything "fits" and "flows" properly... funny how we forget or choose to not see the relevant and obvious in such things.

Yes, I'm in a bit of a pissy mood on this simply because too many folks want to endorse the idea that's it's perfectly fine to do a shoddy program fill of junk that don't support the performer nor the craft vs. actually focusing and learning one or the other and keeping things in perspective and to one's own advantage when it comes to performance.

What the heck do I know though

always with the sponge balls!

please don't read the following in an "angry" tone...

anyway Craig, i have alot of respect for you, but i wholeheartedly reserve the right to disagree with you or anyone else...and go my own way, even if Tony Corinda and Theo Annemann's ghosts visited me tonight and grabbed me firmly by my "sponges"...

i'll still search out and find what i think is right for me and me only...i'll do what i think is right and what is entertaining...as well as mystical and magickal...but my version of it...

i don't think there should be many hard rules in magic, apart from learn the basics well, discover what character you are when performing, then start weaving things together...and just cos my weaving looks different from someone elses...then good!

I think you do tar us all with the same brush though on occasion..that we are all "trick monkeys" - buy it, quickly read it, rush out and perform it straight away with no thought...we're not all like that y'know, some of us spend alot of time trying to be the best we can, our own way

Craig...

With all due respect... you do seem to take everything a little too seriously.

There IS a hybrid between magic and mentalism. Call it mental magic if you will. But the two are easily intertwined. Mentalism—in the terms it's being discussed here—after all is a 'related' magic genre. It is often feats of 'stunning and impossible mental power' which is facilitated by the same mechanics and principles found in magic.

We bow to your experience, and once more we are all impressed by your extensive knowledge and 'names to hand'. And your 'real world quest' to make us all a little less skeptical is admirable. But on this occasion, totally inappropriate.

But please, lighten up a little... I don't think I can bear another drawn-out discussion on the whys and wherefores...

We're all entitled to our opinions, and that's what counts. That's what makes us individuals.

I can't help feeling, Craig, and this is just an observation, that your ideal world is one of distinct magical stereotypes kept isolated from each other. Do you never wonder if a synthesis of two or more styles might result in something that's greater than the sum of its parts?

Sorry, but I simply do not see how you can mix two styles of performance that comes from opposing points psychologically. To do so you short change the one in order to exploit the other vs. building into your presentation every possible sense of advantage one could have.

I know you guys will do as you will and I know, from past trends akin to this current scenario, what the end results are most likely going to be... in fact, it's already happening -- "Mentalism" is on a serious decline when it comes to the general field of magic because all the short-cut artists are realizing that they can't get the kind of results they've seen others get and too, they simply don't want to invest themselves into learning how to correct such issues and learn the craft in the manner that it was originally designed to be done.

I fully admit that I'm fanatical on this topic... someone needs to insert a contrary voice so that pause is taken and people wiegh the greater whole of what's going on and what the goals are. And yes, I do take it a bit personal... sorry for that but it simply comes from my passion around this particular side of the craft.

I do agree and understand some of what's been said and some of the contention a few folks have shared but I still have to ponder why anyone would want to deliberately approach things in a manner that creates psychological conflict within the mind of the audience and thus, having to work that much harder to achieve wonder?

I disagree with the idea that the audience 'knows' you are using sleight of hand or gimmickry in magic. I had a guy on the train on Saturday thinking I actually had special powers, yes really. Now is this man a fool for thinking this? Not really. He believed with no prompt from me at all. If you say he is a fool for believing in magic then surely someone who believes in psychic powers must be a fool too, yes? A skeptical audience doesn't know how a magician does the magic, in just same way that they don't know how a mentalist does his feats.

Now a lot of people (most probably) will not actually be convinced that you have super natural powers, they will be amazed but will not really believe in it. A single mentalism show is not going to convert the majority to believing. Surely that is not what it should be about either. The purpose should be entertainment. The idea that people who go to a mentalism show, leave thinking what they have seen is real, is false in exactly the same way that most people do not believe in magic.

I agree that mentalism requires belief from the audience, but I don't think that the majority of a modern audience buys into the idea of actual psychic ability.