talkmagic.co.uk

But like as was mentioned above, maybe mentalism is evolving into something different now. People are far more cynical, and any claim of 'psychic' abilities instantly provokes cynicism.

How many New Age or Spiritualists gatherings have you attended?

Let's ignore that... How many people have you heard talk about UFOs, Psychic or Paranormal experiences and though "logically" they wish to reject it, becasue of their experience they find it impossible to deny?

Our world does have far my CYNICS in it vs. Skeptics; Cynics don't believe in anything but their own ass and ego and seek the world in black & white. Skeptics will leave the door cracked to possibility that either they are wrong or science may yet confirm things in ways that are logical to both sides of a given issue. IN my book, just becasue you know how I may float a young lady in the air does not negate the fact that you saw me do it... the magic is just as real given one's perspective. 90% of what's become Psychology and tools to the Mental Health field, all came from the world of the Gypsy, Shaman and Pagan priesthood. So who is to say that what we use to "explain it away" isn't the actual truth behind the inner-mysteries and "deepe" Occult teachings that were reserved only for those deemed worthy and ready to know such?

They come out of the experience knowing it is trickery in some way and as such feel slightly cheated, even if they were entertained. In this day and age of science and cynicism maybe it is time that mentalism evolved with it.

This is a cop-out I fear and an act of justification in the mind of one that wants to cling desperately to his magic tricks while riding the current wave of Mentalism's popularity. It is likewise the one thing that brings about the fall of most that attempt to walk down this road (regardless what St. Lewis has to say... he's just a con-man to start with and hasn't been the same since that balloon ride over the rainbow...)

Magicians love to do tricks, Mentalists don't do tricks... it's that simple.

In the Martial Arts world there is a saying about fighters; you can teach a boxer how to use his feet but you can't teach a karate guy how to use his hands. It's the same thing in magic, exceptionally few that come to mentalism from magic ever fully catch on in that there are too many subtleties and acts of "trust" in what we do... it really does move into a realm that seems almost "real".

No, this is not nearly as "commercial" as some of this other stuff is, such as what you're seeing on Tv now days. But that isn't the agenda of a hard-core mentalist. They aren't interested in working that 96 hour work week nine + months a year and never being home. They want to work their 25-40 hours a week in their own community region, have a family life that they can enjoy, and live comfortable doing what it is they know and love. Depending on the options taken, the average Mentalist of this ilk will see as little as $35,000.00 a year starting out to an annual averger of around $300,000.00 without have to travel more than about two hours from his home on the weekends only. He/she won't be written up in all the magic publications, they aren't selling lecture notes or trying to be a forum personality... they're working joes, that's it!

Fame & Fortune have to less that 1% opf those that try for it; making a comfortable living as a Mentalist in the manner I've noted, is what is available to most, if they take a deep breath and look at what's real and practical vs. the dreams and false promises of the entertainment industry.

I'll not go round in circles as to what works and what is what. I've grown tired of hearing magicians justify themselves and set aside the words of wisdom given by far more people that just me when it comes to playing cards in mentalism, mixing the two forms, etc. If you honestly want to know then read the older tomes and LEARN and stop listening to the other fools that have been at it just as long or only slightly longer than you have... and stop listening to the guys out there telling you what you want to hear just so you'll buy their next book or effect.

I've shared a truth, that's as far as I'll go for now.

Craig Browning wrote:Magicians love to do tricks, Mentalists don't do tricks... it's that simple.

What is it you do do, Craig, if you don't mind me asking?

Craig really reads minds, didn't you know that? Only a cynic would actually say that he does tricks.

I see in his post that he has elevated me to sainthood and then in the next breath says that I am a con man. I wish he would make his mind up.

I wish to comment only upon his statement concerning playing cards. Maurice Fogel who was EASILY the best mentalist that the UK has ever produced used playing cards. If it was good enough for him then it is good enough for me. He wisely mentioned in the 13 Steps to Mentalism that playing cards have been used by psychics for generations for divination purposes and they would not be out of place in a mental act.

One of the most successful mentalists in the UK was the late Chan Canasta. Fully 90% of his repertoire was card tricks.

In my mental act I do 6 card repeat. I hope Reverend Browning is not too traumatised by this morsel of information.

So those who have a differing view are fools? "There IS a right way to do this." It's supposed to be ART surely, and art is about one's individual expression. How THEY choose to express THEMSELVES.

There are arguments both for and against, granted, and I can see Craig's points, but to say "these people agree with me and what I have to say, therefore it is right" whilst ignoring what the other experts have to say is ludicrous IMO.

An audience will not just be made up of spiritualists etc. Typically most people will be middle-class people looking for a night of entertainment who probably don't really believe in psychic phenomenon.

I don't think anyone is going to change their attitude or opinion. People will do what suits them, and that is what is important. If we can give our audiences a good evening of entertainment and let them leave feeling good about themselves, then that is what matters.

I do have to be honest. Corinda's 13 Steps to Mentalism (provided Craig will give it any credit) starts with a whole chapter on the Swammi Gimmick. If that's not a trick then I don't know what is.
Of course a Mentalist does tricks, like Tomo pointed out. No one can actually read minds, and all the while you cant then anything you are doing is trickery, however you like to wrap it up.

Mark Smith wrote: No one can actually read minds.

I can

Right now I'm reading yours

You're thinking that you don't believe the first statement I made...


(sorry I didn't get much sleep)

I'm a mentalist.... I only do mentalism....

Although I can acknowledge that everything I do are tricks, I just hate the word. If you say to someone (an audience member for example) that you are going to do a 'trick' that is exactly how they see it. Just pure trickery. I call everything I do a routine. This way the audience sees something more serious.
Yes we all know that no-one can read minds but why not give the impression that what you're doing is more serious than trickery. I don't want to get into the False Psychic debate as I have never claimed to be and I'm against these idiots who claim to be able to read minds, but lets give the audience a sense of not knowing when they leave a gig rather than the thought of, 'Nice tricks!!'

Craig.... This is not a personal attack on you my friend but have you ever thought of becoming a solicitor or an MP? I read your last post twice and I still don't know if you agree with mentalism and mentalists or not!!! Perhaps it's too early in the morning for me!

Oh and another thing.... As I said before, I only do mentalism. I use playing cards. I always have and always will do. And my agent advertises my act as 'Magic Of The Mind'!

tarot cards - playing cards - discs and wands and so on, clubs and diamonds and so forth...

of course, half way through a 'mind'reading' act (if act it be) to suddenly cough up a sponge-ball dont quite go together...but only in my opinion...i wouldnt want to talk on behalf of others...

however, people like Luke Jermay uses cards, Corinda mentions effects with cards, Derren Brown does, Ted Lesley does, T.A. Waters does..

Perhaps some are attributing too much importance to the label - like its an all encompassing title to sum up who you are, when labels quite often are misleading...

On the subject of 'keeping it pure' or how to do it properly...then surely if you convince your audience, then you have done it properly?

Cynics don't believe in anything but their own ass and ego and seek the world in black & white - i don't agree at all.

I would love to see someone prove beyond all doubt they have some kind of real mental-power, something that can't be learned...I'm not talking in a rain-man way either...which can be explained scientifically...

I do not see the world in black and white at all, even if i am 'labelled' as a cynic. I find that quite a sweeping generalisation...

I would love to see on the Randi site some text saying "Ok - this guy passed, im dumbfounded, im off to re-think my entire concepts on life..."

Will it happen? Maybe...maybe not...

"Oh, the tangled webs we weave When we practice to deceive...."

Captain Fantastic wrote:Yes we all know that no-one can read minds

Ok - this is off track with the subject, but I have to disagree with that statement. We all read minds all of the time - it's a natural thing to do. Sure it's not like I can see actual thoughts - but I know I act and react often based on what I think that someone is thinking. Most of the time this is a subconcious thing - a reaction. This happens in contexts of driving my car, communicating with my wife, doing an interview, having a debate, playing chess, playing music and reading other musicians etc.

I think this is also what makes mind reading believable - something that is on the fringes of possibility.

Back to the thread - one of the major differences between mental magic and mentalism is whether there is the possibility that what you're doing could be real. Mental magic is usually impossible and there's no reason for why it happens. You pick a card/write down a person's name etc. and I tell you what it is. Mentalism provides a context for what you're doing (or at least it should be that way). I don't really think the issue is whether you include magic tricks or not.

When 'doing mentalism' I try and be as real as possible. I like to use methods where I am in fact 'reading their mind' - using a pendulum or muscle reading, or trying to figure out what mood they're in and where they are in their life's journey. I try to genuinely use intuition - and it's not as accurate as using other methods, but often is and is usually a whole lot more meaningful - and a whole lot more satisfying for me. I guess it's because I'm really connecting with other human beings in a helpful way. When I do use other methods - peeks, etc. I try and be only just that little bit more accurate than if I'm trying to do the real thing.

Coming back to the mental magic thing - if I got someone's name - as a magician I would reveal the person's name - that's it. It would be about me and how I can do the impossible. In what I mentioned above I would rather try and describe the person based on their name, try and figure out what relationship with this person is etc. in otherwords - instead of doing the impossible, I'm doing the possible - albeit on the fringes of what is possible in the person's mind.

I'm relatively new to this 'game' - so what I'm saying may or may not be the right answer. All I know is that at the moment it's really working for me..

Captain Fantastic wrote:Although I can acknowledge that everything I do are tricks, I just hate the word. If you say to someone (an audience member for example) that you are going to do a 'trick' that is exactly how they see it. Just pure trickery. I call everything I do a routine. This way the audience sees something more serious...lets give the audience a sense of not knowing when they leave a gig rather than the thought of, 'Nice tricks!!'

Absolutely. I agree with you 100%, and this is pretty much my approach to magic now. I have gotten rid of all card tricks which seem to rely on sleight of hand and 'trickery', I found people dismissing my work too quickly, labelling it as a trick even though they didn't know how it was done. As such my effects now don't appear to have any sleight of hand, even if they do use it. If the spectator doesn't think sleight of hand is necessary to achieve it, then they wont start thinking down those lines!

I try to give some space and seriousness to what I do. Which is why I'm bringing in genuine psychological techniques. To refer to my most recent effect which I mention in my first post of this thread there is a mixture of psychology and trickery. The trickery comes in them locating the right card - for them to genuinely find it would be ridiculously difficult, and nigh on impossible.
There is no 'magicians force' or 'equivoce', it is just some conjuring that brings about the desired effect. However, the fact that their hand freezes, their mind becomes blank and the sensations they feel inside when they experience 'seeing with the fingertips' are all genuine. There is no trickery here. These are all sensations and experiences they have in their mind. So the trick is NOT about finding to card for me, maybe it is for them, but for me it is more being able to convince them that they are losing control of their own mind. Its incredibly satisfying, and the beauty is that whether or not they genuinely find themselves unable to move or speak they will always end up locating the card. The trick will seem impossible regardless of how involved they become.
Also because it is framed as an experiment in 'instinct' and not 'psychic' abilities, they are more likely to fully become involved, and do not start assuming trickery is involved, wrapped up in a false package. The fact that 'gut reaction' and 'instinct' could not genuinely achieve these effects seems beside the point, they find no need to try and work out what had happened.

My performance style is moving this way generally. I like to demonstrate experiments in areas like ideomotor and instinct. However, I take the 'experiments' one at a time, becoming gradually more extreme until the point where they believe that ideomotor reaction can result in bending cards and metal. While this is of course trickery, the ability to massage their minds into a place where they accept ridiculous claims because I have gradually pushed them there, step by step, is some real mind play. Whether it is mentalism is irrelevant I feel, it is an experience in the mind which is beyond sleight of hand and trickery for them, and is a whole lot more satisfying and enjoyable for me.

the sensations they feel inside when they experience 'seeing with the fingertips' are all genuine

Even further off topic but worth thinking about - some years ago a very skilled violinist died and at his family's request an autopsy was carried out. In the course of this process it was decided to look closely at the man's fingertips and it was found that he had a grey substance under each tip and this substance was identical to brain tissue. The inference was that his fingers had, over the years and as a result of countless hours of practicing, developed their own additional sensory system to allow accurate and sensitive playing.

Whilst I'm very much a sceptic about matters mental, I'm equally convinced that we shouldn’t swiftly dismiss possibilities out of hand. Entertainers will achieve mentalist-like results through very ordinary processes, true mentalists may achieve similar results but by their own processes. Either way, it's an intriguing result!

So, can we say that mentalism uses the spectator's mind as the primary tool as well as it beng the recipient of the end effect, whereas mental magic uses other objects (cards, etc.) to create that effect in the spectator's mind?

I'm tryng to get a handle on the two definitions.

Tomo wrote:So, can we say that mentalism uses the spectator's mind as the primary tool as well as it beng the recipient of the end effect, whereas mental magic uses other objects (cards, etc.) to create that effect in the spectator's mind?

I'm tryng to get a handle on the two definitions.

Yes, I think so. Although is it impossible for a mentalist to use cards, even if there is mind play at work?

...what i also find misleading/confusing is that as an amateur we trust our peers to show us the right path, yet at the same time we have others saying "what so-and-so do isnt mentalism, its mind-magic..."

How are we supposed to know? Are we being manipulated by our peers to make a quick shilling in that case? Are we being misled by the very people we look up to?

Just as an example - Ted Lesley - Paramiracles - mentalism or mental/mind-magic? Whose gonna tell him to stop using the word mentalism in his book?

What right would i have as an amateur write to him and say "Dear Mr. Lesley, As much as i enjoyed your book, please, when you next re-print - change your phrases!"

You can't expect someone starting out in any field to suddenly "know" the difference between one sub-strand to another surely...(unless i suppose they did have a real psychic gift)...especially when there's so many opinions on it from some well respected 'real-workers'....

which leads me onto this, which is kinda all related...

The marvellous Mr. Knepper says this:
http://www.online-visions.com/krystal/0212kentonk.html

and this!
http://www.online-visions.com/krystal/0303kenton.html

and finally....
http://www.online-visions.com/krystal/0507cards.html

now i'll shut up...

This has been buzzing around in my mind a lot now, and while I can see how to define the two groups I stumble apon problems when I try to write them down!
I imagine now that a mental magician performs card tricks (etc) that appear 'mental' but have nothing to do with any kind of mind reading or mind control. A mentalist on the other hand is doing something outside of sleight of hand, actually dealing in the realms of unsaid thoughts.

However, I find difficulty in anyone arguing that one is better than the other. The mentalist cannot argue that the mental magician is just performing a trick that appears mental, when in fact they are doing just the same. Where do you draw the line? Is a card trick less worthy than a mind trick?
Maybe it is, but only if you subscribe to your own sense of superiority...