talkmagic.co.uk

If I said to my friends that I was reading body language and subliminal cues then some of them would believe me. Others wouldn't, but for the ones who did the mystery would be solved. ("oh, it's just..." they'd think)

If I say to them I'm using magical powers, with a smile and a sparkle in my eye, then they laugh with me. None of them believe me. The mystery isn't solved.

For some of my friends, they want to solve the mystery. But they respect that I won't tell them. For others the unsolved mystery is all the entertainment they need.

(Others love watching the first set get confounded, of course...)

I'm with Miko on this more or less. You want to give your audience options and your audience will have a variety of different ideas about how you do what you do, and all within the contract that you have that you are setting out to deceive your audience (irrespective of what you do in addition to that deception).

I've written about this at length here - http://mainlymental.tumblr.com/post/240 ... xt-subtext - but let me summarise.

The effect is, you are reading the mind of your spectator.

You want to create, but as a subtext only, a more real world method (visual cues, etc.). Do keep in mind that such techniques are generally not real either. I sympathise totally with your view that a lie about being able to read body language is not the same as a lie about genuinely being able to read minds. A facial cue is a visible thing, and the idea that facial cues can be used to decode someone's thoughts is not without grounding, though you would rarely if ever be able to use such techniques to determine a playing card.

(I've been in a situation where I have, in divining a card that was already known to me, elicited strong tells from a participant that I could have, had I been braver, used to my advantage.)

I kind of view this as a spectrum of wickedness, with the ability to read minds maybe about a third of the way along from the wicked end, and a third of the way after that the kind of deception you are considering - an unreal application of a real world phenomenon, and then at the most virtuous end, demonstrations of real applications of real world phenomena, such as pseudo-memorisation effects.

This is not something you explain ("I'm going to read facial cues and work out what your card is"). You tell them that you will determine the identity of their card, and you act as if you are reading their facial cues.

When someone sees something they cannot explain, they will generally think about it, and arrive at a conclusion that will prop up their existing world view.

Some people will go away thinking you can read minds. They already believe in telepathy and will not be dissuaded.
Some people will go away thinking you can read facial cues. They already believe that that is possible and will not be dissuaded.
Some people will go away thinking it is a trick.

Your contract, though, is not to convince or dissuade them from their beliefs. It is to a) deceive your audience, b) entertain your audience, and c) guess the card. It is not to further or dissuade their beliefs, so don't sweat it. The world does not rest on your shoulders - you are doing a card trick.

I think if your performance clashes with your actual personality then it won't make sense to the people who are watching.

If you regularly present your skeptical views of psychics but then start being a psychic yourself then it will clash, people will be confused.

You could present tongue in cheek.
You could say that after spending so much time with cards you have achieved a kind of zen, a level of ability beyond the norm.

Or you could say that there is no such thing as psychic ability but that if there was... This is what it would look like.
That way you are complimenting your beliefs.

bmat wrote:Not sure if this has been said because I have not read through all the posts. First it depends on your style, so we can't honestly answer for you.

I perform and let the audience draw their own conclusions. If I manage to start a new religion in the process, I have no issue with that at all.

Of course my style is that the 'magic' pretty much happens and we all go along for the ride.

An example would be:

Pick a card, no not the six of diamonds, lets choose another. The six again. Seriously? I've a better idea lets put it back and just take the top card cause it doesn't matter. What in blue blazes how did that six get on top. Watch with me. the six, goes into the deck? Yes, great now we can get on with things. Just take that top card don't tell me what it is. what do you mean its the six again. Maybe it is me, here take the deck shuffle it up and we will try this again. Actually lets move onto something different. (as I put the deck down one card shoots from the deck along the table towards the spectator) six.

The audience now can decide am I doing the magic? Is it magic or a trick on my part? I tend not to fool myself, I know and they know, and I know they know that I'm performing a trick. But we are all having fun on the ride and every now and again somebody starts to wonder.

Pretty much agree with this, like the term "go along for the ride", when I perform an ACR, as I'm explaining about their card being special it has jumped to the top, then explaining again how it was too quick happens again...etc etc, the patter is what fits my character which in turn fits the effect

As I performing Childs Play I worry not whether they actually believe my 5 year old Son can read minds or predict the future...the patter has explained what they need to know, and a little joke to finish like "five years old and won't tell me how its done", or "five years old and hes better than me" usually goes down well...if I do mentalism a "pulse read", or reading like a poker player fit my persona best

Hope this helps