talkmagic.co.uk

So after 6 months of reading and research generally. Many many hours of practice an opportunity to present "something" to a male friend of mine occured.
It was (as ive been told in many books) the moment the person was eager to see something and had been put off before so hopefully i could enhance the magic by them wanting to see it.

My pad and pen were just laying on the table from previous nights practice and i was asked what they were for. and after a long explaination about using 10% of your brain and that i am trying to enhance that and one part is pen reading.
Anyway to cut a long story short, managed to "read" some numbers and realised things were in my favour so milked for all it was worth, going to 4 figure numbers and pictures with great sucess.

I then did a simple routine with svengali, where i show the person i can memorise a deck and where the card is in that deck even after cuts shuffles, multiple piles etc. Again i was pleased i stopped when it was good and left them wanting more, rather then the temptation to draw it out forever (bit like this post) However explaining the false force of a pile was funny. I told you to pick that one, you just never heard it, but your subconcious did !

Anyway my question.

Myself as a person is sceptical, when i see something in magic i know magic does not exist in terms of magic but that it is created.
When doing these two effects, instinct inside told me that i had to give a reason why it was happening to prevent further questions and to justify the effect rather than allowing the chance of them gussing it was a trick deck. Ive always liked the idea of showing all cards to be the same in svengali, but at the time it felt wrong as it would have shown the deck to be tricked.
So (i know everyone has preferences) what do people think of this as using mentalism "patter" to cover normal magic type effects.
Is this more effective to say i have memorised a deck of cards so i can tell the position of one where ever it is, or just to present the normal look its jumped to the top.

Sorry its a bit long, trying to get the right point across.
Any thoughts appreciated.

I personally don't see a problem. The way I think is anything that enhances your magic, and makes it more believable must be a good thing. One staple effect of mine involves a classic force, and I present that as reading "tells". Yes, a complete lie, but it really does knock 'em bandy (If I do say so myself!!). At the end of the day, if it makes your magic more meaningful, and enhances it, then go for it!!

I think we need a "can of worms" smiley!

I'm not going to answer your question, because it's really your own decision. I tell you now, some on this forum will advocate saying whatever you want to present an effect, others will insist that if it isn't performed in a way that it could be a genuine demonstration of either otherworldly power or pseudo-psychology, it isn't "proper mentalism" and you should stick to magic balls and fairy dust etc.

IMHO, magicians can get a bit up themselves in terms of what you are aiming to achieve, belittling magic that "only" fools people, and going on about creating magical experiences (I know, I'm sometimes one of them ) But really, that feeling you're trying to invoke in people is a total pulled-the-rug moment; a temporary state of disbelief because any possible method escapes them. However, we're generally fooling ourselves if we start suggesting that spectators really think it's "magic" - bluntly put, they know it's a trick.

Personally, I think this is an integral charm of magic, if not a key principle - a microcosm of Kierkegaardian doubt (have a fun afternoon looking that up...!). If magicians really were well known for having genuine magical powers, where would the mystery be?! "Oh, you used your powers. Nice one."

The controversy comes when people disagree over whether this applies to mentalism, boiled down to the question "is it only true mentalism if people "believe" your presentation? Is that the difference between mentalism and "mental magic"?" I'm far from qualified to answer that question, but my personal (and flexible) definitions would be:

Mentalism - when the desire is for the spectator to genuinely believe that something other than trickery or sleight of hand was demonstrated. This could be spirits, psychology or "finely tuned perception." The method may or may not genuinely rely in some way on knowledge of how the mind works or how to manipulate predictable occurrences.

Mental magic - when an effect involves an aspect of "the mind", for instance is presented as telekenesis, pre-cognition, telepathy etc. to varying degrees of serious-ness, but for which the assumptions made about magic (i.e. sponge balls and cards) still apply, i.e. it was achieved via a secret method.

Some people feel that to perform mental magic makes insinuations about mentalism that threaten it as an entity in it's own right, others feel that adding a "mental twist" to a conjuring trick adds depth and mystery... this is the way I'm inclined, however I do think that whilst magic and mental magic are a great combination, magic and true mentalism are not particularly, only because it seems totally illogical to me as to why a demonstration of genuine mystical ability and "card tricks" would ever be obvious bed fellows. (If you could genuinely fly, would you ask to demonstrate it by opening for David Copperfield?)

[(If you could genuinely fly, would you ask to demonstrate it by opening for David Copperfield?)]

I think this was kind of what i was trying to do. Im into mentalism and to be honest where most of my reading has naturally followed to.

I just felt that if i said "oh i can read your mind" wouldnt be belivable as the person knew me well, hense the "ive learnt to pen read really well and i can memorise a deck and force you to pick a pile of cards"
I didnt want it to be obvious i was doing a trick - rather that ive expanded my 10% brain capicity.

which then gives me another question, or maybe the original question better phrased, probably another can of worms, sorry for that, but.....

Was the trick i did mentalism, with cards used as a prop for the effect,
or was mental magic used to enhance a magicians trick?

[/quote]

I think the svengali is more effective using just the classic method but it's, and it has been said, your preference. I have been leaning towards mentalism and away from magic for the past six months and it seems that mentalism is harding hitting towards the audience. So I hope to break completely away from magic soon. But personally I'd stick with the classic presentation.

One of the first requisites for Mentalism and being a Mentalist is BELIEVABILITY e.g. Plausibility and Credibility become the core foundations in what we present. If you are presenting something that is not plausible, based on your claims or previous demonstrations; nor is it credible, based on the same and/or alluded to points of reference, then you are doing little other than presenting a puzzle for folks to try to figure out.

... even Banachek strives for that investment of belief when he performs as do ALL the major mentalists... some of them just screw the pooch, so to speak, by turning the tables on the laity and insinuate they are ignorant lots for buying into magic tricks and hokum. This is what Lee Earle refers to as the "Big Head" syndrome i.e. those performers that are so full of themselves because they know something you don't that they feel obligated to rub salt into said wound.

I said it in my little treatise about becoming a Mentalist and I've repeated it a few dozen times since... Study & Learn the Bob Cassidy Axioms or "Principia" and strive to not just understand them, but apply them to your craft. On top of that I'll encourage the mild memorization of Paul Brook's book ALCHEMICAL TOOLS... at least the first 246 pages in that they are potentially the most important points of view in all of magic but most particularly Mentalism.

Finally... GET AWAY FROM THE NEWER WRITERS and most especially those whose claim to fame stems from just one or two forums vs. a more industry wide mode of reputation. And when it comes to Forums, be exceptionally cautious over the junk oozing out of the Magic Cafe or over on E... most of it comes from wannabes and theorists, NOT real performers or those who work a dozen or more shows a month on a steady basis and have for a decent number of years...

Oh! And pay attention at who defends themselves when it comes to the lack of experience and how that "don't count"... it will tell you a heck of a lot... (especially when it comes from those that wish to challenge the authoritarian views of those that have been there and done it...)

Anywho... just a few pennies worth, for your consideration.

Giving a mentalism type excuse is a great idea. Remember to not take it to far or seriously though, or some people might think you're being ridiculous, or sometimes get angry at you. The point of making up a reason is NOT to completely convince them that it is the real reason, but simply to help them suspend their disbelief. It just helps them to imagine, and possibly get further from the answer to how its done. It helps them to be satisfied with another, more amuzing reasoning, whether they know it is a trick or not. It's hard to completely explain what i mean, but I hope you get an idea from what I said above.
I agree that it is somewhat obvious that if all cards appear the same it is a trick deck, and that takes away from the magic or mentalism of it. I suggest a deck switch of some sort right when you end the trick. And then if they seem curious you already have the deck switched, and can give them the normal one.
I hope you found/find my advice and reasoning helpful.

There is certainlyt a big difference between the two. I think if your patter isn't great, go with magic for reasoning

magicmindben wrote:Giving a mentalism type excuse is a great idea. Remember to not take it to far or seriously though, or some people might think you're being ridiculous, or sometimes get angry at you.

Well, that's me out then.

I think if you want to do a Memorized Deck routine you should look into really Memorizing a deck. I have mastered a system in which I know where any card is in the deck. It didn't take long at all and I can name the number at which a card sits in the deck or if you tell me a number I can tell you what card sits at that number.
As far as the Svengali I don't like showing the cards to be the same either. I actually rough the cards so I can spread them out and show the faces to be different. After doing tricks with a Svengali people often ask to seer the faces to make sure they are not all the same and roughing them allows you to show different faces anytime you need to. If you don't rough them when you spread the cards face up people will see the duplicate cards but you can hide the duplicates with roughing fluid.

Thank-you everyone for your replies,

Mexicub - i did do a sort of memorised deck prior using the si stebbins (sp) setup, but got sussed very quickly, more due to my inexperience, but i feel happy with my svengali and am comfortable ovrhand shuffling, riffle shuffling, spreading etc. I dont want to be (although the temptation is hard) to have too many tricks on the go at one time, im just trying to focus my energies into a few places.

magicmindben - I did find it helpful - thanks.

Craig Browning - i think thats what i am trying to get at - making people think it is possible and believeable. Probably one of the first "lessons" i read about. I try very hard to keep certain lessons fixed in my head that ive read in various places that i find i end up repeating them at spurious moments in my head as if reaffirming what im trying to do.
I plan to get to bob cassidy next, as still plodding slowly and surely though some others. I am (so far) sticking to the classics, but they are so blinking long (note - joke !) Thank you for your reply. Much appreciated.

Anyway just as a side note to the svengali and my original thoughts about showing a deck to be changed to the same card - my other half (who just had to start playing in the same playpen as me - hump !) is more gimmicky in his approach (think of a bald paul daniels) and caused a massive barrage of questions after turning them all the same to a very impressed group of chav's (aka my cousins. Please note i am not chav or even a hint of chavness in me).

Mind you i got one up on him by reciting someone's NI number perfectly. Yup i like mentalism.

if you're going to buy cassidy's stuff, make sure you do it via lybrary.com, and not directly from cassidy...he's reknown for taking up to 2 years and sometimes never to deliver...

while im here, i'll recommend some things...

look at all the annemann stuff at lybrary too...and elliot Bs switchcraft ebook...

and, for some cheap and cheerful, and most importantly useable stuff - have a nose through eddie burke's site - mr. e enterprises...there's an advert block on here somewhere...very good old fashioned delivery and customer service...

lots of old classics, with his own handlings on top..and while you're practicing the props (such as his version of koran's medallion) are more than suficient...you can even gig with some of them, and when you consider some of his stuff starts at a fiver...can't go wrong!

You know a great system to use is Juan Tamariz "Mnemonica" its a memorized deck system which has so many tricks built in and it gives you a way to memorize a whole deck using Mnemonics of course. I use the Nikola system which also uses Mnemonics and it also has some tricks built in but not as many as Mnemonica. If I knew about Mnemonica before I learned the Nikola system I would of probably went with Mnemonica. I could still learn it but I got so used to using Nikola I figured Im ok for now. There is also a program called StackView which I think free but you install the program and it already has a few systems like Nikola, Si Stebbens, and others and you can go through their tests which tests you on which ever system you need to learn and helps you learn faster. You can do a timed test or a non timed test. If there is a system that isnt already saved in StackView you can make your own and save it and be tested upon your new system. Another great thing is you can simulate moves with your system, for example if you wanted to know what order you cards will be in after an in Faro shuffle, that can be simulated, or however many In Faros you like and other moves which allows you to see how your deck will be affected after you make that move or moves. If you get this program set the stack using Nikola and simulate a poker deal with 4 people and you will see something really cool. I know Memorized deck systems are not for everyone but for those who want to get into it believe me when I say you can perform miracles that otherwise wouldnt be possible. Imagine being able to do a variation of the ID without the ID? You can have them inspect the cards after. You can even use someone elses deck of cards and there are ways to get your deck in order in front of the audience and they don't even realize it. Or you could have them shuffle the cards first and do a deck switch, this is powerful.

Just One Little Important Footnote...




Doing 101 Card Tricks does not make one a "Mentalist"!



Though it is a huge issue within the craft, the majority of those working this field do very little to no card oriented effects and the few they do typically have some strong "logic" tied to them when it comes to plausibility and connection to the performer's explanations and/or claims.

I'm not saying to not do card effects, only that doing too many will detract from that state of psychological investment you need from your audience when attempting to present effective mentalism.

A rather well known mentalist pointed out in casual conversation how it was always easy to find the one's who had no clue as to what mentalism is all about when you go to a convention... they're the one's huddled in a corner trying to improve on their pass (or learn a new card technique).

Playing Cards, at least in the states, stir two primary images in the mind of the public when they see them in a "show" situation -- Gambling and Magic Tricks... both involve the manipulation of the cards and either image creates a psychological disconnect that can cost the performer when it comes to the goal of gaining optimum impact. That is why the majority of those in Mentalism who have longevity, transmute the majority of card based routines; using post cards, index cards, business cards or anything they can that allows them a similar effect without the direct connection.


I've got to repeat myself (or risk getting lynched)... I am not saying you can't use cards in Mentalism bits, only that you must be very selective and minimalistic. THINK IT THROUGH!

I think Craig is right when he says "believability" is a key difference.

Many of you may have seen this before, however for those who haven't... a wonderful example of cards involved in mentalism is this effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiDIXoIAkcg

Although the principle is known to many of us, the cards become effectively "invisible" due to the engaging presentation.

One of my favorites.