Magic or trickery?

[RDChopper]

(Long read, be warned)

Magic or trickery?

Jesus, Have I seen this debate to death? A lot of magicians defend the thought of "use theater! sell your effects as real magic!" while other hang to the thought of "Tell them is sleight of hand and let them marvel at your skill, they are not dumb! they of course know that magic doesn't exist!"

I have found myself lost in this discussion for some time witouth knowing what to do, Until I realised that we all could do something really simple( wich I have been doing for some time with great results).

Why not use both?

Whenever someone tell's me what is my set or routines of tricks,I explain my layout like this:

I have two sets of routines/effects and one opener, I call one of the sets "magic" and the other "trickery", and my opener is a pretty standard in the hands transposition.

Now, how does this works? It's simple really, the opening (As some people have pointed out before) in my opinion it's about gaining two things from the spectator, their attention and rapport. If you fail to get any of these two things during your opening trick, you may find yourself in a situation where either they are happy and comfortable around you, but they aren't that interested in your magic, or, they are going to be interested in what you are doing, but they are not going to follow directions right, or simply heckle you for the fun of it.

Now, I'm not going to talk about rapport because it's a topic that's been covered to death(use the search engine) and about attention? I may write about it in the coming days. But for now let's talk about using either magic or trickery as presentation.

I tend to use quite a bit of patter during my tricks, but during the opening sequence (the transposition), I don't try to explain the trick, or add some wicked story, the trick is doing the work all by itself it is "OPENING" people, and I let it do his work, I tend to focus on gathering rapport and attention with them, so that the rest of my tricks can flow well witouth disturbances of either kind.

In my humble opinion, a Magician (among other things) has to be observative and be able to adapt to situations and in the way I perform here is why it is important to have both:

Once I open, there are two possibilities, either they respond to it like it is magic, or they respond to it by thinking that it is trickery.

Of course I would prefer them to think that is something beyond sleight of hand, something either magical or unexplained. I love it.

So, what If they respond to it like it is magic? Then my work becomes easier and I perform my effects with the patter I already have practiced, trying to make them believe furhter more that something else is happening.

Easy, we all know how to perform those kind of tricks.

Now, what about those that love presenting magic as trickery/sleight of hand ? Now, those that defend this kind of thought usually have some very valid points, but in my opinion there is a really bad problem here.

It kills hope. Yeah, sounds cheesy, but often I have found people that try to cling (either if they admit it or not) to the thought that magic maybe exists (I have to say thanks to criss angle for that). And just saying "it is sleight of hand" kills that hope.

So maybe you have found youself in the situation where you enter this fight against the spectator trying to convince him that it is magic, and in response they heckle back.

Try to do it in a more subtle way.

Once I have observed that the spectators react to the trick like "slick hands!" or " wow you are pretty fast", I am (inside) like, "ok, let's play it their way then".

I start performing the effects from my trickery set, just like they think they are performed, I open with Collectors (DnD Version) using gambling as patter, and slowly evolving doing tricks like reset or the invisible palm routine, where more "impossible" feats are occurring.

What it's my aim? I'm not telling them directly "hey believe in magic" but by making the effects evolve in that way, a thought slowly starts to grow inside the spectator" it's sleight of hand, but, could it be something more? He is fast, but there is no logical explanation to that".

At the end of the performance they may still not believe that you are doing magic, but that little pebble will star to grow as doubt in their heads until they doubt thy're own logic.

And I have proof, really try it, I have performed this way and people (who claimed that it all was sleight of hand) later came on their own to ask me very seriously " can it be real magic?"

Try it, and let me hear your thoughts.

 

[Lyle Borders]

Tis the way I work things. I blast people with impossible sleight of hand under the guise of "sleight of hand." I almost beg my audience to catch me in the act.

I then, after getting things fired up, switch gears. My presentation changes from "skill" to "I'm not quite sure how this works, but I know how to make it work." I lead people into a realm of impossible that doesn't look like sleight of hand. I make them start to wonder if I am still tricking them or if they are simply seeing something incredible.


There is no right or wrong to this debate, but I am with you in the idea of using both.

L

 

[Reapx]

I can see your point in this. Its something i havent done in sometime. I usually have a mentalist persona when i perform. but it comes out one of two ways. one is that i act as a psychic and read minds and do some cold readings, but on the other hand when i do PK effects i usually go into the patter of talking about Uri Geller. tell a little about him if they dont know about him. then go and say i unlocked how he did what he did then go in performing some PK stuff.

But I might have to go back sometime and do what you talked about. Its something i lost when i made my persona in magic

 

[RDChopper]

I can see your point in this. Its something i havent done in sometime. I usually have a mentalist persona when i perform. but it comes out one of two ways. one is that i act as a psychic and read minds and do some cold readings, but on the other hand when i do PK effects i usually go into the patter of talking about Uri Geller. tell a little about him if they dont know about him. then go and say i unlocked how he did what he did then go in performing some PK stuff.

But I might have to go back sometime and do what you talked about. Its something i lost when i made my persona in magic

I must say, Card magic and Mentalist are different ballparks

 

[Sir FansAlot]

I must say, Card magic and Mentalist are different ballparks

Yeah based on all the hype.

 

[D ICE R]

I use both in almost all of my work.

In my stage show the first half is a demonstration of skill with the closer being more of a power piece. However in the second half everything grows from the first and it intstantly feels just as real however the people start to believe in my power.

 

[CorbinB]

I would do gambling demonstrations to show off my skill. However, I'm too young for people to take me seriously about cheating at texas hold 'em in a casino, so yeah....For magic though, I just let them think what they want of it. I don't say "and magically your card magically changes with the help of magic....magically" or " I'm going to show off how I uber pwn in card handling guys! Cuz I'm awesome with cards!" If they want to believe it's magic...they will. If they want to believe you're skilled...they will. It's a win-win situation.

-Corbin

 

[Reapx]

I must say, Card magic and Mentalist are different ballparks

to a point you are right. thats why in the end i said i might have to go back to how i used to perform.

But with your statement i can also disagree. card magic and mentalism the key difference between the two is how you want the spectator to see what you are. because (this is my own theory here) you can take any card trick and with enough patter you can turn it into a mentalism trick. and vice versa.

 

[RikAllen]

to a point you are right. thats why in the end i said i might have to go back to how i used to perform.

But with your statement i can also disagree. card magic and mentalism the key difference between the two is how you want the spectator to see what you are. because (this is my own theory here) you can take any card trick and with enough patter you can turn it into a mentalism trick. and vice versa.

I'd like to see the script for a mentalism based story trick (Sam the Bellhop-esk).

Why would you turn one into the other, they're different for a reason. Cards should seldom show up in mentalism. There are many other props you could use to do second sight or mind reading, why playing cards?

I'm not a mentalist, but have studied both magic and mentalism, and wouldn't try to adapt card tricks to mentalism presentations and wouldn't want to turn mentalism into something less than what it should be.

 

[Sir FansAlot]

Cards should seldom show up in mentalism. There are many other props you could use to do second sight or mind reading, why playing cards?

I'm not a mentalist, but have studied both magic and mentalism, and wouldn't try to adapt card tricks to mentalism presentations and wouldn't want to turn mentalism into something less than what it should be.

I don't see why cards shouldn't be used for mentalism. Props seem to get in the way in my opinion. Look at these magical props. With cards, it doesn't seem like you have a setup (especially if you shuffle).

 

[RikAllen]

I don't see why cards shouldn't be used for mentalism. Props seem to get in the way in my opinion. Look at these magical props. With cards, it doesn't seem like you have a setup (especially if you shuffle).

So you're saying a book seems less set-up than a deck of cards, because you can't shuffle a book? or because books get in the way of mind reading? (first prop to come to mind)

True mind reading would go like 'Think of anything in the world, a memory, an object, a color.' and then you would say whatever the thought is in intimate detail. I can't do it, but I can do better than 'the card you're thinking of is the 6 of clubs.' There is no investment there, no real investment. Even if a card is signed the audience has to like you to even care.

If you can get them to like you, and use something that has real meaning, why would you use a deck of cards to prove you can read minds or predict the future?

 

[Reapx]

I'd like to see the script for a mentalism based story trick (Sam the Bellhop-esk).

Why would you turn one into the other, they're different for a reason. Cards should seldom show up in mentalism. There are many other props you could use to do second sight or mind reading, why playing cards?

I'm not a mentalist, but have studied both magic and mentalism, and wouldn't try to adapt card tricks to mentalism presentations and wouldn't want to turn mentalism into something less than what it should be.

looks like you've never looked seen Pariah, Blood marking system, or the players stack. Plus if you did study mentalism in the book 13 steps to mentalism there is a chapter to mentalism with cards.

 

[Reapx]

So you're saying a book seems less set-up than a deck of cards, because you can't shuffle a book? or because books get in the way of mind reading? (first prop to come to mind)

True mind reading would go like 'Think of anything in the world, a memory, an object, a color.' and then you would say whatever the thought is in intimate detail. I can't do it, but I can do better than 'the card you're thinking of is the 6 of clubs.' There is no investment there, no real investment. Even if a card is signed the audience has to like you to even care.

If you can get them to like you, and use something that has real meaning, why would you use a deck of cards to prove you can read minds or predict the future?

if you want something that is almost like mind reading look up sight:digital and anate

 

[worldwideme]

i love it RD it answered some questions good read

 

[RikAllen]

looks like you've never looked seen Pariah, Blood marking system, or the players stack. Plus if you did study mentalism in the book 13 steps to mentalism there is a chapter to mentalism with cards.

For starters, I might not have clarified, I don't perform mentalism. I studied it for a time, but do not perform it. It's not my style, even though I'm leaving the future open to it if possible.

I also never said that cards should Never be used. I said they should be seldom used, if you want to then go ahead. I happen to believe that cards can cheapen mentalism if overused. There are better options in most cases.

My original point with cards in mentalism was that turning a card trick into a piece of mentalism isn't smart. A rising card effect doesn't work well as a piece of psychic phenomena and with it being used by magicians wouldn't play well as a PK effect.

I wouldn't use cards in mentalism, if I were to stage a show, but I can't stop anyone from doing so. D+M uses cards because that's where his start was, he was a card cheat turned magician turned mentalist based on his fascination with the mind, at least that's how his story goes.


As far as the original post goes, Mentalism is going to go for 'magic', phenomena, and powers quicker than magic.

I don't claim either. My goal is to entertain and sell myself utilizing an ability to do the impossible. Whether that ability is supernatural or well practiced skill is up to my audience.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't claim either. My goal is to entertain and sell myself utilizing an ability to do the impossible. Whether that ability is supernatural or well practiced skill is up to my audience.

What's in it for me?

That said, I don't like the "Honest Deceiver" archetype some magicians try to present. My preference is to use the power of silence. If someone is not going to suspend disbelief and reference fast hands and the like, I just change my scripting to remove any and all explanations or exposition. I let implication do the work for me. Will it change their minds and convince them to suspend disbelief? Maybe, maybe not. But it still looks more impressive when I give them even less to work with and they have to start dreaming up rationale themselves.