talkmagic.co.uk

I know magicians guilt has been done to death but this is slightly different I think.

Do you ever think you reach a point where you start to "know too much" and therefore begin to rely on more complicated approaches than is really necessary?

To give an example of what I mean, when I was studying A Level maths I remember helping my sister with her GCSE maths homework. I forget the exact thing of it but basically I used calculus when basic algebra would have more than sufficed, over egging the situation somewhat.

This occurred to me because today at work while I was on lunch we got in to a bit of a debate about psychics etc. but in particular the ability to see the future. After much heated discussion I said that under the right conditions I could read the future too, this kind of forces a "go on then" scenario on to me that I was unprepared for. I basically "predicted" that somebody would freely choose an apple that I happened to have in my lunch bag.

I was very much caught on the hop and so thinking fast used an exceptionally simple method but I wonder that if I had predicted (sic) the event would occur at work today would I have had a far more complicated solution that to the spectator was no more impressive?

Reassessing some of the things I have been doing and working on I have begun to realise in some cases I have been making things much more difficult on myself and am now simplifying a lot. I guess part of this is the impact of magicians guilt and making everything as "clean" as possible but I also think it is more than that, much like with the calculus and algebra scenario, more knowledge does not necessarily mean a better effect.

Have the rest of you encountered anything similar?

You're absolutely right - I've actually made similar comments on other threads discussing how it's usually the simplest effect that got the biggest reaction, etc...

I saw one guy at an open mic spot in London a few months ago. Every trick he performed was either a self-working, Karl Fulves special or a simple, gimmicked packet trick. He tore the roof off of the place and got the best reaction of the night (even from the magi in attendance). The simplicity of the effects allowed him to focus on the presentation whch resulted in the most polised routine of the night!

I think sometimes we, as magicians, can be more interested in impressing ourselves with our sleights and moves than we are in entertaining the audience.

Never underestimate the power of simplicity!

Urm.. I can understand what you mean about the calculus analogy, that when you are trapped in more advanced thinking then you naturally assume that a more complex solution is neccessery. I am just learning calculus, so I can't comment too much, but I can tell you that in GCSE exams there are some p*ss easy questions and you think 'is this a trick question' because surley, there must be more to the question than this. Or so the thinking goes. There was that other period when I was constantly practicing hermeneutics following reading some complex literature and then I was listening to black sabbath at a friends house interpreting the lyrics in a way which was MUCH too complex and looking back, it was actually quite amusing how I interpreted 'fairies wear boots' to be a philosophical critique of pure reason as oppose to an acid trip. Of course, if you know Aldous Huxley, it may well be both

However, I have not found this pattern to be true with magic. The more I know, the less I need to over-think. When I first began, I had ludicrously complex solutions to everything. Now I know more, I know of course, that simplicity is best.

I'm not sure exacltey why, but I think it is mainly because in calculus and in literature, your brain learns 'this is not easy' and latches on to a more complicated perspective of things. With magic, the more you learn, the more you end up thinking 'well that is so simple! There is no need to over-complicate things'.

Doing stuff that is difficult defeats the whole purpose of doing magic tricks. The charm of it is that you are astounding the spectators with stuff that is just child's play, very simple once you know how.

last night, i used - a key card, a DL, gemini twins, OOTW, and my own version of mental epic with a sheet of paper...then finished with two readings...well, two "what is currently on your mind" style thought-readings...

IAIN wrote:.then finished with two readings...well, two "what is currently on your mind" style thought-readings...

Ssh, don't tell Neil.

At least, not whilst I have to be there.

I blame Dan & Dave.

I like to perform Paul Harris' Overkill as an opener which is completely self-working and rather splendid.

I do load's of self working effects.

It's the presentation that counts, not how cool* your sybil cuts are.










*when I say cool I mean stupid

That is because the word magic and entertainment are not always interchangeable.

In the same way that carpentry isn't as much enjoyment as furniture is.

Couldnt agree more,about simplicity.
The presentation is equally as important as the end result.
Whether they be packet tricks or self workers doesnt really matter.
All that finger flicking stuff is fine,and there are quite a few finger flickers in circulation,go into the Ruskin next February,or to the Nags Head in covent garden and you will see as much finger flicking as you can handle.

Over the years i have seen some of the easiest effects get a tremendous reaction and some far more complicated sleights get a mediocre reaction.

There is nothing worse than performing an effect which has complicated sleights that you have been practicing for months,and you get the layperson say "oh thats good,but do that one with the"(whatever)selfworker that you performed earlier.

Deano

On Devil's Picture Book Derren Brown explains how he tried out various complicated mathematical methods to achieve part of an effect but ended up using a O-- W-- Deck instead!

Mandrake wrote:On Devil's Picture Book Derren Brown explains how he tried out various complicated mathematical methods to achieve part of an effect but ended up using a O-- W-- Deck instead!

When i first saw the explanation for that, i was disappointed. For some weird reason i desperately wanted it to be really complicated and clever.

It did seem a bit of a let down from the man who does amazing miracles but it worked well and the specs were impressed!

Considering the absurdly clever methods used for the other effects I was relieved when he used such a simple option. It gave me some hope...

If he does it that way, so can I!