Thoughts on Failing

Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
A month or two ago, I had a party with a group of magician friends. One of things that came up in the early hours of the morning was a conversation between myself and a good friend of mine who primarily performs card magic and flourishes (I'm a mentalist, incidentally) about failing in magic. And I realised as I was talking to him that he did not at all understand the reason why anyone might intentionally fail.

I don't know whether it was the amount of alcohol we had consumed, or whether it was magician mentality, compared to that of a mentalist - but I do distinctly remember that I didn't do a very good job explaining it. So I wanted to rectify that here, and put forward a bunch of (hopefully) cohesive thoughts about failing in magic and mentalism. This may well be common knowledge to some of the more experienced guys around here, so excuse these thoughts if they appear commonsensical, obvious, or self-explanatory to you already. To those who haven't encountered or considered this before, though, especially to budding mentalists, I would suggest that you consider this in your performances.

So, why fail? I speak here of course about intentional failures, and unavoidable misses. For the first category, an example would be predicting the number 364 when the spectator had written down 346. For the second category, an example would be missing a psychological force. Expressly excluded is f***ing up a classic pass, either due to lack of practice, or because a flying pig hit you in the face as you were executing the sleight.

So, again, why fail? I think there are three good reasons for failing or missing - or at least assuming the risk of doing so.

1) Reinforcing the reality of your performance
2) Creating a logical disconnect with the method
3) The reward outweighs the risk

1) Reinforcing the reality of your performance

I won't go too much into this point because it is primarily for the mentalist. Essentially, the line of thinking goes that an occasional miss, coupled with some sure hits, increases the believability of the premise of your effects and of your character. No psychologist reading body language could tell 100% for sure. A medium may be sick, and therefore feeling slightly off. It distinguishes mentalism, the "real" stuff, from magic, because reality is imperfect.

2) Creating a logical disconnect with the method

Here, we can traverse further into the field of more traditional magic. Specifically, I am talking of prediction effects, for example (not necessarily premonition or mind-reading based effects - just prediction effects). Of course, all of these points are based in my (limited and certainly fallible) experience in mentalism, and especially apply there, but in magic too.

The idea behind this thought is this: If you peek a card containing a chosen number, then you would know the number. Since you know the number, you can't possibly get it wrong. Therefore, by saying 741 instead of 714 creates a logical disconnect with the method. Logically, if you had used a peek, you would know the number. The fact that you got the number slightly wrong hides the method behind an extra layer of deception, and makes the mystery stronger. Therefore, the thinking goes, you can't have used a peek, because if you did, you'd know the number perfectly.

This is the most common example - logical disconnects involving peeks, but of course the concept is a powerful one - not just in the context of failing/missing, or in the context of peeks.

3) The reward outweighs the risk

There are many many effects that fall into this category. Two examples would be psychological forces, and an overhand shuffle whilst using key cards (a card magic example - yay!).

There are of course two elements here, as the title suggests - first, how great is the reward? If you hit this, will it be a reputation maker? Some effects are like that. Several I perform are like that - to name but one, Derren Brown's Invisible Deal Force, which I currently have a 90-95% hit rate with. With such effects - this is one thing my friend could not get his head around - if you fail, or miss... So what? He mentioned that audiences do not want to watch you fail... Well, of course not, but it's not like you're failing time after time. As for that one fail... So what? Perhaps they will be disappointed - but there's a lot more to it than that, and if one failure would completely ruin the mood of the rest of your performance, then the problem isn't failing. But if it hits, as it is (hopefully) likely to - it is the stuff legends are made of, that an hour of your best tricks could never replicate. That, to me, is worth it.

That leads onto the second element, which is risk. What is the chance of failing? Also, what are the consequences of failing? If you have a card in your pocket, and ask them to name a card casually, well, there's no risk of failure. For the Invisible Deal Force, you spend a minute building it up. Other effects put even more into it. If it messes up - it really messes up quite heavily. You have to decide whether the potential reward is worth it, given the risk of messing up involved, and how steep the price of missing is.

Let me illustrate this with an example. Earlier this evening, I performed a three phase effect to a friend. Each phase uses the same method, and has a significant risk of failing (to give you an idea, I failed the first eight times in a row I practiced this). Essentially, I just performed the same thing, an idea, three times. Phase one hit. Phase two hit. He then shuffled the cards for three entire minutes. And then phase three hit in an even more spectacular way. And he proceeded to swear loudly for the next two minutes - literally. Each time, I was worried sick - I was happy to hit once, I thought I was pushing it hitting it twice, though the odds are still in my favour, and I should have stopped there, but I did it a third time - definitely worth the risk.

Sometimes, an effect is so strong that you can tolerate even an expensive miss. Sometimes, not. But definitely consider the risk involved - don't discard anything simply because of it.

I finally want to add here a thought on outs.

Many people are tempted to go for outs when the risk of missing arises.

Well... Yes and no. Some outs and good. Some outs are not good. The important thing is - don't fall in love with outs. You don't want that sort of thinking. Learn to like risk - it makes you more aware.

If you can use an out, then do it. An example for an out for psychological card forcing is Marc Oberon's Bang On. That's a good out.

Use good outs, if you wish (I prefer not to, but that's a personal choice). But don't ever use bad outs - just for the sake of having something to save face. Don't ever push it - if the effect is weakened by having the out, or in other words, if the effect strength does not match that of the primary effect, or does not match the build up that you have given the effect, then don't use it. I would venture that a poor out is weaker than a miss.

So there you go. I hope that this articulates, better than I did that night, the reasons one might consider failing in a controlled and deliberate manner.

Good times!
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
Looking forward to it Liderc, thanks.

I'm a little disappointed but not surprised more magicians haven't replied to the thread. Reading about it is very abstract and hard to imagine. See it working, and you'll appreciate why it's an important ploy.
 
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
An important growth on failing is how you acctually fail. It needs to make sense in the reality of how you are demonstrating the power. Imaging if you will we are trying to figure out a two digit number, imagine if you will if you were to figure out the number buy seeing the image they see. The number 34 and 35 don't look too much alike. However 32 and 35 could if a small dsylexic moment came into the mind reading. Likewise it makes more sense seeing numbers out of order than it does being off by one. On the other hand if you were doing it say by a muscle reading on a number line or something of that nature then it would make perfect sense to be off by one.

As for intentionally missing, even as a mentalist I don't do it. I miss a lot in my shows however I just don't do it intentionally. The points where I miss is usually fishing for more information and things of that nature. I have when performing gone down the wrong path when I have been performing if I have been lucky and hit a lot in the show. However I cannot intentionally miss on any piece that I don't have the intention to come back to and fix it before the show is out.
 

CaseyRudd

Director of Operations
Team member
Jun 5, 2009
3,393
3,801
Charleston, SC
www.instagram.com
For me, a failure is never a failure. By this I mean that a "failure" is a lesson in which you learn from your mistakes. I feel as if failures guide across the right path in which you should follow. It takes you and leads you in the right direction. We all make mistakes, and we always learn from them. So in the end, is it REALLY a failure?

-Casey
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
D - Fair enough, some good thoughts. I should clarify - By missing, I mean partial missing, not complete missing, unless we're talking about psychological forces as so forth - calculated risks. The things you mentioned in your first paragraph. But ultimately, I know that you are more than aware of these things, and of course it's always a personal choice, especially for mentalists.

CRP - I think you've misunderstood this thread buddy. I don't mean failure. I mean either intentionally being mistaken in a trick, or taking on a calculated risk - not as in the performer making a genuine mistake.
 
Sep 4, 2007
207
0
Kansas City
When I'm doing one of my mentalism routines, I tend to jumble things up on purpose on a few of the lower impact pieces. Typically when I'm just starting out as "information travelling from the spirits takes time to become clear as the energies have to align properly". It adds a sense of realism and mystery to the show as my predictions and "guesses" slowly become more and more accurate until I do my closer.
 

CaseyRudd

Director of Operations
Team member
Jun 5, 2009
3,393
3,801
Charleston, SC
www.instagram.com
D - Fair enough, some good thoughts. I should clarify - By missing, I mean partial missing, not complete missing, unless we're talking about psychological forces as so forth - calculated risks. The things you mentioned in your first paragraph. But ultimately, I know that you are more than aware of these things, and of course it's always a personal choice, especially for mentalists.

CRP - I think you've misunderstood this thread buddy. I don't mean failure. I mean either intentionally being mistaken in a trick, or taking on a calculated risk - not as in the performer making a genuine mistake.

I meant that in terms or intentionally failing. To the spectator, did we really fail? Or were we really that close? It displaces them a little bit because if you got it right everytime, there would be a lot of speculation, If you were off by a few intentionally, they would still be shocked because you still got the "image". It's not really a failure. Even though you weren't completely right intentionally, to them it's a bit better because they can think you really did see an image of what they were thinking. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I've been up all night playing Soda Pong and going on the last bit of energy before I pass out on my bed. haha.

-Casey
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
This is a really nice post Prae. I first wanted to add that Dai Vernon was known for sometimes using risky methods in the hope of hitting the jackpot.

There is an anecdote about Vernon Meeting Cliff Green the first time, and Cliff Green asked him what kind of magic he did. Vernon asked him to name any card, and lo and behold, the named card was the top card of the deck Vernon was holding. You can imagine how speechless Cliff Green was.

So yes, this kind of idea is certainly applicable to card magic as well.

1) Reinforcing the reality of your performance

I won't go too much into this point because it is primarily for the mentalist. Essentially, the line of thinking goes that an occasional miss, coupled with some sure hits, increases the believability of the premise of your effects and of your character. No psychologist reading body language could tell 100% for sure. A medium may be sick, and therefore feeling slightly off. It distinguishes mentalism, the "real" stuff, from magic, because reality is imperfect.

Of course, it is important that the mentalist be a good actor, so that he effectively conveys how hard it is to really divine the information. A bad actor will not be able to take risks effectively because he will have a hard time selling the effect as the real deal.

2) Creating a logical disconnect with the method

Here, we can traverse further into the field of more traditional magic. Specifically, I am talking of prediction effects, for example (not necessarily premonition or mind-reading based effects - just prediction effects). Of course, all of these points are based in my (limited and certainly fallible) experience in mentalism, and especially apply there, but in magic too.

The idea behind this thought is this: If you peek a card containing a chosen number, then you would know the number. Since you know the number, you can't possibly get it wrong. Therefore, by saying 741 instead of 714 creates a logical disconnect with the method. Logically, if you had used a peek, you would know the number. The fact that you got the number slightly wrong hides the method behind an extra layer of deception, and makes the mystery stronger. Therefore, the thinking goes, you can't have used a peek, because if you did, you'd know the number perfectly.

This is the most common example - logical disconnects involving peeks, but of course the concept is a powerful one - not just in the context of failing/missing, or in the context of peeks.

You make a valid point about hiding the method itself by using a logical disconnect, but I suspect this is probably valid only for mentalism. Close up magicians should try other methods for putting a logical disconnect between method and effect (See Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles for details).

3) The reward outweighs the risk

I think the Vernon anecdote illustrates this amply.

I finally want to add here a thought on outs.

Many people are tempted to go for outs when the risk of missing arises.

Well... Yes and no. Some outs and good. Some outs are not good. The important thing is - don't fall in love with outs. You don't want that sort of thinking. Learn to like risk - it makes you more aware.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of "The trick that cannot be explained"? It seems to involve both the risk aspect as well as the idea of coming up with outs on the fly.
 
Dec 18, 2007
1,610
14
64
Northampton, MA - USA
Some interesting replies but when it comes to Mentalism, which is ALL I do these days, the occasional miss simply makes you seem to be far more "real" vs. a magician trying to B.S. the public.

I have a couple of friends locally that THINK they do mentalism but neither of them will use Psychological Forces or other "iffy" routines. They still think like magicians and want sure-fire material which the public sees straight through.

Why?

Because real psychics are rarely more than 80-85% accurate.

You don't have to plan misses in your show, they WILL come naturally; especially if you are using techniques that have a failure risk around them. But don't fear them!
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
Good thoughts guys, I'm glad that there have been some really good thoughts. I particularly like Craig's differentiation between magician and mentalist mentality (ugh, wish there was a nicer way to phrase that), and descartes' thoughts as well.

descartes - about the Vernon trick... I like it a lot. The first version of such I was exposed to was Juan Tamariz's Mnemonicosis in Mnemonica. Having read Vernon's description since, I think it's wonderful because it keeps the performer on their toes. There's very little that will make you aware of every little thing like a bit of risk. It's a nice feeling to have, and it's a reminder to keep engaging with the people in our lives. It's so easy to cruise, and difficult to shine.

Although I don't perform it, and never have (although I did perform Mnemonicosis for a while), I still use it as an exercise in improvisation, trying to find cards in different ways. Though I don't perform card magic, the general idea of the exercise is quite good for keeping me on my toes.
 
Oct 29, 2009
971
0
Just around
Really nice thread Prae. It's something that I've given a little thought too, and you brought it back up in my mind.

Something that I've been wondering for a long time, is it possible to be too perfect? Is it possible, to do a trick that just seems too good, that the spectators instantly write it off as some gimmick/trick because it's too perfect? I do think it's rare, but I've come across a few things that fit that idea.

Like you said, adding a sense of realism (mistakes) makes it so much more real. Because in life, nothing is perfect. I do think (like Craig said) that magicians think differently than mentalists. Magicians tend to want everything perfect, every trick foolproof and angleproof. I've even noticed a lot of guys saying that a trick isn't that good because it has a bad angle. Or that it is only for camera, not the real world.

Mentalists tend to take more risks. Nothing against magicians, but it's just a trend I've noticed. But magicians can break that trend.

The only problem with being mentalist is that you can't (at least very well) perform in a loud, party environment. It's possible, but you won't be able to give your effects the time they deserve.
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
Really nice thread Prae. It's something that I've given a little thought too, and you brought it back up in my mind.

Something that I've been wondering for a long time, is it possible to be too perfect? Is it possible, to do a trick that just seems too good, that the spectators instantly write it off as some gimmick/trick because it's too perfect? I do think it's rare, but I've come across a few things that fit that idea.

What you are referring to is the "Too perfect Theory". It is one of those things that is debated endlessly by magicians. People are often very sloppy about how they describe the theory itself and how they think it should be applied. It is actually worth a new thread on its own.
 
Nov 7, 2008
295
0
Hofstra Univ.
i wrote about the too perfect theory in a thread about prediction effects.

I was sitting in Fantasma and someone was showing this great trick. It was a brilliant psychological force but was done so fairly you weren't really sure. At the end of the trick when he named the card everyone was floored. Then he turned over a wallet that had been on the table to whole time and revealed that the card was stamped on the back the whole time. In revealing the back of the wallet he in essence showed how the trick was done and thus killed the moment of astonishment.

Just food for thought
~Chrisfecto
 
Dec 18, 2007
1,610
14
64
Northampton, MA - USA
As someone that's done a good deal of effect development over the years I can tell you first hand that there are builders out there that will deliberately do things with a prop so as to keep the effect from being "too perfect". I know that sounds odd but it's become a "thing" as the result of one particular grand illusion -- the Buzz Saw. To this very day it is considered to be one of the most perfect, most impossible illusions ever conceived... at least from a public perspective, there are other odds & ends out there that are actually superior but rare... and I'll not go into that vein of stuff.

Magic that's "too perfect" when it comes to the deception, can actually frighten folks. You might laugh but I've actually been asked to not do certain routines because of how certain patrons of a facility had religious & cultural issues with them... a genuine belief in Voodoo, etc. But there is a huge difference between technical perfection and being theatrically perfect... I've used some of the biggest, ugliest props going more than a few times but understood how to frame them so they "fit" theatrically... the best example I can give you would be the Center Tear... I personally loathe the thing because it is the most illogical technique in the whole business BUT when you find routines in which tearing up the paper someone just wrote on makes sense, you'd be stupid to not use it... it's theatrically appropriate vs. using it any old time because you know it and it's convenient.

I don't want to get into a back & forth over the CT and the supposed psychology of justification when using it... I've never liked the piece and it's never fooled me... not since I was a kid and learned it from the a cereal box give away. While there are ways to use it that are logical they are few and far between. Besides that any Mentalist worth his weight should know how to use Acidus Novus and not have to worry about such a dumb maneuver. (insert laughing face here).

Mentalism and Bizarre Magick (unless you want to do the silly version of it) both operate on the grounds of audience investment; a commitment of sorts in which "belief" is a prime part. Ignore the magic for a minute and look at how powerful words can be in and of their own when used by a skilled orator like Joshua Kane or Orson Wells for that matter. Even the written word can suck you into an altered state in which you become a part of the story. This is exactly what Bizarrists and Mentalists shoot for; we want to suck the spectators in as deep as we can so they can EXPERIENCE what it is we are sharing. These are interactive art forms vs. observational theater, which is where traditional magic comes into to play. Though there are bits in which audience participation happens it is, for the most part, observational much in the way music or comedy is. This makes it "safe" because the public knows ahead of time that it's all tricks -- smoke & mirrors -- they are there to be amused via the trickery and how the magician frames each sequence.

Mentalism, in particular, invokes belief with bold deliberateness; as Stephan Minch suggested long ago, the mentalist walks just on the edge of "ethics" with one foot in the world of the thespian and the other deeply entrenched in the realm of the charlatan. We take credit for random happenstance, make miracles out of mole-hills, and get people to willingly go wherever WE wish to take them regardless the genre we work in; the Psychic, the "Expert", the Psychologist/NLPer, etc. it's all a facade no matter which theme you've chosen to work with and it's up to you to make that facade more than a house of cards; you are obliged to build it up so it is believable.

Most of my work has very strong "I'm a real psychic" insinuation to it and for one big reason; I come from a family in which Readers, Dowsers, Healers and even snake charming preachers were common. I likewise have a long personal history within the Pagan & New Age sub-cultures that's 100% "shut-eye" (has nothing to do with magic, performing, etc. it's simply my personal path, so to speak). I've written countless articles for publications tied to these groups, lead workshops, done lectures, etc. for over 30 years now, so I'm quite established as an legit expert in that world: I'd be stupid to not use it to my favor when working as a psychic entertainer, wouldn't I?

This is the kind of foundation I'm talking about and what makes the "true" mentalist stand out from the magician that does mental magic or worse, the clowns that want to be Derren, Criss or David... or Steve... for that matter take a look at Banachek and how he has done the very same thing I've done but from an alternative "theme". The same can be said for Derren Brown though his style mirrors a culmination of Max Maven and Banachek wrapped up in one arrogant package. But he's damn good at what he does and people walk away not completely certain which was the lie; his revealing a supposed truth in how charlatans take advantage of folks or what he demonstrated being genuine and the other simply a means by which to cover his butt legally... Banachek has commented on this very point a few times when it comes to post show reactions. But that's exactly what you are supposed to be shooting for IF you're a mentalist... otherwise you're just doing tricks.

If you look at the yesteryear writers like Nelson, Hull, Larsen, etc. you will find one thing repeated almost constantly; we never make specific or grandiose claims nor do we confirm or deny ties to the esoteric/gifts of the spirit or any other such assumptions made by our patrons. There is a new generations of "young" people that have discovered this path and traded in their sponge balls and hippity hop bunnies in exchange for a career that's one of the most unique you could ask for... and though "show biz" is part of it, it's not the whole thing.

Perfection, is when you find yourself creating the image... the grandest of all illusions -- yourself! It is the act of defining the who and what you are as a performer and holding to that path. In time, as you allow this focus to develop your knowledge, your skills, and your various associations you will find that Perfect Effect... it will be you being viewed by your patrons, peers and community in the role of being a legitimate expert... being what you claim vs. trying to act a role you're not prepared for.

I've rambled sufficiently but I hope I've helped some of you at least, to see a bit clearer, what defines a Mentalist and segregates us from the traditional magic mode and why it is so important to immerse yourself into this arena, refining your skill set so as to define you, your claims and specialty.

Maybe I should write this up and give you a sticky essay...
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
Really nice thread Prae. It's something that I've given a little thought too, and you brought it back up in my mind.

Something that I've been wondering for a long time, is it possible to be too perfect? Is it possible, to do a trick that just seems too good, that the spectators instantly write it off as some gimmick/trick because it's too perfect? I do think it's rare, but I've come across a few things that fit that idea.

Like you said, adding a sense of realism (mistakes) makes it so much more real. Because in life, nothing is perfect. I do think (like Craig said) that magicians think differently than mentalists. Magicians tend to want everything perfect, every trick foolproof and angleproof. I've even noticed a lot of guys saying that a trick isn't that good because it has a bad angle. Or that it is only for camera, not the real world.

Mentalists tend to take more risks. Nothing against magicians, but it's just a trend I've noticed. But magicians can break that trend.

The only problem with being mentalist is that you can't (at least very well) perform in a loud, party environment. It's possible, but you won't be able to give your effects the time they deserve.

Well, as mentioned below you, the Too Perfect Theory is hotly contested. I've seen a fair share of disagreement over what the theory even entails.

Although I agree that magicians tend to spend too much time obsessing over needing something perfect - angle proof (learn to manage your audience), impromptu (what's wrong with a set up? It just means you can't obnoxiously show off with your cards before you perform real magic), 100% foolproof (part of what I was getting at with risk vs. return), etc., this is to do with method. On this point, briefly, yes, I hinted at this in my original post. Take chances, take risks - when done well, they provide ample return beyond what you would normally get. What is important is audience perception. Yes, some tricks are genuinely impractical in the real world. But most of the time, the excuse is exactly that - an excuse to be lazy, and not have to practice the difficult stuff - no, not the sleights - talking to people. It's a narrow minded perspective that is performer-centric, not participant-centric. I wrote another topic, link in my signature, entitled Selflessness - One precursor to apathy, about why the performer does matter. But, the participant still needs to be the centre of the focus. The problem with looking for a perfect effect is several fold - firstly, it causes you to unfairly discard wonderful material. Secondly, there are no perfect methods. Thirdly, it distracts from the wonder of magic. Finally, it is a self-orientated way of thinking, which defeats and detracts from the purpose of magic (to instill wonder).

Briefly, on the Too Perfect Theory... Bottom line is, I'm not sure whether I believe in it or not. This may sound like a cop-out answer, but is less so than it appears. I'll phrase it this way - I have never had a problem with an effect being "too perfect". I don't know about anyone else, but I have never had any real spectator say "Was that a gimmick?" I don't agree from my experience that an effect can be too impossible, or that the impossible makes them think that there is a trick behind it. If they think that there is a gimmick or trick behind it, then it wasn't truly impossible at all, was it? Part of the beauty of magic is forcing them to confront what is impossible. Very little can break through in such a way.

And on performing mentalism in loud venues... It's mostly true - excepting a few things like metal bending. But, to be honest... Why would you want to perform there? In my opinion mentalism's pull is that it's inherently personal. Loud venues create a distinct barrier against that. You are defeating yourself before you begin.

i wrote about the too perfect theory in a thread about prediction effects.

I was sitting in Fantasma and someone was showing this great trick. It was a brilliant psychological force but was done so fairly you weren't really sure. At the end of the trick when he named the card everyone was floored. Then he turned over a wallet that had been on the table to whole time and revealed that the card was stamped on the back the whole time. In revealing the back of the wallet he in essence showed how the trick was done and thus killed the moment of astonishment.

Just food for thought
~Chrisfecto

Again, briefly - I don't have any problem with arguments in favour of the Too Perfect Theory. I don't have any experience to support it, but that's my opinion. Your example, however, I think is a bad example of the theory, and not really an example of the theory at all. That's not being too perfect - that's just poor effect construction. He essentially took a good trick, added something to it, and made it a bad trick. It didn't it too perfect, it made it mediocre.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
As someone that's done a good deal of effect development over the years I can tell you first hand that there are builders out there that will deliberately do things with a prop so as to keep the effect from being "too perfect". I know that sounds odd but it's become a "thing" as the result of one particular grand illusion -- the Buzz Saw. To this very day it is considered to be one of the most perfect, most impossible illusions ever conceived... at least from a public perspective, there are other odds & ends out there that are actually superior but rare... and I'll not go into that vein of stuff.

Magic that's "too perfect" when it comes to the deception, can actually frighten folks. You might laugh but I've actually been asked to not do certain routines because of how certain patrons of a facility had religious & cultural issues with them... a genuine belief in Voodoo, etc. But there is a huge difference between technical perfection and being theatrically perfect... I've used some of the biggest, ugliest props going more than a few times but understood how to frame them so they "fit" theatrically... the best example I can give you would be the Center Tear... I personally loathe the thing because it is the most illogical technique in the whole business BUT when you find routines in which tearing up the paper someone just wrote on makes sense, you'd be stupid to not use it... it's theatrically appropriate vs. using it any old time because you know it and it's convenient.

I don't want to get into a back & forth over the CT and the supposed psychology of justification when using it... I've never liked the piece and it's never fooled me... not since I was a kid and learned it from the a cereal box give away. While there are ways to use it that are logical they are few and far between. Besides that any Mentalist worth his weight should know how to use Acidus Novus and not have to worry about such a dumb maneuver. (insert laughing face here).

Mentalism and Bizarre Magick (unless you want to do the silly version of it) both operate on the grounds of audience investment; a commitment of sorts in which "belief" is a prime part. Ignore the magic for a minute and look at how powerful words can be in and of their own when used by a skilled orator like Joshua Kane or Orson Wells for that matter. Even the written word can suck you into an altered state in which you become a part of the story. This is exactly what Bizarrists and Mentalists shoot for; we want to suck the spectators in as deep as we can so they can EXPERIENCE what it is we are sharing. These are interactive art forms vs. observational theater, which is where traditional magic comes into to play. Though there are bits in which audience participation happens it is, for the most part, observational much in the way music or comedy is. This makes it "safe" because the public knows ahead of time that it's all tricks -- smoke & mirrors -- they are there to be amused via the trickery and how the magician frames each sequence.

Mentalism, in particular, invokes belief with bold deliberateness; as Stephan Minch suggested long ago, the mentalist walks just on the edge of "ethics" with one foot in the world of the thespian and the other deeply entrenched in the realm of the charlatan. We take credit for random happenstance, make miracles out of mole-hills, and get people to willingly go wherever WE wish to take them regardless the genre we work in; the Psychic, the "Expert", the Psychologist/NLPer, etc. it's all a facade no matter which theme you've chosen to work with and it's up to you to make that facade more than a house of cards; you are obliged to build it up so it is believable.

Most of my work has very strong "I'm a real psychic" insinuation to it and for one big reason; I come from a family in which Readers, Dowsers, Healers and even snake charming preachers were common. I likewise have a long personal history within the Pagan & New Age sub-cultures that's 100% "shut-eye" (has nothing to do with magic, performing, etc. it's simply my personal path, so to speak). I've written countless articles for publications tied to these groups, lead workshops, done lectures, etc. for over 30 years now, so I'm quite established as an legit expert in that world: I'd be stupid to not use it to my favor when working as a psychic entertainer, wouldn't I?

This is the kind of foundation I'm talking about and what makes the "true" mentalist stand out from the magician that does mental magic or worse, the clowns that want to be Derren, Criss or David... or Steve... for that matter take a look at Banachek and how he has done the very same thing I've done but from an alternative "theme". The same can be said for Derren Brown though his style mirrors a culmination of Max Maven and Banachek wrapped up in one arrogant package. But he's damn good at what he does and people walk away not completely certain which was the lie; his revealing a supposed truth in how charlatans take advantage of folks or what he demonstrated being genuine and the other simply a means by which to cover his butt legally... Banachek has commented on this very point a few times when it comes to post show reactions. But that's exactly what you are supposed to be shooting for IF you're a mentalist... otherwise you're just doing tricks.

If you look at the yesteryear writers like Nelson, Hull, Larsen, etc. you will find one thing repeated almost constantly; we never make specific or grandiose claims nor do we confirm or deny ties to the esoteric/gifts of the spirit or any other such assumptions made by our patrons. There is a new generations of "young" people that have discovered this path and traded in their sponge balls and hippity hop bunnies in exchange for a career that's one of the most unique you could ask for... and though "show biz" is part of it, it's not the whole thing.

Perfection, is when you find yourself creating the image... the grandest of all illusions -- yourself! It is the act of defining the who and what you are as a performer and holding to that path. In time, as you allow this focus to develop your knowledge, your skills, and your various associations you will find that Perfect Effect... it will be you being viewed by your patrons, peers and community in the role of being a legitimate expert... being what you claim vs. trying to act a role you're not prepared for.

I've rambled sufficiently but I hope I've helped some of you at least, to see a bit clearer, what defines a Mentalist and segregates us from the traditional magic mode and why it is so important to immerse yourself into this arena, refining your skill set so as to define you, your claims and specialty.

Maybe I should write this up and give you a sticky essay...

I would have phrase some of your thoughts in a different way (your thoughts re: CT, for one - yes, the key is to use it in the right situation - but your problem appears to be with poor usage of the move, not the move itself. Having said that, you're right, this is beside the point of the topic), but I think that that is a wonderful explanation of what defines a mentalist. Very nice thoughts.
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
Briefly, on the Too Perfect Theory... Bottom line is, I'm not sure whether I believe in it or not. This may sound like a cop-out answer, but is less so than it appears. I'll phrase it this way - I have never had a problem with an effect being "too perfect". I don't know about anyone else, but I have never had any real spectator say "Was that a gimmick?"

See, this is part of the problem. When someone sees the words "Too Perfect", they usually end up confused because it is so vague and seems nonsensical. Many people take the term literally and ask "How can an effect be too perfect? It is either perfect or it isnt". In my mind, the too perfect theory is actually about how an effect is constructed and the consequences of bad construction in some cases.

I don't agree from my experience that an effect can be too impossible, or that the impossible makes them think that there is a trick behind it. If they think that there is a gimmick or trick behind it, then it wasn't truly impossible at all, was it? Part of the beauty of magic is forcing them to confront what is impossible. Very little can break through in such a way.

......

Again, briefly - I don't have any problem with arguments in favour of the Too Perfect Theory. I don't have any experience to support it, but that's my opinion. Your example, however, I think is a bad example of the theory, and not really an example of the theory at all. That's not being too perfect - that's just poor effect construction. He essentially took a good trick, added something to it, and made it a bad trick. It didn't it too perfect, it made it mediocre.

Indeed, the Too perfect theory does talk about effect construction.

Let me explain my understanding of the theory. Suppose you have an effect whose initial impact is extremely strong given the conditions and procedures you have set up. In such cases, whenever the methodology is such that it leads the audience towards only one solution, and the one solution happens to be the true solution, you have ruined the effect by trying to make it "Too Perfect".

So, Chrisfecto's example is actually a good one for this theory. He says that the guy used a psychological force, and presumably after the requisite theatrics/presentation, he revealed the card. This is already a strong effect where the only solution the audience has is that you have genuine mindreading powers.

When he turns the wallet over (which is an incidental prop having nothing to do with anything) and shows that the card was inscribed at the back, the audience reevaluates the situation. How could he have inscribed the card on the side of the wallet while it was in full view, and without touching it? That is impossible, yet the logical explanation is that the inscription was there from the beginning. If it was there from the beginning, it means the magician knew the identity and somehow managed to force the card on the volunteer. The cat is out of the bag and what was a good effect is now destroyed because the magician thought the kicker ending would make it better.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
See, this is part of the problem. When someone sees the words "Too Perfect", they usually end up confused because it is so vague and seems nonsensical. Many people take the term literally and ask "How can an effect be too perfect? It is either perfect or it isnt". In my mind, the too perfect theory is actually about how an effect is constructed and the consequences of bad construction in some cases.



Indeed, the Too perfect theory does talk about effect construction.

Let me explain my understanding of the theory. Suppose you have an effect whose initial impact is extremely strong given the conditions and procedures you have set up. In such cases, whenever the methodology is such that it leads the audience towards only one solution, and the one solution happens to be the true solution, you have ruined the effect by trying to make it "Too Perfect".

So, Chrisfecto's example is actually a good one for this theory. He says that the guy used a psychological force, and presumably after the requisite theatrics/presentation, he revealed the card. This is already a strong effect where the only solution the audience has is that you have genuine mindreading powers.

When he turns the wallet over (which is an incidental prop having nothing to do with anything) and shows that the card was inscribed at the back, the audience reevaluates the situation. How could he have inscribed the card on the side of the wallet while it was in full view, and without touching it? That is impossible, yet the logical explanation is that the inscription was there from the beginning. If it was there from the beginning, it means the magician knew the identity and somehow managed to force the card on the volunteer. The cat is out of the bag and what was a good effect is now destroyed because the magician thought the kicker ending would make it better.

Hmm. Interesting.

See, from my point of view, I don't see the point of the theory if it has to do with construction rather than spectator perception.

For me, the latter is far more important. In the example Chrisfecto gave, I would just call it poor effect construction. I mean, if that's what the TPT is meant to be, then I guess it qualifies, but then I think someone is just making up words for the sake of making up words. The effect isn't too perfect at all. The bottom line is that the effect is crap because the performer made it so using poor effect construction.

I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you on any point. If that's the definition of TPT, then fair enough, it is, but it seems rather silly, almost arbitrary. It's just poor effect construction. It's like having 29 phases in an ACR and calling it the "Too Long Theory". And whilst it might benefit Gazzo to name it as such (sorry, couldn't resist), there's no real point. Having the extra phase is poor effect construction because you're taking away from the main effect and diluting it with an extra, unnecessary thing that drags the strong part down. I can see how it would lead to the explanation being discovered... It's just... Well, it's just rather arbitrary, as I said. I would be far more interested in talking about audience perception (we talk about audience perception in this example too, but the base fault, the base error made, is one of effect construction)...
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
This is turning into a nice discussion.

Hmm. Interesting.

See, from my point of view, I don't see the point of the theory if it has to do with construction rather than spectator perception.

The only thing I would say is that effect construction can affect spectator perception. This is something Darwin Ortiz has insisted on and I tend to agree with him. Therefore, it is not pointless for the theory to deal with the effect construction aspect. In the Too Perfect cases, the effect construction leads the spectators to the method in a very transparent way, thereby ruining the spectators' perception of magic.

For me, the latter is far more important. In the example Chrisfecto gave, I would just call it poor effect construction. I mean, if that's what the TPT is meant to be, then I guess it qualifies, but then I think someone is just making up words for the sake of making up words. The effect isn't too perfect at all. The bottom line is that the effect is crap because the performer made it so using poor effect construction.

I agree that the words "Too Perfect" are a major cause of confusion here. Also, you might want to check out Darwin Ortiz's views on this theory in Designing Miracles. He approaches it from a refreshingly different direction.

In fact, we haven't really talked about one of the more controversial things that Rick Johnsson suggested, namely to introduce red herrings as part of the trick procedure to lead the spectators away from the actual method of the trick. That is likely to kick off another multi page discussion though, so I'll avoid it.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results