talkmagic.co.uk

Performing my favorite card trick (I.D.) for a group of friends and strangers, the pitch being a copy of Derren Brown style (to briefly paraphrase) "think of a card, now change your mind, change again, change again, OK, now stick with that... what's your card?"

The spec selects the 7H, and I have a "mental block" and reveal the 7D (a genuine mistake). The specs are all suitably amazed however suggesting it is remarkable I could get even "that" close simply by looking into someone's eyes.

Mass hysteria followed when later I actually got the selected card spot on. Clearly I must have had a closer psychic "connection" with the second spec.

Those with more experience in this area will no doubt have opinions on this type of situation, sometimes failure makes the whole thing seem "more real". After all... you're not just pulling a rabbit out of a hat, you're reading someone's mind.

So, in consideration of the "intentional miss". Do you agree? Can we "over do it"? Is there a "when to" and a "when not to?"

The intentional miss is a great weapon in the arsenal of a mentalist. However, I don't think it should be overdone. As well, I think an out-and-out failure is not necessarily a good thing.

To come really close (as you did) does help to lend an air of believability. However, to only come close on multiple occasions will only serve to instill in the minds of your audience that you're simply guessing. You need a balance of hits and misses in order to level the field.

One recent example of a miss working to benefit the performer - was in the two-man show I saw with Oz Pearlman and Ken Salaz. During a TOD effect, one of the spectator's was left standing, her card not having been named. (Unbeknownst to Oz and Ken, I know WHY the card wasn't named - which was the fault of the spec, not the performer). Genuinely stumped, Oz saved the day by pointing out that naming 6 cards out of 7 was incredibly strong. Following up with "If it was perfect - it would be a magic trick". The audience got a laugh out of that one. This is an entirely different scenario (the spectator made the revelation impossible), but the miss here did help sell the overall effect.

One of the greatest concepts I've seen on the near-hit line of thinking, is Greg Arce's Six Degrees of Separation concept. Off the top of my head, I can't remember where it was first published, but it's a fantastic concept where a near miss is turned into a hit by the audience. I highly recommend seeking it out. I'll go look over my stuff to see if I can find the source.

Greg Arce's Six Degrees of Separation concept. .....[zip]
I'll go look over my stuff to see if I can find the source.

Thats sounds very interesting. Yes please find the source!

Soren Riis wrote:

Greg Arce's Six Degrees of Separation concept. .....[zip]
I'll go look over my stuff to see if I can find the source.

Thats sounds very interesting. Yes please find the source!

It's in Banachek's Psychological Subtleties 2