talkmagic.co.uk

I am frequently amazed at the lack of common sense used by some magic creators. When the performer has to do something -- which is essential for the trick -- but lacking in any clear reason for doing it, I usually pass.

Book tests are probably the biggest culprits. I purchased one that starts off really strong. The spectator selects any book, any page and any word (no forces), but then the spectator has to guide the performer's finger to point at the word. It just appears too contrived for me to even try it!

gunnarkr wrote:3. In a very detailed explanation, (I have at least 3 times come across): You do the zippedydah move (different moves on the different DVDs). It can be found on this other DVD or in this other book, which means if I want to learn the trick in question, it was not enough to buy a triple DVD for £75, I also have to buy a DVD with that exact move for £25.

I'm thinking of a couple of twins...

Lies, lies, lies.... "Easy to perform" when it's not, "No sleights needed" except the ones we forgot to mention which you only get taught by our other DVD set, "No gaffs or gimmics" other than the ones you only read about AFTER you buy this effect, "New and Original" when it was created by Annemann/Corinda/whoever 50yrs ago, "Magician fooler" if they're all blind and stupid, "Tried and tested" by gullible old you when you buy it etc. etc.

I have wasted a lot of money on dodgy sales pitch for effects I'll never use because they bear no resemblance to the description. In any other area of sales, the vendors would be shot at dawn by the Advertising Standards people for misrepresentation. I think the "you pay for the secret" argument is just an excuse sometimes. Not always, but sometimes.

This doesn't just put me off the trick, it puts me off the seller and the creator.

Rant over. I feel better now. Thank you

Anything that everybody else is flogging to death.

particually if you see a dozen people all use exactly the same routine.
you have to assume that they are not all just lazy magicians, and that the trick has to be pattered in a particular way.

I'm not sure of my exact criteria for selecting what does and does not make the repertoire, a lot of it is gut feeling, but big no-nos include:

1. Centre tears and billet switches. I find it hard to justify this stuff when impression devices, to me, look and feel fairer and cleaner. There's a big difference in my finicky mind between the performer getting his hands all over the prediction and somebody writing a word down, tearing it out and putting it in their pocket where the magician can't touch it. Before I got into this, as far as I was concerned if the magician even got a couple of fingers on the paper there was no guaranteeing the contents of the paper were still unknown to the performer. There are some excellent peeks out there, like the one Andy Nyman demonstrated on Get Nyman, but on the whole, billet work is something I really don't like to perform or watch so that puts me right off.
2. Obvious packet tricks. Again, my sense of what's "obvious" can't be quantified but if a card disappears thanks to a lump of molded red plastic that's the exact dimensions of a playing card, alarm bells start ringing.
3. The words "magician fooler" or "sells on sight in the shop".

Basically anything I would have found suss when I was outside magic, I find impossible to even consider now that I'm in.

anything that isnt at least 60 years old, and therefore appeals to my mentalism snobbery...

not really...

anything that everyone else is doing...anything that starts off with "52 perfectly normal playing cards - each one different.." i want to be sick when i hear that...

anything that starts with "let's try something...", or has a BOOM! in it...

any magician fooler - cos i simply dont care about fooling 'em...

gimmicks you have to build your own, on a one trick dvd...cos if you're charging me 20 quid for the one effect, have the decency to supply me with the gimmick so i have the object in hand to practice with...

anything new that is released, that is the exact same trick as an old one - but they've just swopped crayons for markers or something...

IAIN wrote:anything that starts off with "52 perfectly normal playing cards - each one different.." i want to be sick when i hear that...

Chan Canasta must turn your stomach then.

queen of clubs wrote:

IAIN wrote:anything that starts off with "52 perfectly normal playing cards - each one different.." i want to be sick when i hear that...

Chan Canasta must turn your stomach then.

have you seen the dvd?

chan is excused - as well you know...

Arbitrary maths.

Definitely arbitrary maths. In fact, any maths, any number force, or any counting. I do do one trick that relies on a supplied number to make a random selection, but I think it's so fair and is so far removed from the real magic of the trick I think it's worth it (those who have seen "the postcard trick" will agree I hope). But otherwise, any sort of "think of a number, then divide it by two..." or "count the cards into three packets..."

Why three packets?! Why not four? Is it, by any tiny chance, because you're just talking me through dealing my cards out in a way which will land my card exactly where you want it?

I don't mind people saying "use your favourite method" (often for a force) because a) it stops people being lazy and copying the effect without actually engaging their thinkycogs and deciding what suits them best, b) chances are there are at least a couple of forces taught in the same book or on the same DVD if they scour around a bit and c) if all else fails, invest in a "101 ways to..." style product, there are plenty out there and they're usually pretty cheap.

It used to annoy me when people build a side steal or D.P.S. etc. into a routine, but no more. If you like the routine enough it'll inspire you to put the effort in to learn a move, or at the least it will force you to be creative, versatile and flexible enough to get round it and think of a way of doing without. In doing so, it's actually improving you as a magician irrespective of the routine in question.

IAIN wrote:

queen of clubs wrote:

IAIN wrote:anything that starts off with "52 perfectly normal playing cards - each one different.." i want to be sick when i hear that...

Chan Canasta must turn your stomach then.

have you seen the dvd?

chan is excused - as well you know...

"And of course they are all different, but even if they were not it would make no difference."

Chan is always excused. Everyone who deals with mentalism/mental magic should be obliged to watch a few of his performances, especially that glorious Parky appearance.

"Of course, you tell people you will influence them and the natural reaction is to fight it... let's see you fight now. Pick one."

One extra point about "magician foolers" - I totally agree, magic is for the public not other magicians and though I may appreciate a particularly elegant approach to a routine, I'd far rather something use a gimmick and wow people than use 14 out faros, a clip shift and a full riffle stacking process and result in - wow - a good hand of poker being dealt

Having said that... I think when things say "magician fooler" it's sometimes because they are being too nice to say "wise-a55 fooler". We've all met them... not just the keen 21 card trickers, but people who progressed a tiny bit in magic... enough to know what to look for but not enough to learn the etiquette, and so use their tiny bit of knowledge to be a total ar5e. It's these people that the unexpected inclusion of a gimmick in the method, or just a fairly revolutionary method or new sleight, can totally throw off the scent in a very satisfying way

Ah yeah, those guys suck. I think that dealing with them is how you cut your teeth in your first few months of performing, the ones who reckon they've seen it all and know how it's all done, and it's integral to have something to shut them up. When I first started, I used a variation on Tommy Wonder's ambitious card routine as it's described in the books, but now I just pickpocket the living hell out of them and reveal it at an opportune moment (I particularly like Lennart Green's "say stop" dribble reveal - anyone who's seen his TED talk will know how this can be used to silence wise-asses).

TerryC wrote:... Book tests are probably the biggest culprits. I purchased one that starts off really strong. The spectator selects any book, any page and any word (no forces), but then the spectator has to guide the performer's finger to point at the word. It just appears too contrived for me to even try it!

I bought a great booktest from the Argentinian Juan Ordeix, (who got 2nd Prize in Mentalism FISM 2006) and it always gets a gasping reaction. Freely selected book from about 10 books, freely selected page and freely selected word matches the word (in a big envelope) that has been guarded from the beginning by a member of the audience and the mentalist never has to touch the envelope.

Ah, but does he have to touch the book?