talkmagic.co.uk

Lots of people are on record here as disliking the CT (which you'd see if you searched). I don't have a problem with it, though. There are reasons why you would want something written down and reasons why you would want to destroy it. Even if you don't, I've yet to see someone normal question it.

SamGurney wrote:

Eshly wrote:How come when other people say it its ok, but as soon as I suggest that a CT is a bad idea people hate me for it?

I'm not sure if that's happened, but nonetheless, double standards are unfair if that has gone on.
I do not think the CT is either good or bad- but it IS bad (and bad is normally a subjective word whereas here it is FACT) when there is no explanation for it. I do not do the centre tear, but if I did I would probably nick that idea of having it written down to show their friend what they're thinking in case they are not a good subject, and then disposing of the paper once it's function has been served so that I cannot possibly cheat.. apparently.. That way it's logical. Everyone bangs on about presentation making it all, but when put like that it is all a bit abstract. Nonetheless, I'd rather switch than CT.

Use my idea if you like, which personally I think is the best explanation I've ever seen for the tearing. You present it as an old psychic effect where the medium would claim they could deduce the words from the ashes and smoke. Ofcourse, you explain, there was no real reason behind it, but they wanted to convey a feeling of the mystical, the supernatural.

The second reason I asked you to write something down was to lock it into your memory. Its like when someone asks you to think of a number between 1 and 10, you don't just settle on one right away, you think of multiple things and often change your mind at a vital moment. If something is written down then you cannot change your mind, and it also adds visual and muscle memories along with the creative part of your head.




There you go, a perfect explanation for the tearing and the writing down, personally I think both of these explanations are brilliant. The only thing it doesn't explain is why the performer himself must tear up the paper, but no one ever asks that oddly, they really should. xD

Tom
xx

Lawrence wrote:

Eshly wrote:How come when other people say it its ok, but as soon as I suggest that a CT is a bad idea people hate me for it?

It's not quite the emoticon I was after but it will do.
I still say we need more emoticons, where's my :: oh dear :: ? I've been asking for years. Something has to be done!

Lawrence can I just say; fantastic new avatar

Eshly wrote:Lawrence can I just say; fantastic new avatar

It's me!
You can't see the long hair behind it which is a bit of a shame.

I haven't got to watching the video yet. I'll come back to you with constructive comments later.

Lawrence wrote:

Eshly wrote:Lawrence can I just say; fantastic new avatar

It's me!
You can't see the long hair behind it which is a bit of a shame.

I haven't got to watching the video yet. I'll come back to you with constructive comments later.

Video? What video?

(I forget things, its to do with bipolar, forgive me)

Eshly in orginal post of this thread wrote:Mind Mysteries 1.

That one.

Anyway... I'm sure we should be watching football or something right now

Lawrence wrote:Anyway... I'm sure we should be watching football or something right now

Is something significant going on ?

Mandrake wrote:

Lawrence wrote:Anyway... I'm sure we should be watching football or something right now

Is something significant going on ?

So I'm told. I haven't seen anything significant though.

OK, time for another G&T then....

Mandrake wrote:OK, time for another G&T then....

Miss Congeniality is on, on Five I believe.

That'll do nicely....

Ted wrote:

Mandrake wrote:OK, time for another G&T then....

Miss Congeniality is on, on Five I believe.

I spotted that too.
Funny to see what gets shown when the final is on TWO of the real channels.

Family guy at 10 though.

Eshly wrote:You present it as an old psychic effect where the medium would claim they could deduce the words from the ashes and smoke.

Great!

Eshly wrote:Of course, you explain, there was no real reason behind it, but they wanted to convey a feeling of the mystical, the supernatural.

Not great. Never explain. ESPECIALLY never say "there's no reason to do this". You've already said you're recreating a spectacle; leave it at that.

Ok, so I've done a little field work and I present here my findings. I only had two opportunities to perform today and since this thread provoked my interest I decided I'd investigate the centre tear.
Ted made an interesting point- that the lay public never seem to sniff at it, nonetheless, I have seen some terrible, terrible performers whose terribleness exceed the word terrible used four times in a row and I think if people on here were to watch those terrible, terrible performers that are terrible then I'm sure that we would be in universal, unanimous agreement as to their terribleness. But still, these people aren't sniffed at by a lay audience.
Equally, when magician's flash slightly during a trick (the method, not any other type of flashing) then magician's are all over it- and quite rightly. Perhaps, to the eyes of a lay person they don't know where to look to see the flashes or what makes a 'good' mentalist, but there has to be some quality control. I am reminded of cinema or as it used to be, theatre. Perhaps critics knew the technical jargon and what to look for, but they had no place to tell the theatrically 'lay' audience wheather they enjoyed a show or not- that was for them to decide. However, the influence of high quality technical conventions, which would operate outside the mainstreme audience's awareness, and something this wider audience enjoyed cannot be ignored.
Anyway, I am rambling. The above is an interesting dilema, do we have a burdon of quality control, where it is likley to not be appreciated?
Well, I dipped back into Corinda a learned the Centre tear routine to the letter (If you have a look at it, you'll know what I mean by to the letter). I am familiar with the technical 'sleight' but nonetheless, I performed the entire routine as it was in Corinda without adding any additional presentation. I did however, at the start tell how when I was little (this is true) my sister used to get everyone to write a wish onto a bit of paper, then she'd burn it and the idea was that the ashes would go up and be heard.. This wasn't justification, I was just explaining that's what she used to do. It was strangley enigmatic, the whole affair and I think the actual burning of the paper (I did this outside) made it slightly exotic. I don't know, the person I performed it on seemed to enjoy simply burning something and this seemed to override any justification for it. Anyway, it did indeed get a response and he didn't jump out at me and say 'Why are we burning the billet, this is not logical, I want my refund'.
I think I understand the whole thing a bit more now- the Corinda routine is theatrical and dramatic, and the revalation of the word is just the finale. However, in modern day Billet work it is all about the revalation- the billet is just inbetween, we like to take our roles very seriously (which is a good thing) and put a lot of effort into divining the word like a supposedly real mind reader. This approach does not fit with the long, illogical Corinda routine- because if you were doing it to divine the word then you would just have them think of something and then work from that. But it is nonetheless theatrical, and I think we loose some of that by being very revelation centred. Once we've prooved we can read minds and what have you, the rest gets a little repetitive and as Max Maven said, we need to keep things alive and interesting not just the same 'you're thinking x... you're thinking y... you're thinking z... you're thinking a... you're thinking b... you will think c...' for Two hours.
Then Corinda graciously reminded me of an old gem: the Punx-mier variation.. how nostalgic. I used to perform it all the time... There are a few illogicalities, why have something rewritten if it is not about the writing process? And is tearing the paper up really that necessery, or could the billet be left, dormant on the table/ stage/ spectator's pocket/ bus seat/ toilet seat ? Once again, a few minuits of individual thought should overcome these illogicalities and excuses can be created for them to make them natural, but I just thought it is worth reminding people of this old gem.
Well, I am glad to get this ramble off my chest.. I hope some may benefit from my thoughts, and that is all they are- an incoherent, word salad of my thoughts so there is no conclusion to this ramble. Hope this has provoked some thought nonetheless.