talkmagic.co.uk

This here's a blog post that's going up on my site tomorrow. I get very little love on Tumblr, though, so thought I'd post it here too.

Black Box Theory

The magician has someone select and sign a card. The card is placed somewhere in the middle of the deck and then the magician does something. The top card is turned over and is shown to be the participant’s card.

The magician does something.

If we ask the audience afterwards how the trick was achieved, they would no doubt be unable to say exactly what the magician did, but they’d have a good idea of exactly when the magician did it, and in the broadest terms, what was done. He used sleight of hand, he used it at this point.

This is something I think of as black box theory. There is a black box, and perhaps it has “sleight of hand” written on it or perhaps it has “magic cards” written on it. We have, to borrow Ortiz’s terminology, an initial state, and a final state. Between these states, the viewer places this black box. In real terms it explains nothing, but it allows the viewer to encounter something inexplicable but move on without losing any sleep or religion over it. That’s really quite a useful thing if we don’t want our audiences to be made up entirely of people who will badger you for answers, or worse still think about the effect at length.

The trouble comes in, for me at least, when one has no great level of control over what label is placed on that box. I’ve written previously about layering presentations so that they have different levels of explanation to suit different types of viewer. This kind of layering is really an attempt to control what label goes on the black box. I’ve had people compliment me on my sleight of hand in performing Gemini Twins. Within the right context, for reasons that should be obvious to those who know the workings of the Twins, it’s quite a useful label. It sets the performer up as an adept conjuror, which is almost always what you want.

But in the realm of the mind reader or the mentalist, “sleight of hand” is the last thing you want written on the box.

One of the most powerful things I can do is have someone take a card from a shuffled deck. They alone see the card. I have them, in their mind, write the card on a large piece of paper. They screw the ball up, visualise this ball passing from their head to mine, and I am then able to tell them their card.

Traditionally I had always used red Bikes but recently switched to NOCs, and this was down in part to the black box. I have had, from time to time, someone suggest that I use marked cards. This makes perfect sense. Because I am keen to make it clear that they have a free choice of card, I thumb through the deck very slowly when they make their selection. This sells the genuine freedom they possess in making their choice, but it would, absolutely, facilitate me being able to read any secret coded marks hidden on the backs of the cards. I am quite happy, if a participant accuses me of such wanton skulduggery, to pass them the cards for examination. They find nothing, of course, because there is nothing to find.

But I am certain that for each person who had accused me of using marked cards, there were more who said nothing, but thought exactly the same thing. This is a chilling thought that every magician should take to heart. Just because you’ve not been called out on something, doesn’t mean you’ve not been caught. Most people are polite.

But anyhoo, I wasn’t satisfied with occasionally handing the cards over for inspection, even when it afforded me a way in to presenting the same effect again once the cards had been returned to me. I didn’t want the “marked cards” label getting anywhere near the black box, especially when there were other, far more tantalizing labels available.

It was the solid backs of the NOCs that provided the most logical solution. If there is nowhere on the back of the cards to hide a mark, then there can’t be one. Hopefully this realisation is so intuitive that, in presenting the effect, the possibility of marked decks is never consciously thought of.

Of course, which possible explanations present a problem and which are useful will vary from performer to performer and from effect to effect, but it’s important to realise you can do much to manipulate those ideas. Kenton Knepper’s book Indirection is well worth a read for further inspiration on how one might go about guiding your audience’s thoughts where you want them.

Great article, Simon. It reminded me of my days studying cybernetics in the Seventies.

I would say that even a magician shouldn't have "sleight of hand" written on the box.

Barfry

interesting thoughts.

I wonder what effects truely can have no explanation - I guess those would be the most powerful

regards,

Sea

Thanks Barry. I think the issue of which label is appropriate comes down to what kind of skill set the performer wishes his audience to ascribe to them. I think it's Derren Brown who makes the point about not liking oil and water effects because the magic "just happens", and the agency of the magician accounts for nothing. There's a danger, I suppose, in allowing one effect to stand for an entire repertoire, of course, but my feeling is that the performer would wish to be seen as possessing some kind of skill, even if the exact nature of that skill is unclear. Certainly manipulation acts present themselves as masters of sleight of hand first and foremost (unless we assume that the audience believes in real magic, of course).

Mr_Grue wrote:Certainly manipulation acts present themselves as masters of sleight of hand first and foremost (unless we assume that the audience believes in real magic, of course).

I'm not so sure of that, Simon. Take Cardini, for example; things just "happen". I'd say that a good manipulation act looks like real magic.

Barry

Sea,

The impossibility is a factor, to be sure, but it's not the only factor and, I suspect, not even the most important factor. One of the most powerful things you can do with a deck of cards is Out Of This World, the successful outcome of which is astronomically improbable, but not impossible. I'm currently obsessing over the Open Prediction, which done well is very powerful, but is only 1 in 52. Russian Roulette is one in six. There's no hard science on the power of an effect, but it's an interesting question to ask - what is it about any particular effect that you find powerful? What are those other factors?

Scrodinger's cat.

The 'object' is in two states at the same time. Which state it ends up in is dependant on the actions of those who manipulate the object. And I use the term 'manipulate' very liberaly.

Your black box is the same if I'm reading you correctly. Here is the effect. How you present it, or layer it decides the outcome of how the audience percieves the method. Through slight of hand, through 'mentalism' or gimmickery, or just plain old magic. The effect, although the same effect, is in all its forms at once it is how you layer it that determines the outcome or method in the spectators mind.

In this regard you are thinking along with the best thinkers we ever had on the planet. Well done.

Please note I know nothing of quantum mechanics so my interpretation of the theory written out may not be exact. But you should get my meaning.

Mr_Grue wrote:The impossibility is a factor, to be sure, but it's not the only factor and, I suspect, not even the most important factor. One of the most powerful things you can do with a deck of cards is Out Of This World, the successful outcome of which is astronomically improbable, but not impossible. I'm currently obsessing over the Open Prediction, which done well is very powerful, but is only 1 in 52. Russian Roulette is one in six. There's no hard science on the power of an effect, but it's an interesting question to ask - what is it about any particular effect that you find powerful? What are those other factors?

In two of those cases, the power comes from the ostensible lack of method. In one, the spectator does the handling, so how could the magician have done anything? This is on top of the sheer improbability of the result. I think the spectator is placed into a very perilous mental state by OOTW. They know that the magician must have done something, but there is not only no sign of a method, they did all the handling and chosing themselves. It is a form of double bind.

In the other, the card is placed out cleanly and matches (similar to the ACAAN plots, although I personally think the simplicity of the Open Prediction is better than the slightly odd premise of ACAAN). There is apparently no room for method.

The power of Russian Roulette comes more from the consequences of failure than the odds. I am not sure that effects that have similar odds, but no real consequences or other significance, have the same power.

Back on the "black box" theory, I think this is why some performers, such as Andy Nyman, suggest that you must have a way that the effect is achieved (he calls it the fauxcess). This does not have to be expressly communicated; it might just be in the performer's mind. I think this serves at least two purposes. The first is that there is something for the performer to latch on to (a silent, or not so silent, script). The second is that, if the apparent process is hinted at, it can derail the spectator's mind from trying to work out what actually happened. The bewildered and amazed audience member will happily clutch at a "straw". I think the problem is that you can weaken the effect, precisely because people think they know that answer. Yes, they might be impressed at Derren Brown's card counting skills, but arguably it ceases to be magical and becomes a demonstration of skill. Someone I know says that "all" mentalists do is read tells. I don't know if that's from the TV series, Derren Brown, or the couple of things I have done (maybe all three).

However, if you are a perfomer who doesn't do "magic" and doesn't want to suggest that there is genuine "magick" or psychic powers, well, good luck in finding a presentation that isn't about skill!

So, my suggestion is to anticipate likely solutions audiences might come up with and exploit that knowledge. Easier said than done, though. The plain-backed cards are one solution to the problem of people suspecting marks, but what is to stop people thinking of that episode of Mission: Impossible, where they had these contact lenses that let them read the marks in "invisible" paint? (This is actually not quite as crazy an idea as you might think...) Another solution is simply to place yourself in a situation where you cannot possibly see any marks there might be.

Part-Timer wrote:So, my suggestion is to anticipate likely solutions audiences might come up with and exploit that knowledge. Easier said than done, though. The plain-backed cards are one solution to the problem of people suspecting marks, but what is to stop people thinking of that episode of Mission: Impossible, where they had these contact lenses that let them read the marks in "invisible" paint? (This is actually not quite as crazy an idea as you might think...) Another solution is simply to place yourself in a situation where you cannot possibly see any marks there might be.

True, it's impossible to account for every improbable possibility that a viewer may come up with, but I think it's often possible to do away with the more popular ones. I think why I favour Nyman's thinking regards the fauxcess is that the majority of an adult audience will not believe in magic, or telepathy, or whatever. Those that do will often get no further in their thinking about method than that. My mother, for instance, thinks Dynamo is real. It's really where you want to leave those who do not believe in magic that becomes the issue, and given how very cheap our tricks can be, I feel it much better to hint at an astonishing skillset than a sticky card. Yes there will always be people who see the ability to read people as a trivial skill, but I think, in the main, most recognise it as a difficult skill that would be nice to have.

And I seem to recall someone getting picked up for using IR filter contact lenses in a casino recently, so yes, point taken!

Great thread Mr Grue, one of the best I've seen In a while!

Onto the topic at hand:

"If we ask the audience afterwards how the trick was achieved, they would no doubt be unable to say exactly what the magician did, but they’d have a good idea of exactly when the magician did it, and in the broadest terms, what was done. He used sleight of hand, he used it at this point."

In the above example,I would suggest that this points to weaknesses in the design of the effect. Time-displacement techniques( both forward and reverse) should be incorporated into the design. If 'nothing' happens during the critical interval (Ortiz), as opposed to 'the magician does something' then the impossibility of the effect will be increased.

Also, effects can be designed that completely preclude the possibility of sleight-of-hand. For example the Ortiz routine 'Ultimate/ Bold Fusion' whereby two signed cards fuse into a card with a signed face on both sides.

Moving on to your problem with the 'marked deck hypothesis': I would suggest using a method whereby when the spectator selects a card, it is done in such a way that the performer does not get too see the face or back of the card. This can be incorporated into the script as the spectator makes their selection, thus forestalling any suspicion. As we all know, doubts are easier to quell before they arise.

Mr_Grue wrote:The impossibility is a factor, to be sure, but it's not the only factor and, I suspect, not even the most important factor.

I strongly disagree. Impossibility is everything. If the effect is not 'impossible' and/ or does not violate the laws of nature, how is it 'magic' (naturally, 'impossible' is a sliding-scale, at least emotionally)?

SpareJoker wrote: If the effect is not 'impossible' and/ or does not violate the laws of nature, how is it 'magic' (naturally, 'impossible' is a sliding-scale, at least emotionally)?

Someone (I'm thinking it was Bob Cassidy) suggested something like this as a possible definition of the difference between mentalism and mental magic (I'm not using the term in the condescending way it might be perceived, I've nothing against it, it just isn't mentalism).

Mentalism, he said, is where the performer does something which is entirely possible, by impossible means. It is easy for me to tell you the name of your childhood pet by normal processes - I ask what it's name was, you tell me. As a mentalist, I tell you the name without you having told me.
Mental magic tends to do something impossible (as you say, possibly the aim of magic) through impossible means.

I'm not sure it's a completely satisfactory definition, but it's an interesting point.

SpareJoker wrote:

Mr_Grue wrote:The impossibility is a factor, to be sure, but it's not the only factor and, I suspect, not even the most important factor.

I strongly disagree. Impossibility is everything. If the effect is not 'impossible' and/ or does not violate the laws of nature, how is it 'magic' (naturally, 'impossible' is a sliding-scale, at least emotionally)?

I suspect this is a philosophical difference about the nature of our humble deceit, or at least the differences between mentalism and magic. I shall re-read the too perfect theory and get back to you!

Mr_Grue wrote:

SpareJoker wrote:

Mr_Grue wrote:The impossibility is a factor, to be sure, but it's not the only factor and, I suspect, not even the most important factor.

I strongly disagree. Impossibility is everything. If the effect is not 'impossible' and/ or does not violate the laws of nature, how is it 'magic' (naturally, 'impossible' is a sliding-scale, at least emotionally)?

I suspect this is a philosophical difference about the nature of our humble deceit, or at least the differences between mentalism and magic. I shall re-read the too perfect theory and get back to you!

You're probably right. I'm not really into mentalism, and therefore don't know too much about it. Do you regard mentalism as a sub-set of magic, or do you feel that it's more 'parallel' to magic?

PS. Not to stir the pot, but I think the 'too perfect' theory is bs!

I should qualify that last line: I can see how the 'too perfect' theory would work/ be useful vis-a-vis mentalism, but I don't think it holds true for close-up/ stage magic.

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 feel that ultimately it's a different proposition - I sincerely doubt the majority of people going to see a magician believe, outside of the moment at least, that magic exists. In mentalism the nature of the belief in it is clouded. I would say that more people believe in the possibility of telepathy than the possibility of real magic. I would certainly say that more people believe in bodyreading, face reading, contact mind reading, etc. etc. If we boil the Too Perfect theory down to the idea that we must provide some flaw in an effect in order for it to be acceptable to an audience, (and I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation of it, for what it's worth) then yes, that's a theory that is much more robust in mentalism than magic. A false flaw in a magic effect may weaken it. A false flaw in a mentalist effect may make it stronger.

I think, too, that the reason for this is that there is always a method. I really do need to reread the Too Perfect theory, but as I remember it, that's the key issue behind the theory in the first place.