talkmagic.co.uk

TonyB wrote:You certainly went big on the Elephant bit!

I had certain ambitions when I began studying magic and mentalism. First was hypnotism, and I am happy with my progress there. Next was cold reading and Q&A. Significant progress has been made. The final two legs will be contact reading and a good two-person code. Then I can retire happy, with the show I dream of.

But nothing beats the immediate impact of a good reading. Whether it be one on one or on a stage, it is the best mentalism effect without a gimmick.

Be careful Tony, you're sounding rather old school approaching things that way (Have you looked at the Finley GQ&A? It will take you far on the CR thing).


As to the comment about the Magic Square, I can assure you that there are pros out there -- heavy money makers -- who use the Magic Square regularly, one guy in particular getting standing ovations for his handling. Then we have a dual use for the squares as originally introduced by Richard Webster in one of his non-magic books and latter grown upon by Loren Tindall as the OMEGA System; it can be done as a stage bit and later used for doing private Readings (a.k.a. marketing) during the BOR phase of your act.

If you have the ability to do the manipulation in your head for each number and mapping them into the square, you can drive your audience nuts, especially when it comes to improvisation. For an example, it can be used as a forcing technique and even as a way to open the door when it comes to doing a more expanded Cold Reading set that fits hand in hand with other Webster material that I and TC Tahoe have contributed to in recent years.

Fact is, I find that the majority of those who down-play the Square do so because they have difficulty executing the math in their head. Until I gave myself permission to simply admit this weakness and ring in a calculator I had similar notions towards most anything involving mathematics. But the plus side seriously outweighs the end results

Even the Cheeky Girls couldn't make the magic square entertaining for me. There may be a few people that have performed it without inducing the audience into a coma or without them thinking "So what?", but I have seen it performed many times where the audience are yawning, going to the bar etc.... It's not mentalism.. it's Suduko!

Lord Freddie wrote:Even the Cheeky Girls couldn't make the magic square entertaining for me. There may be a few people that have performed it without inducing the audience into a coma or without them thinking "So what?", but I have seen it performed many times where the audience are yawning, going to the bar etc.... It's not mentalism.. it's Suduko!

Check out the video's here http://cuestudio.net/jonstetson/ (you'll have to be patient with the sales pitch segments)

Lord Freddie wrote:The only people that think this is in anyway entertaining are those that read books more than they perform to real people.

Exactly.

Like Marc Salem, David Berglas, John Archer and Derren Brown.

Of course they are all well known for their magic square, when you mention those names to a member of the public the first thing they'll think of is then filling up a pad with numbers...

Yes, there are some people skillful enough to polish this turd and engage people with their personalities,but it's their persona that impresses rather than a poor Suduko routine...

Personally, I can't see what is entertaining about the magic square.
Who on this board honestly and truthfully performs this for a real audience (not mates down the pub, work colleagues etc) and gets a great reaction?

Lord Freddie wrote:Who on this board honestly and truthfully performs this for a real audience (not mates down the pub, work colleagues etc) and gets a great reaction?

I managed to once. All the other times I did not.

I dropped it from my show and haven't gone near it again since. I don't regret dropping it

I love the magic square, but then I trained as a mathematician. I saw Paul Daniels doing it as a teenager, and it blew me away. But I am sensible enough to realise that most people will not go for this.

I have very solid presentational skills, yet I could not manage to make this entertaining, so it rotated out of my act very quickly. I am with Lord Freddie.

The Magic Square is a fantastic item if presented properly. Of course you have to have the requisite showmanship and the trick has to suit you. Jon Stetson does a good job of it although perhaps a trifle frenetic for some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slz0xmAyu_k

Or here is famous card magician Harry Lorayne doing it. However, bear in mind that I think this is part of a lecture presentation rather than an actual show. I think it should be seen in that context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaTzZO8 ... 9D0E19DFDE

Lord Freddie wrote:Of course they are all well known for their magic square, when you mention those names to a member of the public the first thing they'll think of is then filling up a pad with numbers...

Yes, there are some people skillful enough to polish this turd and engage people with their personalities,but it's their persona that impresses rather than a poor Suduko routine...

Personally, I can't see what is entertaining about the magic square.
Who on this board honestly and truthfully performs this for a real audience (not mates down the pub, work colleagues etc) and gets a great reaction?

I use the OMEGA variant somewhat regularly and have done just a simple Magic Square in conversation with people (especially young people having problems in math at school) so they can learn to have fun with a believed foe -- it's uncanny how many people fear math and loathe it because of how confounding it can get for them (not everyone has the "knack" as it were) Because I have a similar view I deliberately challenged my self to learn ways of using it that would help me alter said phobias. I use a lot of that same insight to help others overcome the same roadblocks -- Mathamagic, as it's frequently referred to, is an awesome teaching tool with the Square serving as a kind of flag ship.

In that context Craig, yes it has a purposes, but regarding entertainment and the theme of this thread which is mentalism without a gimmick, I do believe that a spectator would be more astounded if you read their mind (whether it's via a CT, cold reading etc) than the underwheleming magic square. You can either have them believe they have had their thoughts read or believe you are good at maths. I would always choose the former!

I'm toying with adding a magic square to a little routine that I'm putting together. I'm not really a great fan of them but for what I've got in mind, I think it has more or a purpose and I think it might just work.

Like many things, I think the magic square is one things that needs a strong presentation and some sort of reason behind it.

If I do one, only ever informally mind, I use it as a way of 'narrowing down' a persons thought of number (peeked).

Starting at the top left, I go down, asking them to think, higher, lower, + 1 , -3 etc, saying that by the time I reach the final square, it will be their number. (I actually cover it up so it's anti-climatic. When it isn't you then have X reveals to show how much of your life you have wasted , they all go wild, serenade you with champagne, crown you king and ask you to reform the education system with your amazing mathematical prowess.*

*This doesn't actually happen...unfortunately

Geoffrey Durham has an interresting chapter about the magic square in his book. I believe he used to use it to close his act, showing he had predicted the spectator's number all along. I can't comment as to the value of the magic square as a perfomrmance piece in general, but it is at least a nice bit of impromptu magic that can be done anywhere once the "algorithm" is memorised.

My point is (unless the number is one merely thought of and then revealed) is that it is not magic or mentalism but a mathematics demonstration. No mystery, wonder or awe.....
Just "hmmm, he's clever".

I largely agree about Maths demos, but I would like to point out that you can use a magic square in a fairly obscure way that does not actually show that it's in use! Enigmatic, I know, and I can't say much more without exposure. Suffice to say, Paul Brook sells an effect with uses a magic square in an obscure way. I can't tell you which effect it is, though, for obvious reasons!