talkmagic.co.uk

Ted wrote:I agree with Brian and Jim. Mentalism is well-disguised magic.

That said, I probably wouldn't follow a mental epic by pouring milk into a cone of newspaper, but that's just me.

T.

Not even well disguised sometimes,

I saw an effect at a meet up, Ian, told me the name of my best friend, who I had not mentioned, I had how ever wrote down his name, somehow using this (regardless of weather I hid while i done it ) he found out because of this, hence the mentalism was a magic trick.

TonyB wrote:They are magicians doing mind-reading tricks, and that is something different.

I'm interested in learning how a Mentalist is not 'a magician doing mind-reading tricks'.

Isn't mentalism the performance of 'mind-reading tricks'?

Mentalism is a sub-set of Magic. The presentation is different, I'll grant you, but at the end of the day they are still 'tricks' (in that you are not actually reading minds, you are giving the illusion of reading minds).

I guess there are interesting parallels with Poker routines (displays of pseudo-skill). For example, 'Liar's Poker' which (ostensibly) a demonstration of the performers powers at reading 'tells'. Of course no 'reading' actually takes place.

SpareJoker wrote:Isn't mentalism the performance of 'mind-reading tricks'?

Yeah, some people just don't want to admit they're doing "tricks" though

I guess its a pettyness really, Mentalism is Magic, infact some books on the subject are "Mental Magic".

Everything that the book 13 steps talks about involves cheating the spec or more politely tricking them.

Magic and Mentalism are like black people and white people. 99 % percent of people know there is very little difference or if we take skin colour out no difference (dont go all forensic scientist on me) where as 1%, the raciststs and radicalists, think there is major difference and wont listen to reason.

I have pontificated about magic and mentalism being mixed together before. I can't remember where the pontification occurred which may be just as well.

It's what you do with it.

I run the gammut of audiences:

My stand-up work for adults is mentalism. That's where I'm most comfortable in that context. I usually perform in comedy club settings or similar. I want to have as few 'props' as possible, and to involve the audience as much as I can. It's also the best genre for me to chase laughs.

I do close-up work too, and it's always visual magic. That's because I'm usually mixing and mingling in busy (and noisy) environments, I have just a few moments to win audience attention, and every moment they give me after that is at risk of being snatched away by an old friend arriving or a toast master moving people from A to B. Mentalism in this setting asks too much of spectators if the success and failure of the effect depends on them following your instructions to the letter (as so many mentalist effects do). I don't use any close-up material that needs extensive explanation unless its a small group in a quiet setting.

And... I do kids' shows. They're magic shows. But the magic isn't important. What's important is that I'm the biggest twit in the room.

In all cases, the agenda is to get my audience involved and to make them laugh. I see myself as pretty much the same Pete regardless of how I'm performing and who I'm performing for.

In short, I'm a professional twit.

HAVING SAID THAT:

I can list a number of excellent performers - some on this board - that make their living through bizarre magic, seances, spook shows and the like. If they approached their craft with the same self-effacing irreverence with which I approach mine, they'd fall flat on their backsides.

That side of the game relies heavily on having your audience suspend their disbelief completely and utterly - even if it's just for the duration of the show. If that doesn't happen, glasses don't move, pendulums don't swing, spectators don't scream, and nobody passes out (naming no names <cough>).

The bizarre performer CANNOT go into a show with the pretext that it's all an illusion. The show wouldn't take off at all. Plus, I'd add that part of the appeal of these shows is that it leaves the audience with that seed of doubt that at least some of it might have been genuine, spontaneous and real... Audiences want that doubt at the end of a spook show. It's more exciting that way.

Also, spare a thought for the legion of Derren Wannabes who prattle on about all sorts of NLP drivel and armchair psychology in an attempt to do mentalism without alluding to anything psychic. They're not presenting their effects as tricks any more than Uri Geller is. And, I think a big part of that is because they haven't quite decided who they are as performers and are taking the first available (non-supernatural) narrative hook that they can find. Audiences still buy into that pseudo-psychological claptrap though.

So there you go.

Those are my thinks.

Cheers,

Pete

MagicalSmithy wrote:I guess its a pettyness really, Mentalism is Magic, infact some books on the subject are "Mental Magic".

Everything that the book 13 steps talks about involves cheating the spec or more politely tricking them.

Magic and Mentalism are like black people and white people. 99 % percent of people know there is very little difference or if we take skin colour out no difference (dont go all forensic scientist on me) where as 1%, the raciststs and radicalists, think there is major difference and wont listen to reason.

What a great analogy.

Thanks to everyone who has answered upto now I have enjoyed reading the replies. I have to say I aggree with magicalsmithyand others. I can't see how Mentalism can be described as not being part of magic. The effect of mindreading must use "a trick" or it would be real mindreading and it isn't.

Looking at the other point raised in the discussion I have to agree that mixing some effects will spoil the performance, depoending where you are leading your audience and what you are trying to lead them to believe.

Nic

MagicalSmithy wrote:I saw an effect at a meet up, Ian, told me the name of my best friend, who I had not mentioned, I had how ever wrote down his name, somehow using this (regardless of weather I hid while i done it ) he found out because of this, hence the mentalism was a magic trick.

But he also described him to you...

The only aspect of this discussion that I do find troubling is the notion that "magic is trickery". It is reliant on tricks, certainly, but it's not defined by trickery.

As you were.

(Are con artists magicians?)

Beardy wrote:Oh no.....

Tame the beast before he arrives!

The Beast has given up. . . at least when it comes to arguing with magicians that want their cake & eat it too. . . and of course, the pious that believe it wrong & immoral to perform Mentalism the way it's been performed even before it got this name we use.


To the Original Poster. . . MENTALISM is a "cousin" to Magic because it does involve some of the techniques and even gimmicks associated with traditional magic. Understand however, magician's have never met a trick or method they didn't steal and much of what you find in "Mentalism" today is based on techniques & approaches they "borrowed" from the Psychic Entertainment Community. . . as one particular gent suggests, You will never find a Mentalist trying to figure out how to put a Coins Across or Ambitious Card routine in their act but when a Magician sees the Mentalist execute a clean & cool Book Test that they like, you will see hell turned over in their drive to find the method and put it into their act.

I have personally had more than a few magic buddies do exactly this after seeing me work and catching the public's reaction. In one instance the jerk called me up asking me to help him in his presentation. . .

I'm not saying that you "can't" have a magic act and a separate mental type program, many have and done well by it. BUT, they kept the two separate and not meshed together. The reason for this is the psychology between the two and how they are opposites to one another; magic offers a kind of escape and cooperation between mage & patron in which it is understood up front that IT'S ALL A TRICK and that's ok.

Mentalism relies on BELIEF the public's willingness to suspend disbelief and become vested in the claims made by the performer whether they are some kind of New Age/Witchypoo persona or an NLP Expert (and there's a hell of a lot of supposed NLPers out there who've probably need read more than maybe a single book on the topic. . . magician's leaning on the LIE that you only need to know the cliff-notes in order to present something. A MENTALIST isn't as known for half-measures; they seek to substantiate their claim/role by KNOWING what they are and the field in question).

The real difference between Mentalism and Magic centers on the person choosing the title. The majority of people that jumped on the Mentalism Bandwagon since the late 1990s did so as the result of what they've seen on TV. . . Criss Angel and David Blaine leading the pack on this side of the pond and Derren Brown over there. While I give Brown far more kudos for at least being more of what a Mentalist is, I have personal issues with what I consider a "betrayal" to the craft -- equating Mentalism as being the exact same thing as one would find at a kiddie birthday party... CHEAP TRICKS!

Regardless, all three of these guys are guilty of a cruel mode of "exposure" you could say -- diminishing the power of Mentalism by insisting that it's the "same as" magic and magic tricks. It has cost the craft significantly and blurred the lines so much that many newbies actually believe David Copperfield and Doug Henning were "Mentalists" In other words, people confuse traditional magic and grand illusion with this aspect -- this distant relative of Magic.

Do yourself a favor and study the older books on the topic and not all the current top ten and over-hyped stuff. Get your hands on the works of Burling Hull, Stephan Minch, Robert Nelson and Richard Webster and even Ormond McGill (William Larsen if you can find it). While you will still get a glimpse at the "Dunninger Mold" approach, you will likewise see a tremendous amount of how the old-timers did it; the Back of Room Readings after the show and even Mail Order and by appointment opportunities, pitch-book sales, home psychic parties, the whole bit... a large amount of which today's enthusiast negate and devalue as well as ignore . . . "because it is too close to charlatanism"

NEWS FLASH!

Mentalism was started by charlatans. As Stephan Minch pointed out, the true mentalist walks with one foot in the world of the thespian and the other firmly planted in the ways of charlatanism. . . Screw all the "Politically Correct" rhetoric!

If you want to do magic tricks, go for it. But the current meshing and blurring of things is exactly why the P.E.A. was formed and though it has been poisoned to some degree, it is starting to remember its roots and once again seeking to defend Mentalism, protecting our secrets from the greed and hunger of today's hungry mage. I wish them luck!

I wish you luck in wading through the much louder, persistent voices and most especially the moans, groans and rhetoric you will see posted following this. . .

What is the etymology of juggler?

Mr_Grue wrote:What is the etymology of juggler?

I believe it is derived from the Middle English jogelen, which means to entertain by performing tricks.

PC Wells: A very thoughtful post.

Mr_Grue wrote:The only aspect of this discussion that I do find troubling is the notion that "magic is trickery". It is reliant on tricks, certainly, but it's not defined by trickery.

As you were.

Would it help if the word 'trick' was substituted for the word 'illusion' (even though they are largely synonymous)?

Well, I think that we can all agree that magic is not (real) Magic.
I'm curious, if you feel that "[magic] is not defined by trickery", what do you feel it is defined by?

Mr_Grue wrote:(Are con artists magicians?)

Good question!

If I may opine: Con Artists use 'tricks' to part people from their money. A (professional) magician does exactly the same. The difference? With the latter the audience know they are being fooled. With the former, they do not. This fine line differentiates larceny from entertainment.

So if mentalism uses tricks covertly because it seeks to convince the audience of the reality of whatever the supposed method is, then by that same logic it's not magic?

Craig Browning wrote:The reason for this is the psychology between the two and how they are opposites to one another; magic offers a kind of escape and cooperation between mage & patron in which it is understood up front that IT'S ALL A TRICK and that's ok.

Mentalism relies on BELIEF the public's willingness to suspend disbelief and become vested in the claims made by the performer whether they are some kind of New Age/Witchypoo persona or an NLP Expert...

However much you rail against it, (presentation aside), it's still a trick though, isn't it? Nobody actually has real mentalist powers do they?

Craig Browning wrote:I wish you luck in wading through the much louder, persistent voices and most especially the moans, groans and rhetoric you will see posted following this. . .

Nothing wrong with a little rhetoric, as your post amply demonstrates

SpareJoker wrote:Well, I think that we can all agree that magic is not (real) Magic.
I'm curious, if you feel that "[magic] is not defined by trickery", what do you feel it is defined by?

The effect it has on the audience, ultimately. I'm thinking of Teller's cigarette routine, in which he appears to light and smoke a cigarette. The whole thing is a series of illusions, but it isn't "magic" because in effect nothing magical happens. Ironically, it only becomes magical when the sequence is explained; at the point at which the trickery itself is exposed.

There are other "grey" effects, such as Barrie Richardson's dry rice jar suspension, which is exactly what it appears to be in both effect and method. Most people, I think, would still consider it magic, even assuming some form of trickery where there is none. You could add various bits of freakshow fakiry to that.

I realise you can interpret all of the above as suggesting that it is the trickery, whether it exists or not, that defines it. To me, the leap to the assumption of the existence of trickery is just a logical response to the witnessing of the effect, so ultimately it is the effect that defines magic, regardless of the method.