talkmagic.co.uk

Yeah, you do have to remember as well that some people just aren't interested in magic like the fact that some people aren't interested in music.

Maybe its how i perform the BT. I show my hand undeniabley empty then "throw the card at the deck". I suppose that might be what you would do if that is when the trick happens. That just seems to eliminate the "fast hand".

Still, its great to see that you thought around your problem and have come out with a soloution which seems to work for you - that's the main thing!

Mark Smith wrote:So I've eliminated 90% of my tricks, and opted for more pyschological effects, ones that no matter how much they look back there is nothing they can say to explain it. Its no longer a 'puzzle', its something much deeper and more resonant, and maybe a little bit more magical.

Ah, now you're talking. I've said it before, but I'm a big fan of a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). It makes people see cause and effect where there is none. No matter how ridiculous the cause, there's the effect it caused. That second "it" in bold is the important part. Though it's entirely fictitious, it becomes a real thing in the spec's mind. Done well to lead them into it, no one is immune from post hoc thinking

And now, if you'll just stand by this bloodstained wall for a moment, I must shoot you to preserve the secret of post hoc.

Pitto wrote:Yeah, you do have to remember as well that some people just aren't interested in magic like the fact that some people aren't interested in music.

Maybe its how i perform the BT. I show my hand undeniabley empty then "throw the card at the deck". I suppose that might be what you would do if that is when the trick happens. That just seems to eliminate the "fast hand".

Still, its great to see that you thought around your problem and have come out with a soloution which seems to work for you - that's the main thing!

Yeh, absolutely. The joy of magic is that its completely up to each performer how they want to perform - and it may be in magic more than anything that this is so significant.
Maybe I just have particularly cynical friends, but I used to do the 'invisible' transfer of the card to the deck, but they knew that of course I wasn't invisibly throwing the card. So he just saw his card in his hands, squinted slightly and started thinking backwards through the trick until he could work out at which point I had put the card in his hands.
Of course it would be almost impossible for him to actually remember, but I dont think thats the point. He's already started to think down those lines, and while he wont be able to actually remember how it got there, he's already sure he's pretty much got the method!
I like Derren Brown's idea of 'Invisible Compromise'. Don't compromise on the trick too early. In mentalism if you do a book test, and ask them to go through and find a word, why not just ask them to think of a word? The book is a visible compromise and is compromising too early. Think of the effect and move as close to it as possible before having to compromise.
As for people not enjoying magic, it is usually because of their preconceptions. If someone just doesn't seem impressed by the idea of magic, just imagine how much better it would be to show him something that actually lifts him out of himself, something he would never have expected and something that leaves him unsettled. Perhaps something an Ace Assembly just wont do.

Blimey I'm ranting again - stop me!

Anyway, thanks for joining in the debate - its all in good fun!

Tomo wrote: And now, if you'll just stand by this bloodstained wall for a moment, I must shoot you to preserve the secret of post hoc.

Haha. Fair enough.

Mark Smith wrote:The point I was making was that if Derren had done a traditional Out of this World card trick he wouldn't have got an award. He must have sat and thought for a while of how he could use the card techniques, without the preconception a deck has

Dan Harlan does a great effect called Photo Finish. A 'pack' of photos, each of which has been cut into fours, is used. Apparently without any significant involvement by the magician (only one choice is made, and it's made by a spec) two specs end up dealing not only four pieces that happen to make up a complete photo, but also the photo that (in some way) the magician had previously predicted they would. It's a laughably simple, laughably old trick, but the use of photos completely revitalises it. So much so that, when I saw it, I spent a good two hours laboriously cutting up pictures so I could do it myself.

I'm sure there are plenty of tricks you could do, impromptu, with a normal pile of photos. Perhaps to stave of suicide when friends come round with thirty thousand pictures of their holiday in Portugal. There are things you can do with beer mats too, and train tickets (esp. the small-sized ones, which DL easily).

Something that's just occurred to me, though, is the component of the 'performance' that's probably the most important - the audience. I vividly remember that I did a trick for my friend and her son (he's about eight). I'd dropped his jaw with some very basic coin stuff earlier in the day, so, when they were both there and were both eager to see a trick, I thought I'll pull out a real baffler and make his head explode. So, I did this impromptu thing with a pack of cards and a rubber band. At the revelation, his mother screamed. Actually screamed - and in the good way: not in the way I normally get, where women scream and then start to call the police. However, he just wrinkled his forehead and peered at us both, bemused. 'What? What happened? I don't get it.' Though not a complex trick at all, it simply wasn't right for him. That's a obvious example, of course - kids/adults - but I think it applies more broadly. There are some tricks that are better suited to one-on-one and some that are better suited to a group, don't you think? Also, I've noticed a male-female divide. Women tend to be more interested if you use talk of psychology and so forth - otherwise it's a dull, technical thing that doesn't really engage them, and is possibly a bit 'Tch - men,' too: like 'See how I make this card appear' is akin to 'Watch me do fifty press-ups'. Men (especially if you don't know them very well), on the other hand, are generally happy to see something baffling and curious, but don't want you implying that you can 'suggest' things to them or read their minds. I imagine it's a hierarchy thing: they can disinterestedly enjoy a trick, but baulk at any idea that you're 'mentally above them' or some such notion. I constantly have to remind myself that I'm doing stuff for 'lay people' too. That coin in soda can effect that has caused much discussion on this board would die in front of my friends, I just know it would. I'd do it, and they'd say, 'Yeah... But you simply [thing], didn't you?' The wonderful handling and invisible method and so on would be nothing to them. They'd merely realise, instantly, that it could only be done in one way, and that, unimpressively, would be that - the details of how it was done, would be irrelevant. As we haven't mentioned D Brown for a few sentences, it's worth bringing up that section in Pure Effect where he talks about redoing his cigarette-through-coin routine because everyone was dismissing it with a 'Nice... But, you know, obviously you did [thing].' And the cig-through-coin doesn't use that thing to achieve the effect, in fact, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone thought it did - obviously - and were therefore unimpressed because they'd 'worked it out'.

People, eh? Pesky things.

Sexton Blake wrote: The wonderful handling and invisible method and so on would be nothing to them. They'd merely realise, instantly, that it could only be done in one way, and that, unimpressively, would be that - the details of how it was done, would be irrelevant....What matters is that everyone thought it did - obviously - and were therefore unimpressed because they'd 'worked it out'.

Exactly. This is my point. If you bring out a deck of cards you are instantly fighting a battle. People know that there will be no real 'magic', people aren't stupid, they know that at some point trickery will be taking place. I can't believe any magicians out there could possibly think any other way. You know this, I know this, my 13 year old brother knows this.

The audience are fully aware that something dodgy will be going on, and unless the effect doesn't appear to need it, then that is the first avenue of thought they will head down. So, its ruthless, but I've had to get rid of ambitious card routines and ace assemblies, they aren't involving, and seem to me to just be an excuse to perform a series of sleights.

However, this doesn't mean they don't have their place. Suppose your standing in the pub with your mates, the last thing they want to see is some heavy emotionally involving mind routine, they want to see some flashy trickery. They want to see you do some sleight of hand right under their noses which they cant detect.
But I think that if I'm sat a table with some people I want to do something that they get to the end of and go, 'yeah, but...um...' rather than great cheers, a slightly patronising applause and 'yeah you're very clever'.

So my effects now just have a 'mental' aspect to them, which is what I have used to fill the gap of 'sleight of hand' as the explanation the spectator will try to come up with. I find this more satisfying!