talkmagic.co.uk

I have come up with a little method for apparently reading a card from a spectators thoughts, no doubt it has been done exactly the same way before, but that is irrelevant for this discussion.

What I am wondering is how do I present it?

What I mean is I have certain qualms about presenting the trick in such a way as to make someone think that I am really able to read their thoughts, because I'm not, and I can't. I am dubious about causing someone to believe that I am actually doing something paranormal, as I generally encourage scepticism about such things. However, just saying 'it's a trick' kinda dampens the effect cause at that point they know I'm probably doing something simple and just trying to fool them with it.

Is there a way I can present it without apparently making dubious supernatural claims, yet not giving away that there is a really simple solution to it?

I was thinking that I could perhaps give the impression that I am picking up on audible and visual clues from them and getting their card from that. Things such as getting them to count from 1 to 10 and pretending that something about the way they said a particular number gave it away. Its dishonest as the actual method is much more simple than that, but not making any supernatural claims that I would normally encourage people to doubt.

How do you guys feel about presenting such feats? What advice can you give me?

Thanks

Laurens

It all depends on you Laurens,

Personally I can think of 20 people I know who would do this in different ways,

My own way is to hold their wrist and pretend to read their pulse, then do the exact same where they "read" my pulse...

Hope this helps

Much love

Aza

My good fellow, this is something that is going to depend in its entirety upon you and your own presentation style. Are you truly a mindreader or perhaps you're instead a learned scholar of psychology? For me I could probably make use of Professor Von-Kakerntak's rather magnificant thought seeing monocle but I doubt very much that something like that would suit your own personal style of performance.

I always find it strange that people have qualms about suggesting they use paranormal means to achieve their effect but that suggesting they can see micro physiological tells and is less immoral. Surely they are both "lies" of equal magnitude.

mdawg wrote:I always find it strange that people have qualms about suggesting they use paranormal means to achieve their effect but that suggesting they can see micro physiological tells and is less immoral. Surely they are both "lies" of equal magnitude.

Not really, I mean there are people out there who are experts in reading body language and can tell when people are lying etc. So the latter is at least verified to be possible. Whereas the former has no documented scientific proof.

I'd rather someone believe that I am doing something plausible (or at least possible) than have them believe that I possess powers that I myself am doubtful over the existence of and would also encourage others to be.

I mean you have to lie to a certain extent in order to do tricks. You can't just say 'I put your card in the middle, controlled it to the top, did a false shuffle keeping it on top, now look your card is on the top!' what you say is 'I'll just put your card in the middle of the deck *snap* look it jumped right up to the top'.

I'm totally with mdawg and see I nothing at all wrong with claiming that you're using some form of psychic power. We do have to be responsible with any claims that we make but that applies just as much if we're saying that we're using NLP. People will always believe what they want to believe, just think about the millons that have been spent on NLP courses because people want to be able to do what Derren does although we all know that that's never going to happen. Is it any more immoral to lead people up the psychology or NLP garden path?

At the end of the day our job is to entertain an audience and as long as we're doing that then we're doing something right.

I’m certainly not having a go at how anyone presents their magic. But surely you can see that you’re just rationalising your own beliefs. Like you say, we have to lie so some degree so what makes one lie worse than another?

You’re right there are experts out there who claim to be able to read body language but I have yet to see anyone who can do it to the extent as seen in magic. I view them with the same scepticism I view everything.

When I’m working on a presentation for what would be considered a mind reading effect I ask myself “ If I was to read this persons mind how would it look”

Theatrically that’s all I need to ask.

3 ♣ wrote:

mdawg wrote:I always find it strange that people have qualms about suggesting they use paranormal means to achieve their effect but that suggesting they can see micro physiological tells and is less immoral. Surely they are both "lies" of equal magnitude.

Not really, I mean there are people out there who are experts in reading body language and can tell when people are lying etc. So the latter is at least verified to be possible. Whereas the former has no documented scientific proof.

I'd rather someone believe that I am doing something plausible (or at least possible) than have them believe that I have possess powers that I myself am doubtful over the existence of and would also encourage others to be.

I'm with mdawg - both the OP's proposed explanations are lies. Nothing is inherently better or worse about either of them. The work on body language contains a lot of anecdotal pseudo-science guff. A performer may prefer one explanation over another, or be able to present one more convincingly than another, but, to quote the bard, "nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".

I understand where you are all coming from. Its just for me, as someone who comes from a scientific/sceptical background, I feel very weary of presenting a trick in such a way as to encourage belief in things that I myself do not believe and think people should be educated against accepting without sufficient evidence. To me personally, given what I believe and my background that lie would feel worse.

I guess where I am coming from is that I understand that misleading people is essential to a lot of magic, its just that I'd rather not mislead people into believing that I've just given them proof of something that might very well not exist.

I'm not claiming to be 100% justified in this, and part of the reason I made this topic is to get my head around it a bit.

You always have to present things in a way that's comfortable to you and fits in with who you are. I know that I can never pull off the psychological, sciencey approach it just doesn't fit me. But on the other hand, my quirky, hippy persona can suit a more psychic presentation.

Nothing's right or wrong when it comes to these sorts of things you just have to go with what you're most happy with.

Lady of Mystery wrote:You always have to present things in a way that's comfortable to you and fits in with who you are. I know that I can never pull off the psychological, sciencey approach it just doesn't fit me. But on the other hand, my quirky, hippy persona can suit a more psychic presentation.

Nothing's right or wrong when it comes to these sorts of things you just have to go with what you're most happy with.

I appreciate that, I hope I don't sound like I am deriding those who do 'psychic presentations' - I just don't think they suit who I am, because if you were to have a conversation about such things with me afterwards my passion for science and rationalism would clash with my presentation of magic. I wasn't trying to say you are less moral than I for presenting your tricks in that way - just that it feels wrong to me.

Thanks for the input everyone

Laurens

What this really comes down to is the inescapable fact that if you are going to do any type of magic you are going to have to lie. The very mechanics of the 'trick' mean that lying is inevitable as you are doing something that is seemingly impossible. If this wasn't the case every card trick would involve a card being selected, the card returned to the deck, the deck being fairly shuffled, and then the magician saying: 'i have no idea what your card is and how to locate it' and that being the end of the trick. Deception is the very heart of magic- magic is deception and trickery and lies utilised to create entertainment. The only important thing is that your lies are consistent and credible enough for you to pull off an entertaining performance. When you are performing you must be comfortable knowing that nothing you say or do is true; it is all lies as the root of your performance, your effect that you are presenting, is specifically aimed to deceive your audience for the sake of their amusment. Once you're are happy with the idea that you are going to be lying to people's faces, you are free to choose the exact nature of those lies, your pseudo-explanation of what you are doing. Providing it is consistent with your performing persona, everything that you say, no matter how believable of outlandish, is permitted.

I have been having this kind of problem since I started *reading* about mental magic and magic in general, let alone performing (which is something I almost don't do except with very specific things). One solution that seems acceptable to my conscience is: don't say anything about HOW you achieve the result. Perform it in a way that is open to both the sciencey or paranormal explanation. After all, you want to entertain and amaze with WHAT you achieve, not HOW. As far as I understand, the main reason not to reveal to laymen the secrets behind magic is that knowing it simply spoils the amazement and the wonder. That amazement and wonder feeling, many masters of the art say, is what magic is all about. Not the methods. In other words, what I try to do (and it is arguably really the most difficult thing) is struggling to make the effect so captivating that I don't need to give a made up explanation for the method, because the method is completely irrelevant to the experience. At least, this is what I would like to do, whether I'll ever be able to put my thoughts in practice, is a completely different matter.

Just my (inexperienced) opinion.

Not sure if this has been said because I have not read through all the posts. First it depends on your style, so we can't honestly answer for you.

I perform and let the audience draw their own conclusions. If I manage to start a new religion in the process, I have no issue with that at all.

Of course my style is that the 'magic' pretty much happens and we all go along for the ride.

An example would be:

Pick a card, no not the six of diamonds, lets choose another. The six again. Seriously? I've a better idea lets put it back and just take the top card cause it doesn't matter. What in blue blazes how did that six get on top. Watch with me. the six, goes into the deck? Yes, great now we can get on with things. Just take that top card don't tell me what it is. what do you mean its the six again. Maybe it is me, here take the deck shuffle it up and we will try this again. Actually lets move onto something different. (as I put the deck down one card shoots from the deck along the table towards the spectator) six.

The audience now can decide am I doing the magic? Is it magic or a trick on my part? I tend not to fool myself, I know and they know, and I know they know that I'm performing a trick. But we are all having fun on the ride and every now and again somebody starts to wonder.

As I'm sure you know, Derren Brown performs a lot of routines which are designed to look as though they use some sort of supernatural power, but he often makes a point of emphasising that it's all done by trickery underneath. The way he presents it is more as a proof that the charlatans who claim to have psychic powers are actually fakes, because he can reproduce the same effects by purely natural means. Perhaps it might be useful to follow that sort of idea. You could mention that people would (or maybe still do) claim to have supernatural powers to trick others out of their money, but that you are going to produce the same effect with mere trickery to show that they are fakes.