talkmagic.co.uk

copyright wrote:
If you are referring this...

If you write on luck and chance, should you not check the meaning of "fortuitous"? If you crusade against the exploitation of the credulous, should you know what "disinterested" means? And these days, even writers with no magic powers have a spell-check.

Then you've missed the point she's making.

She's referring to the fact that Derren Brown mixes light-hearted soft-science flippery with controversial and distorted opinion and belief... Hence Mantel's jibe If you crusade against the exploitation of the credulous, should you know what "disinterested" means? It has nothing to do with punctuation and the occaisional typo.

No, that isn't what she's doing there. What she's doing is no more than I would be doing if I were reviewing a book on, for example, public relations that contained the line, 'These two activities compliment each other,' and - jumping on the old compliment/complement error - I sniffed, 'Shouldn't someone who hopes to influence people know what compliment means?' My comment says nothing whatsoever about the quality of the book's information about public relations, it's just an attempt to dismiss it by picking up the author on his English. So (somewhere, I suppose - I'm not about to search through TOTM to find the places she was referring to; I'll just assume she's right and that they're there), Brown must have made a couple of common mistakes. He'll have used 'fortuitous', as many people do, to mean 'due to good fortune' when, of course, it doesn't mean that; it means only 'due to chance' - stepping out of the door and being immediately struck and killed by a meteorite is 'fortuitous' in its correct sense. Her comment is as catty, and completely vapid, as saying, 'Shouldn't an expert on probability know the difference between 'dice' and die'?' Well, maybe it would be good if he - and everyone - did, but it has no bearing on the quality of his probability theories whatsoever. Equally - I will bet - her 'disinterested' poke wasn't because she was tightly suggesting that he has his own agenda - ‘First, remove the beam from your own eye, Brown!’ - it was (I Will Bet) just that he made another very common English mistake, that of using 'disinterested' when he actually meant 'uninterested'.

As far as I can recall, she’s dismisses Brown’s case as being the result of factual errors or over-simplification (i.e. ‘I, Mantel, never make errors and understand everything as its most profound level.’), but gives no examples of his inaccuracies or childish reductionism. All she says is that he doesn’t consider the preponderance of the belief in psychics in working class conurbations and thus doesn’t place it in a social/cultural context. True. He doesn’t tell the reader how to juggle oranges either. It’s the omission of a tangential area, not of a key factor.

copyright wrote:The fact that no-one on this forum has commented on this only goes to show the credulity of Derren Brown's audience.

I beg to differ.

No, that isn't what she's doing there.

I didn't want to get involved but I will. Sexton, that is what she's doing here. Mantel is making a joke about Derren Brown's interest rather than his written English.

Derren's book has a mixed message. At some points he is making some interesting observations about human nature, etc. But at others he makes some serious claims. Which is why Hilary Mantel says...

Are these points worth making? Yes, because this book of weak jokes is serious in aim; he wants to straighten out the way we think.

The point is, does Derren Brown want us to read his book and take it for a humourous look at science and belief. Or does he have a more serious aim?

People like Hilary Mantel and Copyright, have taken Derren's second aim serious and addressed the problems in the book with regards to this.

Others, have taken the book to be more easy-going christmas read.

The problem for Derren is that he obviously wants the book to be both. This being so, the book is either badly written or, worse, disingenuous.

copyright wrote:The fact that no-one on this forum has commented on this only goes to show the credulity of Derren Brown's audience.

The fact that most people have not addressed Brown's more serious aims, and that critics like Hilary Mantel are seen as taking the book too seriously, etc. Only proves that most readers will not think to question the motives of the author very closely.

S. Lea wrote:

No, that isn't what she's doing there.

Sexton, that is what she's doing here. Mantel is making a joke about Derren Brown's interest rather than his written English.

I don't think that's what she was doing there, with those specific comments. As for your thrust, though - fair enough. I'll gladly admit to Personal Bias, but I don't see any problem with addressing serious issues in a deliberately joke-laden style. Quite the opposite: I believe that the humour allows the serious message to land on a reader who is then engaged and receptive. The points made by The Two Johns (if you're in the UK and have ever seen Bremner) land far more effectively, I'd suggest, than a dry, academic analysis three times as long, yet the points are still serious and meant to be so. (And they don't confire the humour content to satire, they have silliness and comic farce in there often, for its own sake.)

But we have different opinions on this, and that's fine. I'm more than happy to leave it that way. In fact, almost anything is preferable to dragging this out any longer. Punch me, for God's sake, if I say another word on the matter.

I don't see any problem with addressing serious issues in a deliberately joke-laden style

Derren Brown isn't addressing issues. He is passing off the opinions of others as fact, slipped in a joke-laden text.

The point is that The Two Johns are satirists. The audience know that the there is a message behind (some) of the jokes. It is less clear that Derren Brown's book has a message. Particular opinions are passed off as background fact. Whether Brown does it on purpose or by accident, he is guilty of bad writing.

But we have different opinions on this, and that's fine. I'm more than happy to leave it that way.

I have no disagreement with you on addressing serious issue in deliberately joke-laden style. As long as what we're agreed on what the disagreement is, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I think TOTM is badly written because the serious message is hidden, unaddressed and unsupported behind a facade of jokes and light-hearted trivia. The author wants to change the way his readers think but is hypocritically disingenuous in his method.

I take it that you think that TOTM is not badly written because there is not a hidden and/or unsupported message.

Let's agree to disagree

I'm expecting this book for christmas.......I only hope I can be as passionate about what Derren writes as some of the other people that have posted here have been.

Whilst I see the benefit of trying to read between the lines (thus hopefully Derren providing the 'informed' magician with some insight that he/she couldn't possibly live without, but which the 'lay' reader couldn't feasibly decipher) isn't this thread going to the extremes in picking out every little mistake that he, and subsiquently anyone else 'as tiped' ?

Whilst I see the benefit of trying to read between the lines (thus hopefully Derren providing the 'informed' magician with some insight that he/she couldn't possibly live without, but which the 'lay' reader couldn't feasibly decipher) isn't this thread going to the extremes in picking out every little mistake that he, and subsiquently anyone else 'as tiped' Wink?

No-one is picking out little mistakes he made. We're not talking about spelling mistakes but him reporting other people's opinion as fact and doing the very thing your book accuses other of.

If you want to read his stuff on magic, get Pure Effect and Absolute Magic.

Copy is right, his two previous books - it goes without saying to those who, unlike me, are admirably able to not say things that go without saying - speak with more focus to the magic (sorry) 'community'. I think you'll roundly love TOTM nonetheless, however. Either way, for the love of God, don't rant about it here. Copy and I will take it as an attempt to steal our souls.

As an aside, I also think that you, like me, will be pleased that he doesn't go the annoying and cynical path of revealing magicians' secret to what he knows will be a lay readership. There are no TT or N*** W***** descriptions in TOTM. The couple of things his does disclose, like the coin vanish, are shruggingly minor and will also speak to you as a magician while impressing on the lay reader that the flat mechanics - the physical method alone - is merely the mundane starting point for a stream of effort and thought directed at producing something that appears truly magical.

As a secondary aside, I was also pleased that, while not troubling 'very interesting' to any great degree, Blaine's book ('His secrets will become yours!' Arf) also revealed nothing except the world's oldest card trick. 'Best Magician's Book for a Lay Audience'? Anyone have suggestions? Didn't Kreskin's imply that he really did have eerie powers even he didn't quite understand? It's no easy thing to do, that mass market book.

copyright wrote:I think TOTM is badly written because the serious message is hidden

Damn, I read that book twice and must have missed the serious message both times.

Secrets of the Amazing Kreskin is a genuinely lovely book too, now that does contain effects, glueing hands together (without glue too! who would of thought it eh) feats of strength, pendulum work all kindsa things...

with Derren's book, i think it's just his views on things, he's not saying they are gospel ironically, his thoughts, his views, nothing more, nothing less..agree or disagree, if you like the man and want to see how his world works then read the damned book...

Sexton Blake wrote:As a secondary aside, I was also pleased that, while not troubling 'very interesting' to any great degree, Blaine's book ('His secrets will become yours!' Arf) also revealed nothing except the world's oldest card trick.

Not quite true. He also blew magic squares, although this kind of exposure was put into perspective when Derren Brown went on to use a magic square as part of the closer on his first tour.

Justv a quick note here to second Sexton on the point that this is a lovely fluffy forum where people can have a genuine debate about issues that are important to them without flying off the handle. If this thread was on, say, the bunny, we'd all be knee deep in mod warnings by now.

We can issue warnings if you would like!

It is a reflection on the calibre of the minds of the contibuters here that these kinds of disagreement can be settled intelligently and without recourse to insults.

copyright wrote:
Derren Brown, his publisher, and booksellers all know that his book will be lapped up by undemanding christmas shoppers. The motivation to write a worthwhile book will be lacking. Magic books, especially in the field of mentalism, are the same. The authors understand that their readers are largely made up of people who have never performed on stage, hence the page after page on performance advice redundant to anyone who's given their act more that 10mins original thought or have even thought of having an act. Another thing Derren Brown's christmas offering and mentalism books have in common is the assumption that their readers have never read anything more demanding than a few pages of popular psychology. In fact, Derren Brown shows in Tricks of the Mind that he doesn't even think his readers have done this much.

Derren Brown is obviously an intellegent and original thinker. He must be aware that his writing is poor and is content banal. Tricks of the Mind is obviously then a christmas cash-in. The book talks about fakes and fakery but at the same time, Brown must be aware of the pretentiousness of his writing and content.

What would have been more interesting for me, although not such as christmas hit as Tricks of the Mind will probably turn out to be, would have been a straight biographical account of his career in magic and mentalism.

Firstly, hello - I'm new to the forums. Amusingly, this kind of confirms some of what's been said - i've never been interested in magic per se until i watched some of what derren has done. He has done a lot to make the industry more interesting

From my point of view, his book is not the best written - but i like that. I don't want to read something that's been edited so heavily it's clearly not written by the author.

Another example is Peter Kay's book. Not amazingly well written, but because of this you can imagine them actually putting pen to paper. You hear the words. I felt like that with Derren with some of the phrases and explanations. I liked that.

Ok, on to the book. I know nothing about magic, and to be honest am not really interested in it, but i respect the fact it's a hard field to master. My opinion, although maybe controversial, is that it is just a specialist field like any other - it requires a reasonable level of intelligence to do, but ultimately anyone can do it and simply practice makes perfect. The deciding factor on whether the person will be any good or not is in the delivery - their personality, not so much so well they can perform sleight of hand tricks.

For me, i find Derren interesting because of two things:

1. he dresses the magic up. I realise a lot of it is simply magic, but by making it seem although he's picking up on subliminal twitches and reactions, speech patterns etc (whether he is, or isn't), it (for me) seems to be delivered to a more intelligent audience - those interested in psychology and rational thinking

2. he obviously has researched, and understands the fields of psychology, science, 'mentalism' and so on. He makes clear reference in the book to famous experiments, and comes across as though he knows a lot more than just surface scratching

For those two things, i greatly commend him. Unlike many on here, I won't be able to understand exactly how he performs some tricks, and i probably place more things down to 'mind-tricks' than pure magic because i don't know the magic, but i'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, and certainly sceptical enough to know he does not read minds, make things float, or anything else

With tricks such as counting buttons on a tray - i'd put that down to memory. It may be some kind of magic, but as i don't know the field, it looks like just a very well trained memory trick to me.

With walking on glass, for example - i'd say the pulse slowing was a trick, and putting up with the pain from the glass is down to physics (getting as much surface area of glass under his feet as possible, thanks mr pascal).

The same for 'speed-reading' in the library - no doubt he had memorised a fair few pages, but used magic tricks (which i do not know, or cannot explain) to influence the pages that would be read out

Finally, with his recently televised show, i'd imagine the whole "daily mail page 14" etc thing was partly due to suggestion throughout the show, and also a few tricks in there as well.

The point is - I'm curious, I'm entertained. I've got a couple of his DVDs (series 1, and 'inside your mind'), and i've just bought the second series (thanks to someone pointing out it's £5.99 @ HMV delivered - thanks!).

He may not be the greatest magician, and some may not like his persona or writing style - i do, and I'm ignorant on the magic front, but by god am i entertained, and i respect him as an individual

If derren is not completely 'honest about his dishonesty' as he claims, i haven't spotted an instance yet where i have actually thought he's claimed to be more than just a magician with a solid grounding and understanding of psychology and some techniques, and a great performer.

Great forums btw, better than the discussion about derren over at digital spy. A few too many nutters over there

I received this book for Christmas from my parents, and I finished reading it on the 28th. All in all, I enjoyed it. I consider myself a competent magician, and have recently been more interested in mentalism, mostly thanks to Derren's shows.

I read this book, not expecting a how-to guide (considering it was obviously advertised as a mass market text: I recall it being on the first table in my local Waterstones), but rather more interested in the background thinking of a mentalist's performance. And for that, I enjoyed it.

The writing style I found was odd: it was highly conversational, which I found both engaging and distancing at the same time. It was not as structurally tight as many books I have read, especially magic books designed to teach. Still, for Tricks of the Mind, I think that the conversational style of this part musing, part autobiography allowed a great insight into the thoughts and beliefs of this one man.

I think that there must be a thought in the back of the reader's mind whilst this book is being read: Derren is advocating the challenging of all beliefs and statements, but still he presents a lot of statements in such a manner as to suggest that they are wholly correct. Again, we must consider the conversational style here, and remember that (I believe) Derren expects us to challenge the beliefs he puts forward.

As for the content, I found the explanations of the magic tricks perfect, especially the coin vanish. The conversational style was difficult for a complex trick to be taught, but it worked wonderfully with the thought processes that should go into all effects.

The sections on mnemonics I found interesting, and the hypnotism section keeps making me think about whether I wish to research this area further. It is possible that I will. The unconscious communication section contained a lot of material I had previously been aware of, but I enjoyed rereading much of it, especially in his conversational style.

I also really enjoyed the correspondence section at the end: especially the letter from the Master Practitioner of NLP.

I also think that the further reading at the end is a great section, and highlights the fact that you cannot read one book on a subject to understand it fully.

mcchristie wrote:The point is - I'm curious, I'm entertained. I've got a couple of his DVDs (series 1, and 'inside your mind'), and i've just bought the second series (thanks to someone pointing out it's £5.99 @ HMV delivered - thanks!).

Inside You Mind DVDs are rare. I can't find anywhere (including HMV) that sells them. The last one I saw went for 48 quid on ebay.

I want one!