talkmagic.co.uk

When does a trick become a plot? Number of variations? Out of this World started out as a trick, but I would consider it a plot in that there are many many variations of it now.

Hmmm...

A little confused about what you mean, but I assume that you're asking when an effect becomes such a "classic" of magic, that everyone has their own versions and variations, gaffed versions, self-working versions, hardcore sleight-of-hands versions etc.?

OOTW might actually be the most recent example in magic history. If anyone can think of a more recent effect I'd love to hear it.

Previous "new" plots might include both Dai Vernon's Travellers and Triumph.

I don't think there's an easy answer to that one, or a definite dividing point between "effect" and "classic". It has to be dependant on how many people use it, how many times the effect sees print, and how many different variations are published. I think, like any meme, it just has to hit a critical mass in our collective psyche, where "everyone" has heard of, and used the concept at one time or another.

I'd say that it's all about how it is performed.

Triumph is perhaps a good example but I'm sure that there are many more.

If you take David Forrest's Triumph version from his Trickery DVD then there is a definate plot. He tells a story of two magicians battling it out to see who is best and the cards merely act as a prop for the story. Personally, I think that this is a great plot for such a great routine.

However, when I see magicians performing Triumph it's nearly always

"look, I take this half face up and that half face down and mix them, click my fingers and they're now they're the same way up"

There's no plot whatsoever and it's jut another trick.

Someone once said to me that when you explain every stage of what you're doing they called this magic for the blind, despite the fact that it's usually being performed for sighted people. There's no plot at all and no matter how strong the routine is, you reduce it downwards to being a trick - not magic.

That's why I think that the answer to the question is all about the performance and the patter or storyline that's used. Personally, I'm a sucker for a good plot

Basically, a trick has no story.

And a plot can stand alone, without the trick, if necessary.

Virtually every trick can be made to fit a story.

Hmmm... this could be my misunderstanding, but in this context I thought a plot meant:

A spectator picks a card, returns it to the deck, the magician finds the card.

I.e. the bare bones of an effect.

I wouldn't consider the basic patter of just explaining a trick to be a plot. Plots where the fun part comes in of introducing an entertaining story to a trick. I'm currently more and more attracted to the world of bizarre magic and storytelling. With a good plot even the most simple of tricks can entertain.

I think we must have read different books! Anyhew, the above was not descriptive patter, but a description of an effect - its plot, as it were.

I think what he means is, for example, Oil and Water..
A basic outline of a trick, and every Oil and Water follows this outline:

1. Display a number of black and red cards.
2. Mix them up.
3. Show that they have now become separated.

But Oil and Water effects have loads of different ways of being done. Mr_Grue, I believe, is asking when that original trick of Oil and Water became the Oil and Water plot.
But with anything. And the answer to that, I think, is when someone says "Do you do <insert trick here>? Which version of <insert trick here>?" instead of just "Do you do <insert trick here>?"

That's the bunny! I don't expect there to be a surefire answer to the question (i.e. when there are six popular variations) but the transition interests me. Some tricks, although great, don't seem destined to become plots. Some, such as 51 Faces North, are set as problems, and in essence are plots before they are effects.

It's both. One for the magician to follow, and another one for the audience to follow.

The script for us (if we can agree that "script" is the basic description of what happens for us) - our script is the mechanics/method.

The script for them (being the audience not able to see the mechanical scripting) - is the storyline that you give them. Be it, select and card and return it, we'll shuffle and so on, and i'll then find it in a very boring and dry way...to whatever else you can think of.

Just like in a film, the camera-operator is not necessarily that concerned about the words used, but what context and emotion overall is needed to be portrayed with lighting and shot set up. So his "script" is what to reveal and when/how/what manner. He doesnt have to think about what words are being said as such. Just the physicality of where everything is at any given moment.