talkmagic.co.uk

What are some magician's disagreements or stylistic differences that are common in the magic world? (I've introduced myself before, but as I do not regularly post, I figure I should redo it: I'm writing a novel with three principal characters as magicians, and I'm doing research.)

From books that I have read, I have discerned the following ones:

1. Whether it is okay to reveal the trick to one segment of the audience in order to deceive the rest of it.

2. Speaking v. silent acts.

3. Claiming to be an actual wonderworker v. claiming it's a trick (I realize no respected magician would do the former, but let's not act like that's not a huge subset of magic: Uri Gellar was famous for a reason)

And then, I assume I could think of some more, but I was hoping to get some actual magicians' perspective. Thank you very, very much to anyone who replies! You guys are great!

Paul Harris brought up a very important division in his writings and REEL Magic. The split is between Mastery and Astonishment. Thinking about it is a good way to crunch brain cells.
Mastery is when the routine is a show of skill. XCM is the pure form of mastery. XCM kiddies who do card tricks often turn it into a puzzle- thus failing miserably in my opinion. Mastery in magic is when the performer himself becomes the method. The spectators can still be impressed, but no 'real' magic takes place in their minds.
Paul Harris covered astonishment very well in his books and videos.

This division goes hand in hand with Eric Mead's essay (in Tangled Web) about the desired effect.

Here's my thruppence worth

1. Exposure is generally considered as bad form, even in the context that you have used in your example. Generally, what would perhaps occur is that when an explanation is given, it would be a false explanation but one that was convincing enough to those that think that they are now in on the secret. An example of this is perhaps Derren Brown as in a number of his TV shows he has given explanation on how he achived something which have then been debated long and hard by magicians, some on this forum. Was the explanation, despite it sounding plausible, no more than a red herring?Then there is always an exeption to a rule and Penn & Teller revel in exposing how certain effects are done.

2. Speaking vs Silent acts is a choce of performance. Some effects perhaps suit silence wheras others don't.

3. Many respected magicians have done the former apart from Geller. It's perhaps what the magician him/herself wants to achieve. Others may not make claims of trickery but done claim special powers either. They leave it up to the audience to decide instead and perhaps add a little mystique to keep them guessing.

I've probably now stirred up a hornets nest

On the "exposing to a segment of the audience" thing, I was actually referring to something I read--either in Hiding the Elephant or Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero or possibly in The Illustrated History--that some magician--I can't remember his name--was okay performing mirror effects that a very small portion of the audience could see right through, because it allowed him to produce a more astonishing illusion for the rest of the crowd.

This, I think, has mostly faded away. But there are still magicians who perform tricks that are risky, and if they fail in their execution, will be exposed. I was not particularly discussing Masked Magician type material or the Penn & Teller bait-and-switch.

On the "claiming to have special powers," I think any magician that legitimately attempts to persuade an audience he has special, supernatural abilities is a con-artist. It's okay not denying it, but getting up there and saying "This is real. I have psychic powers," to me that just suggests you are trying to deceive people in a way in which they do not want to be deceived.

On the first point, I do see what you mean and I suppose that it's up to the magician that has created the effect on how he wishes to present it. If he wishes to 'expose' in the way that you have suggested then I don't see that as being too much of a problem.

As for exposure through poor performance then I do agree.

On the "claiming to have special powers," I think any magician that legitimately attempts to persuade an audience he has special, supernatural abilities is a con-artist. It's okay not denying it, but getting up there and saying "This is real. I have psychic powers," to me that just suggests you are trying to deceive people in a way in which they do not want to be deceived.

I also agree in full

Speaking V Silent? Can you tell me where the disagreement is? I am very interested to hear if there is an intelligent debate about this issue. As of yet I have not heard of one.

1. It depends a great deal on what it is you are revealing. Slydini's paper balls is a trick that only works on the person it's being performed on, yet he always did it in front of an audience, because he created a trick that was enjoyable to watch and enjoyable to have done on you, but for different reasons.

2. It depends a great deal on the trick you're doing. If you are, say, making the statue of liberty disappear, then I'd say patter is perhaps irrelevant. However, if you're doing close up to one or two people in an intimate setting, you may want to say something to them.

3. It depends a great deal on what you tell people. We're all aware of the evils of fradulent psychics, but in a way Derren Brown claims to have real powers, in that he presents one trick as another. Sometimes it's important to make claims that, whilst being false, propogate the magic, so to speak. This happens a lot with mentalism. If after the show you went "actually, they always pick 7" then the magic would be ruined.