I admittedly didn't read every reply, so I'm unsure where the discussion's gradually went. I'm merely responding to the original post.
Personally, I use intentional failure to build drama and tension in an effect. Everyone expects the magician to succeed, so to knock him off that pedestal builds genuine interest in what he offers. Seeing a proposed mistake builds a conflict that requires a resolution. I understand that this may differ in context from what prae originally offered, but I think it's something worth mentioning.
For instance, a person selects a card and shuffles it into the deck. The magician clumsily drops the cards to the floor. The deck is un-elegantly face-up and face-down and messed up in various ways. At this point, people have mixed emotions. People still want to see the card revealed, but they also understand and sympathize with the magician's mistake. I believe this drama and conflict is worth something. Performing Triumph in this way makes use of a deliberate failure to motivate the actual effect. When the deck rights itself and the selection is found, I believe people appreciate the effect more than if the magician simply shuffled the face-up and face-down cards together under the guise of a contrived story. (FYI, the handling to this particular Triumph is Culligula by Kostya Kimlat.)
Another example of building drama using deliberate mistakes and failure may be found in John Bannon's effect, Wait Until Dark from his book, Dear Mr. Fantasy. In the effect, the magician is blindfolded as a deck of cards is shuffled face-up and face-down by a spectator. He then accurately states how many cards are face-down in the deck. And of those cards, how many are red and black. And of those black cards, how many are clubs and spades. This effect naturally builds on itself as the blindfolded magician accurately determines the deck's specific state of chaos with every new statement. John Bannon, however, incorporates a deliberate mistake at the very end of the effect to provide a sense of realism to the feat and to motivate the kicker ending. In the end, he's off by one card. Everyone watching is thoroughly impressed with the effect to this point, but again feels a nagging sense of dissatisfaction: the performer was able to see things with amazing detail despite being blindfolded, but he was still off by one card. The timing of this mistake makes everything feel very anti-climactic as well. When the performer reveals the prediction of this supposed mistaken card (which was in plain sight from the beginning of the effect), everyone rejoices out of astonishment and relief. Agin conflict and resolution.
Hope this productively contributes to the discussion. I'll go back and read what others had to share.
RS.
Personally, I use intentional failure to build drama and tension in an effect. Everyone expects the magician to succeed, so to knock him off that pedestal builds genuine interest in what he offers. Seeing a proposed mistake builds a conflict that requires a resolution. I understand that this may differ in context from what prae originally offered, but I think it's something worth mentioning.
For instance, a person selects a card and shuffles it into the deck. The magician clumsily drops the cards to the floor. The deck is un-elegantly face-up and face-down and messed up in various ways. At this point, people have mixed emotions. People still want to see the card revealed, but they also understand and sympathize with the magician's mistake. I believe this drama and conflict is worth something. Performing Triumph in this way makes use of a deliberate failure to motivate the actual effect. When the deck rights itself and the selection is found, I believe people appreciate the effect more than if the magician simply shuffled the face-up and face-down cards together under the guise of a contrived story. (FYI, the handling to this particular Triumph is Culligula by Kostya Kimlat.)
Another example of building drama using deliberate mistakes and failure may be found in John Bannon's effect, Wait Until Dark from his book, Dear Mr. Fantasy. In the effect, the magician is blindfolded as a deck of cards is shuffled face-up and face-down by a spectator. He then accurately states how many cards are face-down in the deck. And of those cards, how many are red and black. And of those black cards, how many are clubs and spades. This effect naturally builds on itself as the blindfolded magician accurately determines the deck's specific state of chaos with every new statement. John Bannon, however, incorporates a deliberate mistake at the very end of the effect to provide a sense of realism to the feat and to motivate the kicker ending. In the end, he's off by one card. Everyone watching is thoroughly impressed with the effect to this point, but again feels a nagging sense of dissatisfaction: the performer was able to see things with amazing detail despite being blindfolded, but he was still off by one card. The timing of this mistake makes everything feel very anti-climactic as well. When the performer reveals the prediction of this supposed mistaken card (which was in plain sight from the beginning of the effect), everyone rejoices out of astonishment and relief. Agin conflict and resolution.
Hope this productively contributes to the discussion. I'll go back and read what others had to share.
RS.