talkmagic.co.uk

That's fine and all, but if you do a transparent trick that's c*** (not the best), it will be harder for the spectators to enter your little realm of magic.

I personally like David Abbott's approach of fooling the hell out of spectators to the point where their disbelief is unwillingly suspended.

Their intelligence is a very important factor. Presenting magic as a "trick" to be figured out isn't very effective. But doing a routine with the intent to enchant without the routine being solidly deceptive is equally bad in my eyes. The use of both- a captivating presentation and a deceptive method- allows for the best performances. Germain enchanted his audiences with his presentations, but he made sure the tricks he presented were deceptive as well.

That's fine and all, but if you do a transparent trick that's c*** (not the best), it will be harder for the spectators to enter your little realm of magic.

Why would you want to perform a trick at all with the knowledge that it is transparent and c*** (not the best)?

Magick wrote:

That's fine and all, but if you do a transparent trick that's c*** (not the best), it will be harder for the spectators to enter your little realm of magic.

Why would you want to perform a trick at all with the knowledge that it is transparent and c*** (not the best)?

My point was you wouldn't. Which is why anticipating the spectators' intelligence is important. When you say their intelligence doesn't matter, you're implying that the trick doesn't have to be thoroughly deceptive, and that's the point I'm arguing.

Granted, I exaggerated a bit...

the Curator wrote:People don't need to be puzzled, they need to be enchanted.
When they're enchanted, they don't ask "how it's done ?".

I concur.

I perform many kinds of magic: bizarre, cardmagic, close-up, mentalism, kid magic, cheating...
But at the end, I perform only two specific genres (they sometimes mix in the same show).

- the genre of the magician who searches enchantment, poetry, fear and various emotions. In this genre the trick is never the effect.

- the genre of the "superhero" (my 007 like character) who performs explainable (sometimes funny) but impossible things: cheating demonstrations are part of this genre. In this genre the impossibility of the feat must be so important that it becomes magical.

In both genres the tricks must be studied so carefully that it's totally impossible for a spectator (layman or magician) to reconstruct the mechanism. Tommy Wonder was a true master in this genre.
I highly recommend his Books of Wonder.
So the rules are simple: enchant and/or entertain.

Again the Curator has articulated perfectly what I have failed to. Obviously our methods must be solid, non of us want to get caught with are trousers down. The point that I was trying to make is that how an effect is acheived shouldn't come into question, if we are creating miracles as opposed to just doing tricks.

BTW Mr. Chelman you are going to get me into so much trouble with my girlfriend, I've just purchased Capricornian Tales and Hauntiques and if I smuggle any more books onto my bookcase I'm going to need to buy a new one and she is bound to notice that.
If anybody else is interested in Hauntiques it is available from Kernow Magic for a mere £31.51

You're right guys, it really is important to let people believe magic is happening for their very eyes. I'll check out the Wonder books!

Cheers