talkmagic.co.uk

just me wrote:my humble opinion: the reason that many (younger magicians) have such an obsession with thing being examinable is that it simply takes the pressure off (wow! susch insight) it means that even if you do make a slight stuff up, you can reassure yourself that atleast you can show you didn't cheat them (even if you did) this post isn't making nearly as much sense as I had hoped so I better stop.

This is why I think younger magicians ought to start out with self workers...

one of the things you can do with something that is "examinable" at the end and I dont mean a prop, i just mean the way it is revealed or delivered is that you can do it in their hands. Thats always fun

Half of what's been said here is basically a much better explaination of what I was on about.

I'd say, when it does add to the effect for everything to be examinable is when the trick happens more in the spectator's hands. I recently got Mississippi Sam that I've been performing. Anyone that knows the trick is aware that it happens all with the spectator dealing the cards (to them it seems that way at least ) Regardless of the workings of the trick, the spectator, because they dealt it, is desperate to look at the cards.

When it seems they are responsible for what has happened, most people just HAVE to inspect the object. That's fine.

But how many tricks operate like that, in the grand scheme of things? 90% of the time a spectator will put it down to your sleight of hand.

Basically, if it will do anything to improve the impact the trick has, examinable is excellent. 90% of the time it doesn't though. I think if you are ever worried about how examinable the trick is, perform it, play with the patter and presentation and see if it diminishes at all if you don't hand every single object out for inspection. If the effect falls on its backside unless you MUST hand out everything, I wouldn't buy that trick. It just feels an unnatural way to perform for me, it disrupts the flow of the performance too much.

Oh, one quick side-note.

SamGurney wrote:
Tony Corinda:

Look at yourself. Watch what you do in every day life so that you can find out how you behave when you are behaving naturally. Do anything just as you would do it normally, but watch the ways your hands hold a pencil, pick up a book, light a cigarette. Watch and observe, you are teaching yourself how you behave!

I've never seen that quote before, but that is truly exceptional. Everyone who takes up magic should read that before they do anything else.

Corinda - a pure genius.

I'm going to leap in here and I may well be totally wrong about this but it occurs to me that the reason loads of tricks are marketed as 'examinable' is because they are aimed at magicians who are going to be performing them to other magicians. This also explains why you quite often see lists of things that the trick isn't:


*No Magnets!

*No Equivoque!

*No Pixie Dust!

*No Invisible Floating Elephants!

The reason being that the traditional way of doing the marketed trick does involve one or more of those things but THIS version doesn't so you can show it to your magician pals and then reveal that it doesn't work the way they think it does and completely fool them.

Of course, if you were to perform any version of it to the public, they wouldn't even suspect any of the original methods so having a fancy new version which doesn't use them is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

I can't speak for the working pros (but I'm going to anyway ) but I really don't think they care about having a magician-proof method or if it can be examined or not. If it can't be examined, then they won't let it be examined, and it would be a lot better to have a really simple, easy method to use that you can do perfectly 10 times in one evening to each table rather than have something that requires loads of set up or is overly complicated and you could screw up or break.

It's all well and good having a device that can make a card change in their hands but you can still have the same effect using a normal everyday sleight of hand colour change. The card stil changes in front of their eyes, just one will cost you £40 and do just one thing, and the other comes in a book for £6.99 and contains LOADS of different sleights, routines and ideas.

Eshly wrote:The number of reasons something should be examinable is infinite, but it all depends upon the circumstances.

For example I was planning a Q&A that involved envelopes, and these were to be handeled by the audiance, therefore they need to be examinable.

Blindfolds need to be examinable.

Steve Shaw at my local MagicBox performs a great trick with a gimmicked coin. He does it perfectly, but the trick is SO impossible and SO clearly not slight of hand that they always ask to see the coin.

I am trying to convince him to switch it out for a real coin, but he never bothers.

It's Graham, not Steve.

And if something is not examinable, the best thing to do, is give it to them to hold.
If you do this whilst talking to them, they will not have time to examine it.

but then, if you hand anybody an envelope to hold. .... It kind of infers that it is just an envelope. And there fore, doesnt need examining .

A J Irving wrote:*No Invisible Floating Elephants!

They are a pain to work with....

Matthius88 wrote:

A J Irving wrote:*No Invisible Floating Elephants!

They are a pain to work with....

Agreed.

I mentioned that in the real world we tend to see that it is never the performer themselves who says 'notice there is no cheating' but someone else who goes 'there isn't any cheating happening is there?'. Well this actually reminded me of something Tommy Wonder used to do in his ACR. He did not say 'Look, it's the same card I have not changed it' but he said 'No, no, no.. I have not cheated- it's the same card' as you would if someone had said 'you've swapped it'. In fact, I thought someone did say that, but that I just missed it. Very Clever, and exactley what a real magician might do.
In a way its like sucker tricks, you've got to lead them so they think your using one method and then you 'accidentally' or by request (although most people are too polite to ask), show you're not.

I half agree you here. I think your right, a lot of the "NO MAGNETS, NO STRINGS" stuff is just to benefit magicians performing for magicians.

But we must remember that there ARE improvements and benefits that can be made in many cases, not just for magicians watching (who are audiance members too remember!) but also for all the highly-sceptical people in the audiance, or those who see you as a Magician rather than a mentalist.


Here is an example: I own a Brainwave deck and I it's a great effect. But with Run Silent Run Deep I can perform nearly the exact same effect, but without ever needing to touch the deck!

This not just for the benefit of any magicians in the audience, but it means the sceptics are put off and also the effect looks a little less like a 'magic' act, and much more mental, as the only explanation is psychological trickery.

ah, but then again, if they've also got ben harris' work - then they'd spot the technique a mile off...

unless you perform something completely out of this world, then you'll never shift what a skeptic believes anyway....they'll still see it as a puzzle and nothing more...they may not be able to work it out if you mention not using x,y and z...but if thats their base mentality - then not much will change that...

as i've mentioned OOTW, did you know that dr. wiseman released a small booklet on how to conduct scientific esp testing, and in amongst the credits was max maven?

it also says in there from a couple of people, that if they had to say "ok, well....you may well have psychic abilities..." to what we do, it was OOTW that was considered the best of the best...

It's also based on your attitude toward them. If you come off with a "Look how clever I am." attitude, then of course they'll end up looking at you like everything you did was nothing but a puzzle.

Which from the way you post and act on here, confirms my belief that you usually end up setting yourself up for failure by trying to convince your spectators that you are some clever fellow IE: A trickster. Rather than somebody who is entertaining or as an air of mystery to them. Anybody can be a trickster. It takes real skill to be entertaining.

Randy wrote:It's also based on your attitude toward them. If you come off with a "Look how clever I am." attitude, then of course they'll end up looking at you like everything you did was nothing but a puzzle.

Which from the way you post and act on here, confirms my belief that you usually end up setting yourself up for failure by trying to convince your spectators that you are some clever fellow IE: A trickster. Rather than somebody who is entertaining or as an air of mystery to them. Anybody can be a trickster. It takes real skill to be entertaining.

I've so been waiting for somebody else to say this so I didn't have too. I got news for you, skeptics usually don't go to see magic shows (sigh or mentalism shows) the reason people pay to see these shows is because they like magic, they want you to succeed, they want to be entertained. The problems only happen when:
you challenge your audience by presenting a puzzle.
Your presentation sucks and the audience becomes bored.
You present you show as look what I can do.

People want to be fooled, they just don't want to be made fools of. The beauty of a paid show is that the audience starts off on your side, they want you to be good, they want to have fun. Only you can turn them against you.

I'm going to stop typing now, because this is a topic in itself, and is the core of entertainment and I'm not sure it is worth typing out because those of you who understand don't need to read it (again) those of you on the cusp of understanding are going to figure it out, and I'm afraid those that really need to read it will never understand or accept it.

bmat wrote: The problems only happen when:
you challenge your audience by presenting a puzzle.

Yes!

bmat wrote:Your presentation sucks and the audience becomes bored.

Agreed!

bmat wrote:You present you show as look what I can do.

Definitely!

And Tom, it's true that magicians can be in the audience. I suggest that you do not consider them as the people you should be trying to impress when constructing effects and routines. Magicians (and yes, mentalists) are not your target audience unless you really are setting yourself up to fail or to be a clever dick.

In this day and age, people will find their own explanation for how things were accomplished, and I am fine with that. I don't tell them to do so, they just naturally will. Granted, they will probably be a million miles off the mark of what was actually done, but they will come up with an explanation that pleases them. It's because of this reason, I see no point in making a huge deal about examinibility (I think I just made up a word). Yes, I will give out all three coins at the start of Chinese Bit, mainly because I want them to make a connection with the identities of the three coins. Yes I will hand them the rope at the start of the cut and restored, if nothing else so that those not on stage can please themselves that it was a genuine rope and not just "magnets" straight away. (There's no impossible moment in a cut and restored if they are thinking magnets before you begin, you just bore them).