talkmagic.co.uk

Magic falls into 8 categories:

Production
Vanish
Transformation
Restoration
Teleportation
Levitation
Penetration
ESP

By creating the illusion of one of those things, you create a gap in the spectator's knowledge of events, in which their own imaginations come to bear and create the perception of magic. Misdirection is one way of achieving that gap.

EDIT: In fact, if you think about it, we want the spec to perceive one thing while we do another, so isn't it all misdirection?

cymru1991 wrote:And if your particular layman knows about misdirection, then surely he would not get misdirected by you would he?

Luckily for us, this is just not true. On one hand many people (even magicians) think of misdirection just as "he made me look here while he did something there. On the other, the whole purpose of good (mis)direction is that it isn't really misdirection, it's just direction. Even if someone knows what misdirection is, he will be misdirected by you every time (granted you're good).

Wow that came out badly. Just read anything by Tommy Wonder and you will understand.

Mandrake wrote:Instead of misdirection, why not just see it as 'direction'. You get the specs to look towards one logical area while you do the biz in another. Tap the table somewhere for emphasis, look at the 'wrong' area, ask a spec a question or compliment an item of their attire so all eyes concenrate on him/her. Body language and many other subtleties come into play and help.

Tommy Wonder wrote a lot about this, and I agree wholeheartedly. Calling it misdirection is misleading and missing the point.

kitaristi0 wrote:On the other, the whole purpose of good (mis)direction is that it isn't really misdirection, it's just direction. Even if someone knows what misdirection is, he will be misdirected by you every time (granted you're good).

This is so very true, I'm a magician and I know what misdirection is but a good magician can still misdirect me easy enough if they know what they're doing.

I agree 100% with that, well said.

Perhaps I'm not making my point well enough. Misdirection is an incredibly valuable tool. It can be used to create miracles. BUT, surely (though I perhaps seem to be on my own here) the method should not be the effect.
Perhaps a better example would be pickpocketing. Watching a pickpocket can be extremely entertaining to watch, but it is not magic. However, if the magician uses pickpocketing to access information they couldn't possibly know (credit card numbers etc), then the effect can be miraculous. Both use the same method, one is magic, the other is not. In one the spectator is aware of what has happened, in the other, they are not.
Another would be the watch steal. Think of the example which Derren Brown gives in Absolute Magic, where the effect is that a watch from home which they are imagining, appears in his hands (something along those lines, its been a while since I read it). The effect isn't "hey look what I managed to take off you without you realising it". Same method, one hidden, one obvious. Two different efects, one magic, the other not so, unless you own a pair of readily available rose tinted glasses.

Misdirection, as is being pointed out here, is totally subjective. And it is defined only as misdirection if the even which has occurred featured a misdirection, otherwise, if you've not been misdirected—it wouldn't be a misdirection at all.

For instance, take two men—one who is blind, the other who is deaf. Ask them both to recite the Lord's Prayer slowly.

10 seconds in, you flash a blinding light. The man who can see will stop his recital for a moment, the blind man won't falter. Another few seconds after, a deafening explosion is played: the deaf man won't falter, whereas the blind man will. It takes different things to distract the men's attention. Whilst one is distracted by bright light, the other—who can't see the light—carries on. And vice versa.

But the bottom line is, it is ALWAYS possible to think of a way to distract someone's attention.

And although distraction may seem a different ball game altogether from misdirection, it forms a part of misdirection in my opinion. And in the example above, the distractions affected both chaps at different times, as they were subjectively reacting only to their own respective situation.

Misdirection in magic could possibly be thought of as a universal distraction. In a situation where you're performing one-on-one, the distraction is a lot easier. Performing to a crowd requires a different mindset sometimes, as the distraction needs to be picked up by more than one spectator.

Now, look at the word: distraction. That means a whole lot more to me that misdirection ever could. And it also describes a lot better the result I try to achieve.

My aim is to DISTRACT the spectator for a moment, in order that I can draw their attention away from what is going on. The distraction can be verbal, visual, or both. But that moment of distraction leads to the misdirection.

So, back to the question in hand... is misdirection magic.

Well, all magic is an illusion: the supsension of disbelief. Making someone believe something is possible, when really they know it cannot be.

Therefore, if misdirection (distraction) can be used to facilitate an impossibility, then yes, in it's own right it is magical.

For instance, you take a pocketwatch steal as your example. To see this being done by a pickpocket using misdirection to obtain the steal is hardly magical. Clever, but not exactly something a magician would do.

I understand your point I think, but I think it is now important to see why I brought the word distraction to the discussion... hierarchically, I would see the words fitting like so:

1. Attention
2. Distraction
3. Diverting attention
4. Misdirection
5. Magic

Simply distracting someone isn't magical. But using distraction as a misdirection can be magical indeed.

I think your point is valid Andy. What I think you are saying (forgive me if I’m wrong) is that the whole premise of an effect like card under box, is simply to demonstrate your clever at misdirection and not to demonstrate something magical. It is one of those effects that has no “cause” associated with it and as such remains puzzling to the spectator.

Unfortunately, it’s evident that most effects that magicians do lack this “cause” and as such lack, IMHO magic. They do remain clever little puzzles and some of them have great potency but their not magical.

If we can provide an element a “cause” and create a performance around this, sell the effect as something more than a puzzle then sure, it will become magical for the spectator, even card under the box with the right script. In the right hands pretty much any effect can be magical. In the wrong hands the most magical effect can become nothing more than a puzzle at best.

If the spectator has no idea how it was done, then to them it's magical.

Misdirection is a major principle in magic, but not the only one. It's one of many techniques which can be used to create the illusion of something magical happening. If whatever technique you use works for you and creates that illusion, then you are doing your job as a magician.

When someone is a 'finger flinger' and throws cards around like a pro, that for me, detracts from it being magic as the spec will assume you are being 'clever' rather than magical.
Again, it depends on the type of person you are. Some people just want to be seen as clever and better than the specs. (Very CRASS in my opinion ) and others want to the spectator to experience a feeling of wonder. A rare feeling in this day and age.
If the misdirection makes someone feel they have seen a wonderful, beautiful thing happen which they can't explain and will never forget, then it's just as valid as a hundred fancy flourishes.

I think with something like "card under box", the spectator first wonders how it's their card under the box that was just previously "lost" in the deck. When I'm out performing at bars, I sometimes have to create something on the fly. After my routines people want to see more. Most "improvised" tricks I do only involve forcing a card, palming and misdirecting. I think the key though is to build up the suspense, or to create none at all. Sometimes I only let them know that their card will vanish from the deck. Then I give it 5 minutes, 2 hours or even let them go home only to find their card in their pocket or something like that. It's more magical because they thought the trick was already over. I do a card to bottle in which I control the card to the top, palm it, misdirect and then roll it up and slip it in the neck of the bottle. They can still drink their beverage and have no idea there's a card in it. Then I reveal it. This has worked many times, even with clear bottles.

This seems to be quite an interesting thread!

I am new to performing magic and every day I learn new things.

I agree with Lady of Mystery about how magicians see and look at tricks froma magicians perspective.

I have recently been through a phase of doubting the outcome of the effect because I know how it is done. Take for example Third Degree Burns. For those who have this effect you will know that it is a simple effect to execute and perform, the emphasis is on the presentation. I wasn't really that keen on performing the effect at first because it seemed too simple to me. My opinion completely changed when I saw how people reacted when I did perform it. So simplicity is often the best result.

I am going off the subject here a bit, but essentially the definition of magic is very broad. I think I read somewhere - possibly Darwin Ortiz or Derren Brown that the magic happens in the mind of the speactator.

Whether the effect uses knuckle bustiung sleights or direction / misdirection etc. if the spec witnesses something which they perceive to be magical that that is exactly what it is!

Regards,

Stuart

If the spectator has no idea how it was done, then to them it's magical.

I have to respectfully disagree. Another daft example, but one that makes my point, is that I have no idea how a ventriloquist says the letter 'B' without moving there lips. Does that make it magic? Or merely a puzzle.

I think your point is valid Andy. What I think you are saying (forgive me if I’m wrong) is that the whole premise of an effect like card under box, is simply to demonstrate your clever at misdirection and not to demonstrate something magical. It is one of those effects that has no “cause” associated with it and as such remains puzzling to the spectator.

Aha...the cavelry has arrived! My point exactly.

Card under box can appear 'magical' in the broad sense that it's a performance of something that is 'impossible'. However, if the spectator stops and thinks about it, they will realise that someone simply put the chosen card under the box without being seen. As Andy said earlier, the method is likely to be the first thing the audience thinks of.

I would say that it is still magic, because it is an 'impossible' effect and the exact way in which the effect is achieved is still unknown. "I was watching him the whole time and he never went near the box!"

I would query if it's very strong magic, precisely because the most obvious answer is correct. The effect can still be surprising, challenging and, most importantly of all, entertaining.

When these effects are performed well, the impossibility stops being that the card 'just' appeared under the box (not that that's ever really believed) and becomes more the impossibility of getting the card under there without being seen. It's still magical, but more of a puzzle, or a challenge.

If such a trick were presented purely as a demonstration of misdirection, I think it largely leaves just the puzzle/showing off element. It can still be entertaining, though.

My view is that the strongest effects are usually ones where the audience has nowhere to go, and can't even begin to explain what they've seen. I think there are plenty of tricks that don't meet that standard, but are still effective, exciting and entertaining.

AndyRegs wrote:

If the spectator has no idea how it was done, then to them it's magical.

I have to respectfully disagree. Another daft example, but one that makes my point, is that I have no idea how a ventriloquist says the letter 'B' without moving there lips. Does that make it magic? Or merely a puzzle.

I think your point is valid Andy. What I think you are saying (forgive me if I’m wrong) is that the whole premise of an effect like card under box, is simply to demonstrate your clever at misdirection and not to demonstrate something magical. It is one of those effects that has no “cause” associated with it and as such remains puzzling to the spectator.

Aha...the cavelry has arrived! My point exactly.

What I meant was that if the effect HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANTION and your misidirection or whatever was used was indetectable then the only avenue for a lot of people to go to is something supernatural.
This is from performing experience. If you think it's a simple case of pointing in another direction and hoping they'll look, you have an awful lot to learn.
Misdirection can be applied with words and psychology and distancing of time between something happening. You can make a spectator believe you never touched the deck even when you may have at the start of the effect by misdirecting the mind with words (as well as actions).

I have performed effects for quite rational looking adults who have declared that what they have seen must be due to 'some kind of power' and even go on to ask if I do tarot readings and suchlike. (This has occured with effects that aren't anywhere near the bounds of mentalism sometimes)
After showing someone an ACR once, I was asked whether I performed exorcisms as their wife was 'possessed'.

Making people believe what they have seen is something inexplainable rather than a puzzle is all down to presentation and what was called in the olden days 'patter'. With words you can convince anyone of anything.
Words are powerful things.

In this age of youtube ellusionists who says flatly 'here's you card, put it back in the pack, look i've found it, aren't I clever' the power of suggestion, storytellling, mystique and performance is dying. Fumbling kids who arrogantly present puzzles.

have to agree with lord freddie. Any trick can be made to look like a puzzle and any trick can be made to look like real magic. It's in the performance, but it is also in the specs persona.

The thing about comunicating with the spec is that the spec will always have his own unique way of interprating what you did or said. I can do the same trick in exactly the same way and get wildly varied reactions from differing people. You have comunicated something different in each case, even though you have done the same thing.

To get the reaction you want all the time is impossible
To get the reaction you want as much as you can is all about trick selection, performance and patter.

I do however agree with andy that some tricks do seem to enphasize the method, which is just a weak trick with/or poor performance. There is always a danger that 'Ha Ha I fooled you' is a message that some specs may get (and with this type of trick I would say the chances of comunicating this are high so the performance must be very good to compensate). But remember it is us the magician that has communicated this to the spec.

With trick selection, there are many tricks out there that just do not suit my performing persona so I have had to drop them. Nothing wrong with the trick I just can work others to my advantage better.