Jan Hanussen and Messing are two examples of true Mentalism or, what has become known as "Old School" Mentalism; even Stephan Minch points out that the true Mentalists walks a very thin line in which one foot remains on the stage while the other is in the world of the charlatan. Bob Cassidy and a number of others echo a similar perspective but if you just look at the names of contributors on a Niel Scryer book you'll find that our kind are quite abundant.
90% of the stuff that's been pooped out by so-called "developers" in the past 15 or so years is in fact Mental Magic. Much of what Dunninger presented fits this same niche in that he essentially created (up-dated) the older "Mystic" modes of presentation by introducing the more analytical and then "current" views as the premise of presentation. Many in today's world like Dunninger because he did lots of card tricks (as did Annemann, Eddie Joseph and a slew of others). BUT, when you look at Robert Nelson and even William Larsen, Sr you don't find much of this course of thinking.
In around the 1920s the field of Mentalism saw a major rift in the form of Magic Groups such as the IBM and SAM siding with Houdini and his activities. This is where the slant towards Mental Magic first got its footing, either through "Expose" type programs or those that promoted "enactments of supposed Spiritualist prowess" . . . a style very similar to Derren Brown.
By the 50s & 60s this latter side of things had become the dominant aspect of Mentalism because if was far more commercial for a number of reasons, the biggest being the fact that noted Magicians were doing these shows and much of what they did could be digested by the public, as being tricks vs. genuine.
In this same era the Purists went a totally different direction. While fewer of them became as renown as the other, many of them still played the clubs, did theatrical programs and more. Yet, they also did private Readings and a number of other work that the Magic Community feared and loathed for pseudo-moralistic reasons. . . and I word it that way deliberately in that some of the biggest mouthed anti-psychic schmucks out there will use Cold Reading and Billet work, presenting it as real, just to bed down a person of interest. . . this is a low to which no honest psychic or Mentalism purist will ever near. . . that's where our ethics stand.
The Wiki Page was compiled by an individual pushing the current agenda. . . let's face it, he's listed John Edward as a Mentalist which he's never called himself and has deliberately distanced himself from. There are several inaccuracies in his description and as I've said, it is because of the agenda of those that believe themselves "intellectuals" -- people that promote the idea that if you are involved with magic you cannot believe in magick. Similarly, they encourage the delusion that people of intelligence won't believe in the phenomenal. Sorry, but that is a horrid bias that didn't become as saturated as it is until the latter 80s & 90s as the JREF gained momentum alongside Shermer, Nichol, etc. ALL of whom are admitted Atheists and have been recognized by the American Atheist community as their key "evangelists" . . . something that a genuinely intelligent person would have to consider if they are to honestly weigh the things being pushed in regards to the philosophy around Mentalism & Bizarre Magick and its performance.
Larry Becker & Lee Earle both admit that what they do in a show is far closer to being Mental Magic than Mentalism and they aren't the only notables that take this stand. Just as I've pointed out, these two BUSINESS MEN recognize the commercial value of presenting fun bits of chicanery with a light smattering of the "real", such as a Q&A. Even Kreskin clings to this position and I believe his 50ish year career speaks for itself when it comes to commercial success.
UNDERSTAND, I'm not devaluing Mental Magic, it has its place and when used properly, it is a powerful tool. As I've said, even I will exploit such material when I was doing stage shows. . . I've even created a means by which to do the "SNOW" routine of Copperfield fame as a piece of "Metaphysical Magick" as I call it; something I've done several articles on because of how Mentalists can add a significant amount of production value to their stage shows and touch on related topics in the process. The audience knows it's all a trick, but they accept it because of the theme and message so it works.
Even if they are horrible at what they do, as long as they stay focused on telepathy, clairvoyance, divination, precognition, psychokinesis, mediumship, mind control, memory feats, rapid mathematics, and sometimes hypnosis they have a right to call themselves a mentalist. If they jump out of any of those at any part in their show then and only then can you "demote" them to mental magic.
This line reveals the fact that you aren't understanding what I've been saying . . .
A classic routine like Becker's
Casino Royale or
The Master Prediction Chest are obviously magic tricks. Even Dunninger pointed out that the more "props" one used in a show, the less you were valued as a Mind Reader -- props = magician.
But there is another point to be included here and that's when a solid and establish bit of good Mentalism is misused by a Magician. While the Smash & Stab roulette bits are an excellent example of this alongside classics like the Mental Epic, there are those instances in which a White Faced Clown (children's performer) presents MoAB as part of their act . . . the justification is, "I can buy it so I can use it, screw you!" i.e. people that have no respect for the divisions that have existed in magic for generations. Sadly, the current mind-set and the drive to take out of mentalism both, the believability factor and the more mystical approach of performance, has seriously brought harm to the craft and made it more difficult for those of us that have a genuine passion for it.
UNDERSTAND, there is nothing wrong with a magician presenting a piece of Mental Magic in their show; in fact, it's expected in some cases. BUT, they should not be exploiting top shelf material such as the various "Sinner/Saint" type bits. On the other hand that could do like the yesteryear greats did, and introduce a "special guest" a.k.a. a co-star who has unique gifts. This is what Willard the Wizard did when he brought out his famed Spirit Cabinet and what many others did when they moved into a Telepathy or Clairvoyant styled routine as a feature in their otherwise traditional magic programs. But we're talking about a feature bit within a show that "shares" the demonstration with a special person with special abilities -- the Magician isn't making the claim and while it sounds like nit picking, the psychological impact and empowerment this simple action delivers to the performer and the show, is priceless. . . as I used to say, why try swimming up-stream when you can go with the flow and win?
Bottom Line Is, you didn't understand the differences in description and as the end result, you've created an issue that doesn't exist.
