Tips for starting on Mentalism?

Jun 19, 2018
71
27
24
Denmark
I have found myself straying further and further away from normal magic. I simply just don't enjoy doing them any more. It just doesn't feel right doing them. I don't think it fits my entire performance.

I have previously wondered if I wanted to be a mentalist, but I decided that I didn't want to restrict myself too much. But as I mentioned, lately, I have found normal magic to just feel wrong, and I almost exclusively perform mental magic.

So I have decided to become a mentalist. But I have realized that while I know what the difference between a mentalist and a magician is (so please, you don't have to explain it to me), I don't know where to start.

I have 13 Steps to Mentalism by Corinda, Psychological Subtleties, Anneman's Practical Mental magic and some other books which I think really are just effects instead of theory. I am also starting to read Luke Jermay's Bulding Blocks, which, so far, is great.

I already have books on Mentalism effects, but I would like to learn the psychology behind making my performance look real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ocelotl

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
Fundamentals by Bob Cassidy. And everything else by him, if you can.

Maximum Entertainment by Ken Weber. Alchemical Tools by Paul Brook. Switchcraft by Elliot Bresler.

Anything by Luke Jermay is good, but you will have to adjust to his writing style.

But the more I study and learn, the more I realize - you just need to study whatever your subject matter is, and become an expert on that. Then you can take simple principles and turn them into miracles with the presentation.
 
May 21, 2018
69
28
Cincinnati, OH
I have found myself straying further and further away from normal magic. I simply just don't enjoy doing them any more. It just doesn't feel right doing them. I don't think it fits my entire performance.

I have previously wondered if I wanted to be a mentalist, but I decided that I didn't want to restrict myself too much. But as I mentioned, lately, I have found normal magic to just feel wrong, and I almost exclusively perform mental magic.

So I have decided to become a mentalist. But I have realized that while I know what the difference between a mentalist and a magician is (so please, you don't have to explain it to me), I don't know where to start.

I have 13 Steps to Mentalism by Corinda, Psychological Subtleties, Anneman's Practical Mental magic and some other books which I think really are just effects instead of theory. I am also starting to read Luke Jermay's Bulding Blocks, which, so far, is great.

I already have books on Mentalism effects, but I would like to learn the psychology behind making my performance look real.

I hold what is perhaps an unconventional view on what the difference is between mental magic and mentalism. A lot of people say it is how it is perceived... that the magician asks you to suspend belief, and the mentalist encourages you to believe. I reject this view though, as the way that I see it is that the difference has nothing to do with how it is performed or perceived. Rather they are two different skill sets, and most hardly do exclusively one. Mentalists still do mental magic, though a lot of magicians are terrified to actually try mentalism because it could involve failure (though they do incorporate mentalism skills into their routines). Here are a list of skills that illustrate what I am talking about: Magic - Sleight of hand, equivoque, concrete multiple outs (where all possible outcomes are covered), illusions (think pk effects), hot reading (stealing a billet and pretending to extract the information), etc. Mentalism - Psychological forces, non-concrete multiple outs (you could fail), cold-reading, mnemonics, muscle reading, etc. Magic is direct and tactical, and mentalism is indirect and strategic. But the good news: The difference doesn't matter to your audience. If a mentalist, a magician, and a genuine mind reader all read a spectators mind and know what person that spectator is thinking of, and they perform this convincingly, the spectator wouldn't know who the real psychic is. That being said, mentalism is generally seen as being more plausible by most lay people, and that is just the nature of the game. I don't know why most people would think making something literally disappear is absurd, and yet the idea that someone could actually be able to read minds is entirely reasonable, but there it is.

For the psychology aspect to make your performance look real, Banachek. Psychological subtleties 1, 2, and 3. Also his Penguin Live lecture.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
nd yet the idea that someone could actually be able to read minds is entirely reasonable, but there it is.

Because there are people who can read minds

It's not supernatural.

I'm so sick of repeating myself on this point.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
I reject this view though, as the way that I see it is that the difference has nothing to do with how it is performed or perceived.

***

If a mentalist, a magician, and a genuine mind reader all read a spectators mind and know what person that spectator is thinking of, and they perform this convincingly, the spectator wouldn't know who the real psychic is. That being said, mentalism is generally seen as being more plausible by most lay people.

Those two statements seem inherently contradictory. It doesn’t make a difference but people believe a true mentalist presentation more.

I agree methods don’t matter. I could do a mentalism show using entirely magic methods (forces, peaks, gimmicks, switches, etc.) that would be as believable as @ChristopherT ’s show which uses systems and skills. How? By disguising the methods within the ordinary (e.g a Stento notebook or index card) or by cloaking the methods in the bizarre and the extraordinary (e.g. using talismans as props).
 
May 21, 2018
69
28
Cincinnati, OH
Those two statements seem inherently contradictory. It doesn’t make a difference but people believe a true mentalist presentation more.

I agree methods don’t matter. I could do a mentalism show using entirely magic methods (forces, peaks, gimmicks, switches, etc.) that would be as believable as @ChristopherT ’s show which uses systems and skills. How? By disguising the methods within the ordinary (e.g a Stento notebook or index card) or by cloaking the methods in the bizarre and the extraordinary (e.g. using talismans as props).

There's no contradiction here. People do tend to find mentalism more credible than magic, but that is not what makes mentalism mentalism according to my view. I think methods do matter because magic and mentalism are just not the same skill sets. Take this as an example: a mentalist is doing an effect through mentalism methods unconvincingly. The audience therefore doesn't believe in what he is doing. We should not therefore "downgrade" him to magician because his audience suspects trickery. I would find that disrespectful to magicians! No, rather that person is a bad mentalist, or a mentalist that isn't good at performing.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
I don’t see a difference between magic methods and mentalism methods. Look at Annemann, Maven, Waters and Leslie’s work - they all contain methods that a magician would be comfortable with. And, as you said, the audience doesn’t know the difference.

I think the difference is in the presentation. Good magic should encourage the suspension of belief (note, I didn’t say disbelief - think about that for a moment). Good mentalism should encourage belief.

Encouraging belief means not mixing mentalism with magic tricks (e.g. Losander’s floating table), keeping a focus on the abilities you are demonstrating (do you read minds, influence people, see the future, read body language or possess telekinetic powers - and you can’t do all of them and be believable), keeping the effects simple and explainable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ocelotl

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
Magic and mentalism have borrowed back and forth from each other for ages. Though I suspect magic has borrowed more from mentalism than the other way around, but that's not founded on any actual data.

This is part of what makes it so difficult to pin down the difference, and why I choose to take the view that the difference is in the theatrical approach.

Also, I'm not convinced that people find mentalism more convincing by default. I think the real issue there is that hundreds, if not thousands, of magicians have spent decades insisting that all magic is tricks. In other words: Trivial.

Mentalists don't do that generally.

So it's not that the audience takes the performance of mentalism more seriously - the performers do, and the audience comes along for the ride.

When Blaine hit TV, I had people (laymen) telling me they thought he was the real deal. Same thing with Criss Angel before he got exposed multiple times for camera tricks and stooges. I'm willing to bet folks say the same thing about Paul Harris.

When magicians perform as if what they are doing is real (as an internal script, not necessarily claiming real supernatural powers), people will go along more thoroughly than when magicians are outright claiming it's a trick the whole time.

It's all in how you perform. In other words - it comes down to presentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ocelotl
May 21, 2018
69
28
Cincinnati, OH
If I am going my my definition, there I am ton of overlap. I don't know that anyone does exclusively one or the other. Magicians will use applied psychology to be more convincing. Mentalists still perform pieces of magic, but don't present it as magic, obviously sleight of hand. I think there is something to be said for how they are presented, but at the same time I would not call someone who exclusively relies on the methods of magic a "mentalist" no matter how convincing they may be. Just my subjective opinion.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results