talkmagic.co.uk

Does anyone know if anything has been written specifically about "changing the moment"? It's part of the methodology behind a hoaxed poltergeist in the novel I'm not writing, but has taken on a deeper thematic significance, so I'd like to bone up a little on it.

I'm not sure I understand the question. What's "changing the moment"?

I Googled the phrase and one of the top hits was your post in another thread on this forum. I read that and I still don't think I understand. Sorry if I'm being dense or missing something obvious!

What? You mean apart from in Erdnase?

Fair enough.

The term seems to originate with Erdnase in a discussion on when to pass the deck. He notes that it's foolish to pass the deck when picking it up from the table, because of the level of scrutiny this action carries. Instead, he suggests picking the deck up, dealing a hand, and then making the pass in the act of tabling the deck.

Perhaps a better illustration of what I take it to mean is the method Fred Robinson used to disguise his pass when asked by card-workers to show them his legendary skills. He'd hold the deck in front of him, make an all but imperceptible gesture. He'd then say "did you see it?" Everyone would look at him at this point, often with eyes wide. In this moment he would perform the pass.

So, changing the moment involves fooling one's audience as to the point in time at which the effect takes place in order to better achieve the effect. Most powerfully this involves convincing the audience that the effect has already taken place when there is in actual fact still work to be done. You may utilise a simple, even obvious, method for creating the effect, then use the offbeat once the effect has apparently ended, to perform some bold bit of business to make sure the effect remains.

Morgan & West, for instance, perform an effect where each has a card signed from their own, differently coloured decks. They stand on opposite sides of the stage from before the cards are selected and signed, through to the end, not going anywhere near each other, but nevertheless, the cards transpose.

Michael Close's ungimmicked ID also uses this strategy.

I'm hoping that someone has written extensively about the principle, mainly because done right it is incredibly powerful and deceptive.

I believe that Darwin Ortiz discusses it extensively in Designing Miracles. And if i am not mistaken it would be Chapter 4 - Temporal Distance (based on my quickly skimming the book), in fact further skimming of the book reveals that Darwin (in chapter 4) quotes Erdnase: ("The resourceful professional failing to improve the method changes the moment: and by this expedient overcomes the principle obstacle in the way of accomplishing the action unobserved")

Another quote from Darwin: "One of the underlying premises of this book is that, if the spectator doesn't realise when the method happened, he'll never figure out how it happened"

I believe that (aside from the extensive study in chapter 4) there will be useful sections regarding the moment throughout most of the book.

Plus since you aren't writing a book... for any other writers out there:
I think that lots of the details in the book (aside from changing the moment) could easily be applied as detail to some sort of methodology for a poltergeist hoax...


Sam

That's perfect! Many thanks, Sam.

Mr_Grue wrote:Fair enough.

The term seems to originate with Erdnase in a discussion on when to pass the deck. He notes that it's foolish to pass the deck when picking it up from the table, because of the level of scrutiny this action carries. Instead, he suggests picking the deck up, dealing a hand, and then making the pass in the act of tabling the deck.

Perhaps a better illustration of what I take it to mean is the method Fred Robinson used to disguise his pass when asked by card-workers to show them his legendary skills. He'd hold the deck in front of him, make an all but imperceptible gesture. He'd then say "did you see it?" Everyone would look at him at this point, often with eyes wide. In this moment he would perform the pass.

So, changing the moment involves fooling one's audience as to the point in time at which the effect takes place in order to better achieve the effect. Most powerfully this involves convincing the audience that the effect has already taken place when there is in actual fact still work to be done. You may utilise a simple, even obvious, method for creating the effect, then use the offbeat once the effect has apparently ended, to perform some bold bit of business to make sure the effect remains.

Morgan & West, for instance, perform an effect where each has a card signed from their own, differently coloured decks. They stand on opposite sides of the stage from before the cards are selected and signed, through to the end, not going anywhere near each other, but nevertheless, the cards transpose.

Michael Close's ungimmicked ID also uses this strategy.

I'm hoping that someone has written extensively about the principle, mainly because done right it is incredibly powerful and deceptive.

Aha. I think I'm with you now. If I understand correctly, then I'd always heard this called "Time Misdirection".

It gets a mention in the book "Sleights of Mind - What the neuroscience of magic reveals about our brains" by Stephen Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde.

Thanks Mat.

I've generally only ever thought of time misdirection as leaving time between a bit of business (usually bold) and making use of whatever that business has brought about. The most obvious example of this, I guess, is the cross-cut force, where the performer will get do the force, but will do something else (pattering, another effect, revealing a prediction) before returning to the deck to reveal the selected card.

Always good to get one's definitions challenged though!

It's also discussed in Ian Kendall's book "Basic Training" (my copy arrived yesterday...)

Barry

Thanks, Barry. I'd not heard of the Kendall book before.

Michael Vincent touches on the idea of showing an apparent effect has already occured, before actually using the sleight which causes the effect - card to box is a good example - in his "Classic Magic". I'm not sure if he goes into it in more detail in the next instalment Rapsodies.

It is an interesting notion and as you pointed out can be quite powerful. It also seems to be a largely unexplored area (as far as traditional close-up goes).

As for the actual quote in Erdnase (see my sig) - I have not read any of Mr Ortizs works so please forgive me if the following is trodden ground. While the quote fits beautifully in a magic context, it is my opinion that the author never intended it to be - in other words its been taken out of context. What must be remembered is that Expert at the Card Table is/was a book on card CHEATING, which because of its association, happens to have a small magic section. Its not, and I don't think it was ever meant to be, a magic book. The famous quote is mentioned not in the magic section, but in the main body of the work, and is specifically aimed at using the pass in fast company. The "changing the moment" part was in reference to the fact that another player who knew the subterfuge would also know the most likely moment it would occur. The whole quote actually meant that the pass would sometimes be the best thing to use - so if the method couldn't be improved, then the moment (which could be anticipated by another equally knowledgeable) should be changed. Hence the famous quote.


Jim

Thanks Jim. I'm aware Erdnase was talking about the pass in a gambling context, but it's definitely a point worth clarifying.

It's interesting that the go to examples for this tend to be from the world of card magic. I suppose it's easier to make it appear as if the effect has taken place with some pasteboards than, say, coins, or thought.

I think the means of doing it with other things tend to be with audio cues. I raised this elsewhere and someone pointed to Knepper's Indirection, which should definitely be something to offer methods for moving the moment. Knepper's main thrust with Indirection is that it's better to demonstrate something than explain something, because explanations tend to invite question - "...an ordinary pack of cards...". If you can demonstrate your pack of cards is ordinary without saying so, then the audience will more likely take it on trust. He introduces a way of demonstrating a collapsible champagne bottle is a genuine bottle without saying so that is very powerful. There's little in there about changing the moment, but, as I say, it suggests methods that could be used to do just that.

Back to coins, I guess the "chink" can serve to change the moment, so long as the audience is trained to know what the chink signifies.

A few years ago there was a series of the Virtual Magician with Marco Tempest. Marco did a coins to glass effect which used the idea you describe - the audible clink of each coin created the illusion that each coin had already arrived, long before it was actually added.

Some sw**i work could also fall into this category.

Jim