talkmagic.co.uk

As someone said before somewhere (that's a bad reference, I know) it's OK to lie to people who are expecting to be lied to.

I find a lie in the context of charlatan psychics, outside of entertainment, hidoues and unethical.

And as I said, most "Magicians" hold to this tag line from the cynic's handbook as being gospel rather than thinking for themselves and too, rather than applying the same "rules" to everyone and everything else. "They" love to attack and down-grade the soft target psychic's tend to be, it's nothing more than the playground bully syndrome.

Given your position and belief I can't help but wonder how many crooked psychics you're personally investigated and helped put behind bars?

How many times have you laid your life on the line busting real charlatans and their networks? Or is just giving lip service about how you "feel" about things good enough a cover all?

Here I am quasi-defending the Psychics & Mediums and yet, I've helped authorities break up and imprison several, twice to the level of nearly loosing my life or that of a loved one.

You call me "arrogant" when I talk about these things... well, I've earned the right to be a tad bit arrogant. Especially when I've yet to meet a single outspoken magician with your thinking, that's been willing to do the same things I have. Even the great Guru of Cynicism refuses to go that far in that he know's these people will kill medlers. So by all means, stick to your armchair philosophy, but please don't try to be pious when you haven't a leg to stand on.

If I am sole possesor of this opinion, then so be it. Let's just move on.

smarvell wrote:If I am sole possesor of this opinion, then so be it. Let's just move on.

Nah, I agree with you. It simply is wrong, IMO, to lie about people's dead relatives, and make out as though its real. Especially if it's just to make some money.

BUT I haven't ever exposed any real criminals, like Craig has, and he is older and wiser. He has a good point, alot of the time we are needlessly offending people with our 'armchair' philosophies.

This is no reason to change our opinions, we just have to chill it abit, because if we worry about the weight of our opinions all the time it will make us very cynical. Not that I'm saying you or me are trying to be offensive, but it is how we will be interpreted.

yeah, let's just keep to discussing the book by Docc please...it gets a bit hectic otherwise and circular arguments just make me dizzy...

like when i have too many coffees or get pushed in a tumble-dryer...

i love alot of Docc's work...quite a foreboding looking gentleman too isn't he!

i've often considered this one...and i like the sound of his Raven Slates too...

Let's look at Docc's piece then... it is sold as being "the real deal" hook line & sinker (how else would you manage to get that Private Seance gig with someone for a quick $100.00+?)

Let's look at Bro. Shadow's idea behind "Have Seance Will Travel"... again, sold as being the real thing, hundreds of magicians performer it exactly as written and never even raise an eyebrow over the idea that something might be amiss.

I can list dozens of examples in which Bizarrists and truests within Mentalism preserve the old way of approaching and executing this style of muse, setting aside the corn-ball chicanery promoted by the supposedly moral. That is not to say that there aren't venues in which the more "CARNIVALESQUE" mode of Senace work, like th Houdini Seance at the Magic Castle or those held as Ceasar's Palace in Las Vegas aren't practical or even commercially viable, only that most folks that hire out a Seance don't want to see a disclaimer or any hint that it may not be real. Secondly, if you actually want to WORK and have a steady pay check doing this sort of muse, then you damn well better get over your magician's guilt and related hang-ups... Mentalists are con-artists (to a point), it's part of the "pre-show" conditioning and psychology that sets us apart from the magic tricksters and it is this very truth that typically results in most who give it a try, to back away from it... they just don't have what it takes for walking that thin line between shyster and saivour.

I have done both types of Seance show... I've presented programs as being real with the deliberate intention of waking up some misguided teens that were dabbling in the dark arts, drugs and other such ugliness. In my opinion it was far more moral and ethical to decieve that group of kids and scare the hell out of them, so that they would get away from what would have been exceptionally dangerous, than it was to do this so-called "Politically Correct" approach and tell them I was a fake... my actions saved over a dozen lives in a very literal sense.

From a theraputic position I have seen how properly presented "placebos" (in the form of words and sometimes actions) allow people to complete and move out of long term and detrimental grieving processes that not even their shrinks could get them out of. I've even had psycho therapist refer folks to me for this kind of "shock" therapy, as it were and I know of other Mentalists who have similar rapport with professional counselors and therapists.

What is not being seen (or heard and understood) in the things that I say, is that I am 110% for exposing and destroying those that bring harm and loss to their patrons or those that attempt to control a client and make them co-dependent as we see in small cult-like operations. On the other hand, nothing is 100% black & white and it is the grey that I walk within, knowing that sometimes you do have to use a hint of the surreal in order to bring about a positive outcome.

You may not wish to agree with such things but it is how things work in the real world where things aren't so cut & dry.

I've just been re-reading my copy of "Secret Seance" and I'll go along with the good reviews. It's well worth the price.

The Pocket Seance is a great little almost-impromptu "spirit writing" technique that could be used for other sorts of revelations, if you don't like the spirit/seance angle. Have the name of a selected card appear, for instance.

I've never yet done the Group Seance, but can easily imagine it being sold purely as an unusual party entertainment, with full disclaimers. It's theatrical and fun, with no need for participants to believe in the paranormal.

The Personal Seance is the only part of the book that could be corrupted into an actual scam, as it can be made to look like a very real mediumistic spirit contact. It comes down to your ability to judge human nature, and your own conscience, to determine how far to take it with any individual sitter.

Docc recommends linking the three together, using the Personal Seance to hook contacts who will then book a Group Seance, which you can follow up with Personal Seances for the more interested guests. The "hook" message he quotes for use with the Personal Seance is distastefully on the borders of hard-sell scamming, in my opinion (US-UK cultural differences?), but there's no requirement to use this particular message.

Robbie wrote:I've just been re-reading my copy of "Secret Seance" and I'll go along with the good reviews. It's well worth the price.

The Pocket Seance is a great little almost-impromptu "spirit writing" technique that could be used for other sorts of revelations, if you don't like the spirit/seance angle. Have the name of a selected card appear, for instance.

I've never yet done the Group Seance, but can easily imagine it being sold purely as an unusual party entertainment, with full disclaimers. It's theatrical and fun, with no need for participants to believe in the paranormal.

The Personal Seance is the only part of the book that could be corrupted into an actual scam, as it can be made to look like a very real mediumistic spirit contact. It comes down to your ability to judge human nature, and your own conscience, to determine how far to take it with any individual sitter.

Docc recommends linking the three together, using the Personal Seance to hook contacts who will then book a Group Seance, which you can follow up with Personal Seances for the more interested guests. The "hook" message he quotes for use with the Personal Seance is distastefully on the borders of hard-sell scamming, in my opinion (US-UK cultural differences?), but there's no requirement to use this particular message.

The three tiers suggested in this manuscript are nothing more than proven marketing tactics; you hook the client, you give them a taste in order to get the hook set a bet more secure, then you bring them in for the "kill" i.e. making them a regular customer. This has worked for the majority of "legitimate" businesses for many generations now... ask any drug dealer or car salesman.

I an understand the magician's sense of discomfort in doing a private one-on-one seance in that magician's want to do fun things and have sponge ding dongs bouncing out of people's hands or cards sticking to ceilings, etc. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND the Psychic/Paranormal modes of performance and should thus, stay COMPLETELY away from it... not my idea but a warning extended to the magic community over 30 years ago by Stephan Minch and at least 50 years ago by Robert Nelson as well as William Larsen, Sr.

I'm not being "elitist" as some have suggested, nor am I saying that one is better than the other; only that they are different and like oil & water, magic & mentalism (especially the more bizarre side of mentalism) don't mix well. Especially when you recognize the fact that the psychological dynamics are in direct opposition to one another.

Commercially speaking I can assure you that those insisting upon the more obvious disclaimers don't get nearly the amount of work as those who don't use them, not do the majority of them see the kind of pay rate as the others (the truests) in that (as was pointed out long, long ago) NO ONE WANTS TO PAY TO SEE A FAKE MIND READER or, as the case were, a fake medium.

There are theatrical productions here in North America that use no disclaimers, which sell the attraction as "real" all the way through. The only two hints you get that something may be amiss is that a.) it's happening in a theater; and b.) the word "re-enactment" is used in some of the advertising. The only other factor that the majority of PERFORMERS who do this sort of thing incorporate is something Docc speaks of in the opening pages of that manuscript; the use of an invented entity. Docc refers to this as a "Spirit Guide" that serves as a go between you and the spirit realms... a rather huge stretch if you understand things about that kind of work, nonetheless it is a safety net that permits the acting medium to NOT extend direct contact to real people who have crossed over. When you recognize this you find that it is nearly impossible to run the razzle and manipulate the emotions of those attending such a function. In the case of my Canadian friend Scott McClellan and his Spiritualist Show, these are the things that make it a near sell-out each performance!

If you are afraid of telling a lie or brashly lying your azz off in order to earn a paycheck, you should never consider anything even remotely tied to Mentalism or magic for that matter. We are paid to deceive and in the case of the Psychic Entertainer (which is what we are) if it weren't for the individuals unique ability to weave a clever series of lies as part of his/her presentation, they won't make it!

Though I will not name names, I can tell you of a handful of folks right now that THINK they are "Mentalists" and I'd lay money on the fact that in less than a decades time, they will have shifted out of Mentalism and back to the safety of traditional magic and running gambling type demos with a deck of cards in hand. I can say that because I know that most who step into this world not only fail, they get bored with it and even distraught, because it is so demanding at the emotional and psychological levels. Though they may have a book or two out on the subject, it doesn't mean they are ready to make a sure go of it over the next twenty or thirty years.

I bring this out simply because routines like the Hilford Seance idea generate the guilt reflex we've seen several folks express within this thread; a psychological reflex and internal debate most can only resolve by either taking a deep breath and letting go of their excuses for limitation; or stepping completely away from the paranormal-related mode of performance... in other words, they need to either jump in and swim or get off the bloody beach!

The Moral of the Story is; quit trying to make & view Mentalism as being the same thing as magic. It isn't and will never be even though certain technological elements are shared; they are kindred arts but not one in the same so why try to weigh and compare something from the one discipline in the same way you would something from the other?

Craig Browning wrote: The three tiers suggested in this manuscript are nothing more than proven marketing tactics; you hook the client, you give them a taste in order to get the hook set a bet more secure, then you bring them in for the "kill" i.e. making them a regular customer. This has worked for the majority of "legitimate" businesses for many generations now... ask any drug dealer or car salesman.

Absolutely. "Secret Seance" is a very commercially-minded book, and what I meant to emphasise was that its three parts are carefully designed to work together in this way. It's not just a random collection of seance tricks, it's a coherent package. This is a big PLUS. Anyone who buys it and is disappointed because "there are only three things in it" is missing the point.

My only minor complaint was with the suggested wording of the "hook". No doubt it's very effective wording, just not to my own personal taste.

Craig Browning wrote: I'm not being "elitist" as some have suggested, nor am I saying that one is better than the other; only that they are different and like oil & water, magic & mentalism (especially the more bizarre side of mentalism) don't mix well. Especially when you recognize the fact that the psychological dynamics are in direct opposition to one another.

Commercially speaking I can assure you that those insisting upon the more obvious disclaimers don't get nearly the amount of work as those who don't use them, not do the majority of them see the kind of pay rate as the others (the truests) in that (as was pointed out long, long ago) NO ONE WANTS TO PAY TO SEE A FAKE MIND READER or, as the case were, a fake medium.

This is all good advice too. What I was saying is that those who are nervous about claiming to be mediums could do the Group Seance from "Secret Seance" with clear disclaimers and still end up with a commercially viable party entertainment. I was assuming the disclaimers to be in the contract and party invitations, not necessarily within the seance itself. Once the guests arrive and the party starts, it's all theatre. You wouldn't want to stand up and kill the atmosphere by saying, "Well, I'm about to do something that's a load of rubbish and I don't expect anyone to believe."

I also had in the back of my mind nervousness about the legal aspects of claiming to be a psychic or medium. The law has just become stricter, I think. It would be safest to have clear wording in your contract stating that you are providing a theatrical entertainment with a spirit/seance theme.

About the Personal Seance, all I said was it had the capacity to be misused in the wrong hands. Any sort of one-on-one reading has the same potential to be made into a scam by unscrupulous practitioners. If you're going to use the Personal Seance, or any other type of individual reading, you've got to be able to judge your sitter, giving them what they want and need without making them dependent on you. Docc Hilford's spirit guide suggestion, as you say, is a useful emotional buffer.

I would recommend "Wonder Readings" (Kenton Knepper, Rex Sikes) to anyone thinking of doing one-on-one readings of any kind.

Both magicians and mentalists lie all the time. It's the name of the game. Saying (or implying) you've made a card rise to the top of the deck, or cut and restored a rope, or whatever, is just as much a lie as saying you've read somebody's mind or had the spirits send you a message. And manipulation of beliefs and emotions is equally basic -- if you don't, you're leaving the audience cold. If you're afraid to lie and manipulate for the sake of entertainment, what are you doing in magic?

I liked your take on the differences between magicians and mentalists. Mentalism is in fashion right now, and it's drawing extra attention. Not a bad thing (although it does mean the internet is crammed with twelve-year-olds looking for quick tips on how to be the next Derren Brown). Magic and mentalism are not absolutely mutually exclusive -- Derren Brown's nail-in-the-nose is hardly mentalism, and yet it fits his act -- but they're certainly very different animals.

First and foremost Robbie, THANK YOU!

I'm glad to see that you understand and I do apologies for any sense of misunderstand I may have extended. I just get a bit "short" at times when it comes to defending the Old Way of doing things vs. this 21st century mode of cynicism in which you will actually have people do the thing you brought out... either at the start or close of the act they will state very directly that what they did/do was pure hokum (some individuals going so far as to insult the guests by saying, "... and if you bought into any of it, you're an idiot!" (I've dealt with this complaint from several perspective clients in my area).

Based on your response I feel that you can understand my frustration over the bully attitude of certain so-called performers in today's world; especially when it comes to Mentalism.

On the subject of discalimers, I'm reminded of some advice I received from Max Maven in a workshop I attended last year.

He raised the issue with reference to David Hoy who, as Dr Faust, would greet his audience with the words, 'My Name is Doctor Faust and I am a fake'. After the show, he would still have queues of people asking him how long he had had his psychic powers. The moral to that story was that disclaimers don't actually work.

I agree insofar as those audience members that truly want to believe will believe. But I think disclaimers are used for very different reasons - specifically to satisfy the performer's own conscience and avoid confrontation and criticism from the most aggessive skeptics.

I agree fully with Craig's assessment of mentalism vs magic, but I'm going to push his blood pressure just a tad with the suggestion that mentalists could do well to take a leaf out of the magician's book and adaopt one of their central-yet-unspoken philosophies...

Think about it: When did you ever hear Mark Wilson say that he can't really cut his wife in half and put her back together again? Did David Copperfield ever give a disclaimer to the effect that he couldn't vanish Lady Liberty? Did David Blaine tell his streetside spectators that he would levitate twice - once for each camera??

In fact, some of the best magic books I've read are the ones that deal with the presentation of magic and strongly sell the philosophy that magic should be treated as real. We're told that we must allow ourselves to believe two things at once - namely that the magic is real, while we're simultaeously doing all sorts of dirty work behind the scenes.

Magicians have guilt about lots of things, but 'the demonstration of powers' doesn't seem to be one of them. Could mentalists and bizarrists learn from this?

PC I agree with what I believe you're implying but I refer folks to the classic Lee Earle perspectives; The Magician works in agreement with the audience who knows that he is there to fool them and thus, entertain; there is a suspension of disbelief and everyone knows that it's (to coin a phrase) all smoke & mirrors. On the other hand the Mentalist invokes belief from his/her audience be it the idea of having some kind of uncanny ability that is paranormal in nature or some pseudo mode of "Science" such as NLP or Mega Memory demonstrations allow.

I've sat in the audience of Kreskin shows and watched people crying, as they attempted to send their thoughts to old George, just so they could get a Reading from him. Banachek will tell you about people who come to him after his shows explaining that they understand why "legally" he must use the disclaimers but they understand too, that it's to protect his amazing psychic abilities... I've personally seen and experienced this kind of public reaction countless times both, as the result of my own performances as well as that of others. Similarly, I've watched countless people roll their eyes with disgust and even leave shows in which the performer is presenting OBVIOUS tricks and basically insulting the intelligence of his/her audience by trying to claim or suggest otherwise. I've also seen these Disclaimer Addicted types get booed off stage, laughed at and heavily scorned because of their lack of RESPECT to the audience as well as the craft itself... one rather well known big mouth who writes for Genii comes to mind. His personal antics being lower than low, in that he will not allow anyone to do "Readings" in his club but it's perfectly fine for him to do them if he has the chance to get laid... if that's a demonstration of higher ethics I'll go back to being a Baptist Minister.

When it comes to the demands of the ardent (often times "desperate") believer and the Seance issue I think the most beautiful and kind "out" one can rely upon is Brother Shadow's HAVE SEANCE WILL TRAVEL routine; basically a guided meditation type experience in which the "performer" does little other than guide the sitter(s) into a light state of hypnosis, invoking their own memories and imagination so that each person can get the closure they are seeking first hand, without my having to feed them any kind of influencing data, as was common in the golden years of Spiritualism. I will frequently follow up this kind of one-on-one session with some carefully planned grief counseling and handing the client a brochure containing both books and regional resources for helping people dealing with the loss of a loved one.

I get very ugly when I find commercial Psychics hustling folks. I've helped run a few out of town (actually using one of Docc's effects in one case... I'll let those who know Docc's material mull that one over) as well as assisted (actually pointed authorities to the situation) in legal action taken against such operators. I believe that this is one of the obligations we have when we choose to walk within this "deeper" side of Mentalism and focusing more on the common person, the majority of whom have some kind of faith and related superstitions whether we want to accept that truth or not.

The referencing of Dr. Faust is most excellent, the sub-title on much of my own press material (following the bold header of "Craig the Psychic") reads, "See Just How Real a Fake Psychic Can Seem" The irony of it all, is that I simply explain how the perspectives of the Skeptic really are one in the same as to the truth of the Psychic/Occultist, referencing the old Mystery Schools and why they deliberately clouded over the more mundane truths of such things, just to keep certain types of people from misusing it... sadly, abuse still happened but most of that came about during the expansion of the Roman-Christian Empire and its lust for "power" -- to be the possessor of all the secrets, as it were.

Seance work can be a lot of fun regardless of which style of presentation you choose to do. The cold truth is, few are capable of pulling one off that has the heavier overtones which is why the majority of them come off looking a bit corny -- fun and great amusement, but corny -- this includes the Houdini Seance and shows like Manifestations; they are GREAT SHOWS but filled with bits that lend to the sitter logical "Psychological Outs" i.e. the use of devices that either look familiar (as in, associated with stage magic) or could readily be gimmicked in some way; the layman's favorite explanations to all of it will be threads, magnets and electronics not that any of us would be guilty of using such things

Being a Seance worker, especially when you are taking on that more "real" sense of things, places a heck of a lot of responsibility on your shoulders. I do not recommend that it be done by the exceptionally young and inexperience (when it comes to life itself) and would highly recommend that most that do this sort of thing have some level of skill when it comes to dealing with people that become emotionally overwhelmed -- a counseling background can prove priceless in these cases but more to the point, being able to identify the on-set of "extreme" fear, hysterics, etc. You really need to be aware of what's going on with your patrons in that the emotional sense of investment by some (this is a rare thing) can prove a critical challenge.

Anywho... I think most of us, at least as far as this thread has gone thus far, seem to be on similar footing.

Oh! And Max's primary point on Disclaimers is that every performer needs to figure that out for themselves HE DON'T USE ONE! Most of the heavy hitters out that don't... go figure

Craig Browning wrote:PC I agree with what I believe you're implying but I refer folks to the classic Lee Earle perspectives; The Magician works in agreement with the audience who knows that he is there to fool them and thus, entertain; there is a suspension of disbelief and everyone knows that it's (to coin a phrase) all smoke & mirrors. On the other hand the Mentalist invokes belief from his/her audience be it the idea of having some kind of uncanny ability that is paranormal in nature or some pseudo mode of "Science" such as NLP or Mega Memory demonstrations allow.

Good point, but it's never as clear as that. Just last week, there was a post about a supply teacher accused of 'wizardry' after making a toothpick seemingly vanish. And it's not too long ago that some attention seeking nutcase came onto these boards to warn us all that David Copperfield was in league with demons or warlocks or goblins of some sort. Christian fundamentalists in the US and the UK have been viciously campaigning against the Harry Potter books, which merely tell stories with a magical theme. And one lady I know occasionally does kids magic shows at her local church's sunday school, but has to present them as 'comedy illusion' shows, as her church frowns deeply on any mention of the word 'magic'...

So people will still believe what they want to believe. I think even the sponge balls would be seen by some as witchcraft. And the sponge ding dong would be the very height of satanic depravity!

As we're in the Books and other printed format section, I might try and aquire the rights to all Craig Browning's posts, make a wee book, and sell it for £100 a pop.

I sure would pay for it! Craig i'll give you a 5% cut

Wild Card wrote:As we're in the Books and other printed format section, I might try and aquire the rights to all Craig Browning's posts, make a wee book, and sell it for £100 a pop.

I sure would pay for it! Craig i'll give you a 5% cut

No sense in the two of us going hungry...