talkmagic.co.uk

Why do some magicians and mentalists get so hung up about everything being "examinable"? I'm nowhere near experienced, but from the very small amount of experience I have had, nothing needs to be examined. I use normal, everyday props, and still don't give anyone an opportunity to examine them, because I feel it detracts massively from the effect.
As soon as you suggest it could be gimmicked, by letting your audience examine it, it immediately becomes gimmicked in their minds. And lets face it, their minds are where all the magic happens. And what about when you have been proving everything ungimmicked throughout your whole act, and then suddenly you don't prove something is ungimmicked? Then the audience "knows" it is gimmicked. Should the props be important to the audience? Or should they just be a means to an incredible end? Can someone please explain to me, why things need to be examinable?

Excellent post.

Eshly, please read and note!

john riggs made the point that if people ask to take a look at his stuff - he just says "no"...its like asking a samurai to look at his katana...

and thats from a man who is constantly working...and been a full-time pro for many a year...

Imagine working in a magic shop then and stunning a customer with a trick only for him to say 'Can you give it out to be examined?' Ah no, why would you want to?' is the usual reply.

'Ah forget it then' he says.

???? So many times..........

spooneythegoon wrote:Why do some magicians and mentalists get so hung up about everything being "examinable"? I'm nowhere near experienced, but from the very small amount of experience I have had, nothing needs to be examined. I use normal, everyday props, and still don't give anyone an opportunity to examine them, because I feel it detracts massively from the effect.

Ye totally agree with you here mate. There is no need to prove that somthing is ungimmicked. i belive there are two types of people (Or maybe 4)

1) Those who want to be fooled - they do not want to know how it is done, they have no reason to ask how its done or indeed find out how its done - they enjoy the feeling of being fooled

2) those who dont care to be fooled and just want to debunk the effect. they'll ask to have a look to find out how its done to 'get one over on you' - I have a friend like this. He would go online and try and find out almost every trick i did for him. he said: "Does it irritate you that i find out how your tricks are done" i said: "No, if you need to go away and find out after i have performed the trick, then i know i've done my job in fooling you, if you find out while im performing the trick, then i have failed my job as a magician"

Then there are 2 other types:

3) those who get fooled it drives them crazy and they have to find out how its done else they'll go throw themselfs of the nearest bridge - These are the ppl who are like 'WTF!!!' and grab the cards/wallet/coin whatever straight away

4) those who don't care for magic, and dont care what you do and are not interested in being fooled. Also known as the 'abnormal'

I dont think there is ANY need to prove tht something is ungimmicked. By all means leave your cards/coins on the table and let them look at them at their on free will - because some may but you dont need to make a point of it. Infact saying that i dont even think you need to leave your props out if you've finished the effect - If your routine is strong enough there is no need for them to suspect gimmicks.

Just my thoughts

i don't think the word "fooling" should ever be used...in magic or mentalism....

IAIN wrote:i don't think the word "fooling" should ever be used...in magic or mentalism....

Please Change to 'deceived' / 'Deceive' etc

i dont agree with those terms either...

its not about getting one over/foolilng or anything else...

i agree though, that some people feel deceived or fooled...i know a couple of people who hate magic because they feel like they've been "beaten"...because they approach it as a puzzle and maybe a sense of pride even?

but we should be looking to creating and sharing an experience...something that is entertaining and/or beyond comprehension within a certain remit...

if you tell someone you can read their mind via a certain process, then show them that process, share "it" with them - then thats the unique point of magic or mentalism...

often though, i think magic these days is more about putting a barrier between the two people via the "something"...rather than both of you sharing the experience...

IAIN wrote:i dont agree with those terms either...

its not about getting one over/foolilng or anything else...

i agree though, that some people feel deceived or fooled...i know a couple of people who hate magic because they feel like they've been "beaten"...because they approach it as a puzzle and maybe a sense of pride even?

but we should be looking to creating and sharing an experience...something that is entertaining and/or beyond comprehension within a certain remit...

if you tell someone you can read their mind via a certain process, then show them that process, share "it" with them - then thats the unique point of magic or mentalism...

often though, i think magic these days is more about putting a barrier between the two people via the "something"...rather than both of you sharing the experience...

Thanks for putting it like that IAIN, you're absolutly right and i reallly like that way of thinking. I think i may take a slightly more open minded view on performing going forward. not by any means do i go out there to 'get one over on people' but i know the feeling when you are completly 'decieved' and thats why i enjoy performing, so others can experience that too.

You mentioned in there about creating and sharing an experience...something that is entertaining and/or beyond comprehension within a certain remit

I like this alot.

and very true.

thankyou

The number of reasons something should be examinable is infinite, but it all depends upon the circumstances.

For example I was planning a Q&A that involved envelopes, and these were to be handeled by the audiance, therefore they need to be examinable.

Blindfolds need to be examinable.

Steve Shaw at my local MagicBox performs a great trick with a gimmicked coin. He does it perfectly, but the trick is SO impossible and SO clearly not slight of hand that they always ask to see the coin.

I am trying to convince him to switch it out for a real coin, but he never bothers.

I am also not greatly experienced, however, sometimes I get my audience (close up, small audience) to inspect a card as misdirection. Thats the only reason I do it

confirmation bias...

pure and simple, nothing else...

you do not need to have a blindfold examined, you can indirectly prove these things very simply...

having someone perform a simple task whilst wearing the blindfold previously, therefore proves the notion that the blindfold is what is claimed...

however, that blindfold could well be gimmicked (ironically) up to the eyeballs...so when it comes to you using it - it becomes very clear that its a "normal" blindfold...without having to say a word...

just like cards, if they are shuffled by people at the very start as you are talking...it doesnt matter if they are switched, or have gimmicked cards in there or whatever else...by the idea of handing them out for shuffling (NOT! examination) it is discounting a notion silently...

if you open a pack of sealed envelopes and give out a handful...are they not seen as 'normal'? regardless of whether they are or not, opening the seal indirectly says that they are...

i would like to see proof of otherwise, rather than people just worrying to death over such things...

Why does he not switch the coin out Eshly? Because he doesn't need to. The spectator (who incidentally unless he/she is simple doesn't believe in real magic) may suspect the coin. But they don't know for certain.By not allowing the spectator to look at tha coin he maintains the mystery.

I am sorry Eshly but you are obsessive about spectators examining props. They just do not ask in real life. Some things you lay down on the table to be examined as part of the trick (the end of Holey Moley for example) but I use gaffed decks, standard decks etc etc and don't worry about being asked to examine. It doesn't happen and if it did I would ignore the request.

You only need to infer that the items are innocent, you don't have to prove they are! A blindfold could be casually shown against the light to 'prove' it's solid, nothing more, If you dwell on proving everything is kosher you'll slow the routine down and spoil the effect. A classic example is proving a box is empty. Turn it upside down, let some irrelevant item, perhaps something for a following effect, fall out then shake the box a couple of times. The audience will assume that the box is now empty because something dropped out and nothing more dropped out after shaking it. You could still hide a small motor car in there!

Magician's guilt is a terrible affliction, lay people aren't stupid but they're not magicians either so don't go OTT in proving there's no trickery - the audence know very well there's shedloads of trickery, just direct their suspicions, and therefore their attention, in a different direction.

Eshly wrote:For example I was planning a Q&A that involved envelopes, and these were to be handeled by the audiance, therefore they need to be examinable.

No, they don't have to be examinable. Have you even read the thread I pointed out to you?

I am trying to convince him to switch it out for a real coin, but he never bothers.

Because he doesn't have to


Stop running. You're not being chased