talkmagic.co.uk

This is in part inspired by the Devil's Picture Book and in part from an amusing thread on the Paul Brook site where a reviewer lays into Brook for Deuterium, a joyfully impressive hands-free card location. In my reading I have gone through a period of finding disappointment in learning methods. I'm not sure what my expectations were prior to learning them, but I know there was an ill-founded belief that the more baffling the effect, the more baffling the method. As I read on I realised it ain't necessarily so.

But overlapping this was the occasional effect that would have the cheapest of cheap methods that would make my jaw drop, or laugh out loud, at the sheer boldness of it. These would typically be effects that were incredible, dumb-founding reality benders that ultimately hinge on something so obvious and simple, too simple to even guess at.

This is me typically stating the obvious, but I find the deeper I go, the more I judge effects for the effects themselves (just like we're s'posed ta); I still judge the method, but in terms of practicality and suitability rather than the tricksiness, for want of a better word. There's a slow transition from dismissing effects wholesale for employing cheap methods to cherishing them for their audacity.

I guess I'm bothering to post this as an antidote to that "loss of wonder" that many people experience as they follow the path of becoming a magician. It's true a wonder is lost, but I think it's replaced by something much more interesting and potentially wonderful.

For me, it becomes the wonder on other people's faces, and no longer mine. Which is far more enjoyable.

I enjoy the wonder in the spectators faces during the performance, but my goal is to go a bit beyond that and make sure the effects remain a mystery for as long at they live. Sometimes, people can be amazed at the moment, but either deconstruct or guess (close enough to) the method later on. I'm still far away from reaching my goal though...

But it's a great goal to reach for. Michael Close says it's pretty much the point of the job, to leave people without any hope of reconstructing a method. Paul Brook makes the point that even if the spectators come up with an incorrect method, then the magician has failed. It's a high bar, but when it's reached...

Oh, and something I meant to mention in the initial post is Michael Close's Card, Salt Cellar and Forehead, which to date has been the most enjoyable routine to read that I've encountered.

Mr_Grue wrote:But it's a great goal to reach for. Michael Close says it's pretty much the point of the job, to leave people without any hope of reconstructing a method.

I know what you mean here. Two nights ago on the Glasgow Meet, our own SpudGun (quite the cardman I must say) didn't know how I'd achieved a couple of effects and I couldn't have been happier: it's great when laypersons are amazed but when fellow Magicians are, it is really awesome.