talkmagic.co.uk

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

So, would it be correct to say that mentalism differentiates itself from the rest of 'magic' in its locus of effect?

By this I mean to say that the mentalist attributes the phenomenon being presented to him/ her self (the subtext being "I am able to determine what the hidden information is because I have 'supernatural' powers), as opposed to the non-mentalist ("I am able to determine what the hidden information is due to sleight-of-hand technique that you are unable to perceive")

Kinda sorta. I would say that in mentalism the phenomena being presented come down to supernatural or supernormal powers that are either trained (on the part of the performer) or innate (when performed by a participant).

This is, of course, absurdly reductionist, but a useful thought to hold lightly.

Mr_Grue wrote:I used to consider it a subset of magic, but more and more I've come to see it as parallel to magic. I find it difficult to articulate that, though.

I don't know if this is any help, or just muddies the waters, but I often think of things as Venn diagrams. In terms of techniques/methods, the two sets representing magic and mentalism largely overlap. In terms of presentation, the area of overlap is much smaller.

If mentalism were a true subset, then the mentalism circle would be entirely within the "magic" circle.

I view the fields as overlapping, but with a large common ground.

I am not sure how I view the "too perfect" concept either, but I think it possibly contradicts the suggestion that the best tricks leave the spectator with nowhere to start in deconstructing the method.

Mr_Grue wrote:... but a useful thought to hold lightly.

I never heard that before, nice turn of phrase.

Of course the waters get muddied further when a card-worker performs 'mental' effects!