What do you think?

Okay then. Suppose we have someone playing the part of an adventurer/yogi who has traveled extensively to the Far East and frames his effects as ancient secrets of yogic disciplines, meditation, and martial arts.

Now give him a reason to do a sponge ball routine.

The key words in that last post was "just about..." I don't have a suitable answer at this time. I'll have to think about it for a second.
 
First let me say that I don't FULLY understand all aspects that go into the yogi style of presentation. So much at least that would be needed to make the character sound believable.

That would require a lot of reading and homework, study etc, and I'm afraid that by the time I'd get back to this thread it would have already long since moved on.

With that being said I'd probably go with something like this:
{Pre-Talk}
"I've spent the past 20 years taking my adventures through the world. I've traveled the far east and seen some amazing things done with the human body. Through concentration and meditation alone I've seen bodies levitate, objects move by themselvs, and great amounts of physical pain endured with out so much as a wimper. I began to study these amazing feats, studing under the masters who preform them, and I began to understand that they all link one thing in common. Human energy. Life essence, Kie. Now, a little demonstration using these small yet simple objects. By applying just the right amount of Kie ....{begin rutine}

Would this be a centerstone of a Yogi show? Probably not. But as I said, it is in the presentation.
 
Mar 29, 2008
882
3
I am curious if you are calling me a poor sap or not well read?


I think Mark certainly has had a huge impact on the magic world. I spoke to him last weekend in vegas. Though not about Blaine. It's hard to say where Blaine came up with his half stoned street "normal guy" persona. I will say focusing on the spectators reactions and not his magic was brilliant.


I will agree that Stigmatta or Thread aren't comedy pieces. They do kind of fitt oddly into someone's act who is known for a lighter approach. However it really does depend greatly on how it gets presented. I've used a version of tripumph to open my act by presenting it as a traditional piece of "magic". Pure slight of hand. Then segway into ..."things that aren't magic... but you'd wish they were. " It really just depends on how much homework you are willing to commit to when designing your act and persona.


Actually - calling you both...but what do you expect when you make assumptions.

As for Blaine coming up with his "normal" guy persona - I am sure you are aware that Paul Harris and him worked on that character for a year or so - I agree that he really did a wonderful thing for magic - and Blaine is the reason I got serious about magic...although, I am certain I have surpassed that "wanting to bite a coin" stage.

I think you are missing the point - the point isn't that a certain prop can't be fit into certain personalities...but that some personalities it CAN'T fit in - that there are some that it would clash with. Goth and sponges balls, I still believe is one. You are so focused on what it fits, you are missing the more serious point - that the prop itself speaks to the audience, long before you say your first word. If they don't see it until you speak - it still has an impact.

Like David Acer handing out his cards with one side of the box ripped apart...and he hands it to them and says, "Please take the cards out of the box, and be careful not to rip the box". Gets a laugh - this is the prop speaking to the audience - however, if the box wasn't ripped - this speaks to the specator about your character in another way.

Am I taking crazy pills - why am I discussing standard theory here?
 
Actually - calling you both...but what do you expect when you make assumptions.

I see.
I make four or five posts contributing opinions and what not and thats the only thing you can focus on. Shame really I can't share the same opinion.

While I agree that props need to fit the peresona or act. I get that. For the most part I agree with you. However, what I think you are missing is that with the proper creativity and forthought just about anything can be done. Does it mean that it should be? Probably not. But -can- it be? the answer is yes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lex

Dec 18, 2007
51
0
50
Chicago, IL
Okay then. Suppose we have someone playing the part of an adventurer/yogi who has traveled extensively to the Far East and frames his effects as ancient secrets of yogic disciplines, meditation, and martial arts.

Now give him a reason to do a sponge ball routine.

Hmm . . . .

Change the prop, but not the routine: use small pillows made from sari cloth, one of which is embroidered with Ganesha. "In Mumbai I learned this game . . . ." Or pieces torn from a warm naan that is on the table from the start--allowing the magician to eat the pieces one by one . . . "but look, there is still one more under here."

Morgician's point is well-taken: to make this work, I would think you'd have to change the prop. That sure makes it easier. But B&WI's point is also well-taken: you can still fit the routine into a persona for whom it would initially seem implausible. It is tougher, for sure, and a change in the prop makes it easier, but it is not impossible to do.

Props are a visual anchor. You can ask the audience to imagine they are something else--a small angel or a ball of energy--but they will still see a bright red clown nose, which makes it tougher for them to make the imaginative leap. They'll have to focus on that--"Which one was the devil?"--instead of your magic. As a matter of consistency, your props should visually fit your persona: it makes belief easier for your audience.

Goth sponge ball routine? Use dice and complain about bad luck, and only perform on Friday the 13th. (Isn't that a Goth thing to do? :) ) The dice might make more noise, but practice might alleviate that--or even turn it into part of the act ("Listen, you can hear the die under this cup when I shake it . . . but it's over here.").

Or for the punkier Goth: make small stuffed pillows with band logos on them held down by safety pins. Reveal nine ten-penny nails in the relevant pillow.

For the Victorian Emo Goth: use tarnished silver cups and satin rosettes that are part of your outfit. Don't talk and make lots of expressive gestures.

Perhaps the I'm So Poor It Makes Me Weep Goth: use dried beans and styrofoam cups, then finish off with an unexpected Russian Roulette routine. "This is dumb. *smash* Screw this. *smash* *aim at third cup* *hesitate* *knock over third cup to reveal upended razor blade that wasn't there before* Whoa."

In other words: you're both pretty now stop fighting. :)
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
With that being said I'd probably go with something like this:
{Pre-Talk}
"I've spent the past 20 years taking my adventures through the world. I've traveled the far east and seen some amazing things done with the human body. Through concentration and meditation alone I've seen bodies levitate, objects move by themselvs, and great amounts of physical pain endured with out so much as a wimper. I began to study these amazing feats, studing under the masters who preform them, and I began to understand that they all link one thing in common. Human energy. Life essence, Kie. Now, a little demonstration using these small yet simple objects. By applying just the right amount of Kie ....{begin rutine}

Would this be a centerstone of a Yogi show? Probably not. But as I said, it is in the presentation.

My initial reaction: Why not just bend a damn spoon with your mind? Or levitate something?

You can write all the pretty words you want, but it misses the point that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Hmm . . . .

Change the prop, but not the routine: use small pillows made from sari cloth, one of which is embroidered with Ganesha. "In Mumbai I learned this game . . . ." Or pieces torn from a warm naan that is on the table from the start--allowing the magician to eat the pieces one by one . . . "but look, there is still one more under here."

To people actually acquainted the Indian culture, that might come dangerously close to cheese. And cheesiness is best left to arena rock and power metal bands.

Again, why not just bend a spoon? Or borrow a key and bend it?

This is a question I ask myself whenever I'm building a routine. Why the hell am I doing what I'm about to do? What reason do I have not to do something else? Amazing how many times that's helped.


Ugh. There's a combination of words that makes my stomach turn.

You are right in that there would be variations. The Goths in period garb and Victorian finery (aka Romantigoths) would probably use less glitzy props and go more for something that looked as if it had some history to it. Cybergoths would probably be more interested in mind reading and PK. Perky Goths would probably be happy with sponge balls in black, purple, or orange, but would still shy away from some of the more commercial props. Deathrockers are likely to be more impressed and entertained with shock magic.

All generalizations, of course, but you get the idea. Besides, stereotypes have to come from somewhere.
 

Lex

Dec 18, 2007
51
0
50
Chicago, IL
Now we add a third variable in: to persona and prop we add the audience . . . .

To people actually acquainted the Indian culture, that might come dangerously close to cheese. And cheesiness is best left to arena rock and power metal bands.

. . . and I would probably not perform such a persona in front of an audience where I thought there would be many people actually acquainted with Indian culture, for exactly that reason. I could pull off pretending to be a swami at a kids' birthday party, but not at the University of Chicago Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations Annual Diwali Party. (Although I think the Endless Naan would be less on the cheesy side than the Ganesha beanbag. Everybody can relate to always having more food on your plate.)

Not only should the props fit the persona, but the persona should fit the audience and context.

Why the hell am I doing what I'm about to do? What reason do I have not to do something else? Amazing how many times that's helped.

Absolutely. Those are crucial questions to ask when putting together a routine.

Re: Emo Goth
Ugh. There's a combination of words that makes my stomach turn.

Yeah, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit too.

All generalizations, of course, but you get the idea. Besides, stereotypes have to come from somewhere.

And there's the upshot: it isn't impossible to see how someone taking on X persona could use Y prop (which I took to be B&WI's main point). But they just have to do a job of connecting X and Y with Z audience--and that can greatly range in difficulty depending on the values of X, Y, and Z (which I more or less took to be Morgician's point, with Steerpike's addition of the audience).
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Now we add a third variable in: to persona and prop we add the audience . . . .

And the topic becomes that much more complex, chasing off the wannabes in the process (I hope).

. . . and I would probably not perform such a persona in front of an audience where I thought there would be many people actually acquainted with Indian culture, for exactly that reason. I could pull off pretending to be a swami at a kids' birthday party, but not at the University of Chicago Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations Annual Diwali Party. (Although I think the Endless Naan would be less on the cheesy side than the Ganesha beanbag. Everybody can relate to always having more food on your plate.)

Not only should the props fit the persona, but the persona should fit the audience and context.

Hence my own assertion that a performer adopting a more complex persona as described in the original post really needs to do his homework

Doc Shiels in The Shiels Effect describes the creation of a witch celebrity, and in doing so makes it clear that she will actually have to be well-read on the details of Pagan religions and the sociopolitical and cultural history of witchcraft and black magic. Otherwise, the act is going to collapse in on itself.

And there's the upshot: it isn't impossible to see how someone taking on X persona could use Y prop (which I took to be B&WI's main point). But they just have to do a job of connecting X and Y with Z audience--and that can greatly range in difficulty depending on the values of X, Y, and Z (which I more or less took to be Morgician's point, with Steerpike's addition of the audience).

Again, let's also not forget the question of whether or not you should.

In my experience, you can go to great lengths to adapt your props and presentation to fit your persona, but more often than not there are effects and routines that just plain make more sense.

In the example of our adventurer/yogi/martial artist, metal bending is more often than not going to be much more practical and congruent in performance than a card trick.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Well in that case let's add an extra qualifier, shall we? Write one that wouldn't make me chew my own leg off and try to escape like a badger or fox in a trap.
 
That would require putting more time and thought into a problem that I don't really care to solve. I don't think I'd have the patience for it. After all I'm a "poor sap" and "not well read" apparently. (Name calling Morgician? Reall?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lex

Dec 18, 2007
51
0
50
Chicago, IL
Hence my own assertion that a performer adopting a more complex persona as described in the original post really needs to do his homework

Unquestionably. But I'm also a sucker for concept, character, and depth exceeding a puddle.

Again, let's also not forget the question of whether or not you should.

In my experience, you can go to great lengths to adapt your props and presentation to fit your persona, but more often than not there are effects and routines that just plain make more sense.

Yes, though this sort of boils down to whether or not it's worth it to you. It's easier--a path of less resistance, in a sense--to bend spoons and swallow razors as a yogi. More or less, they were seen as Hindu geeks by Western audiences.

If you work at it--perhaps researching apocryphal histories of playing cards in India--you could even tie in something like TiVo. That takes more (non-magic-related) work, however.

But now here's the trick: personally, I would find the first solid but expectable. The second, if performed well, would be more interesting to me because it is unexpected, and I might even learn something from it.

More work, higher risk, better return.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
(Name calling Morgician? Reall?)

Consider a few things you've said about me. Glass houses, friend.

But now here's the trick: personally, I would find the first solid but expectable. The second, if performed well, would be more interesting to me because it is unexpected, and I might even learn something from it.

More work, higher risk, better return.

Maybe so, but my point is more whether or not it's practical. If we go with the idea of the Far Eastern adventurer, even that has a number of ways it can be done, especially when you go into the details. But there is going to be a point where some things just aren't going to work.

The path of least resistance and also predictability get a bad rap. For example, going to a nightclub mentalist act billed as a mind reader. At the end of the show, the mentalist does a PK demonstration, which is pretty far from mind reading. Interesting? Arguably. But would there have been anything wrong with seeing a good act that was all mind reading? Did the addition of the PK act really make it better?

Perhaps an obtuse illustration, I admit. However my point is to consider that while hard work is fine and dandy, and certainly necessary in this industry, I've gotten very fruitful results from taking what many would consider the easy way out.

As another example, I use a pendulum frequently. Anyone familiar with magic and mentalism using one of these things knows that it's probably the easiest damn thing in the world. Any effect I have using it is either bereft of any sleight of hand or requires one or two moves so simple I'd have to have no thumbs, Parkinson's disease, and be wearing oven mitts while on fire in order to screw it up. Path of least resistance from a technical perspective.

Also, the pendulum is well-known to those with even a passing familiarity of the occult or the New Age movement. They know what it is, what it does, and that it's supposed to happen in their hands. They know going in what to expect. Path of least resistance again.

However... the effects and demonstrations I do with a pendulum are probably my most requested and most effective. Hypothetically, I could be the one to make a TiVo variation that not only isn't boring and redundant, but also is spectacularly presented and would even fit in the context of my seances. But would it really be worth the effort? Would it really have an effect on people as sublime as that humble little pendulum?
 
Consider a few things you've said about me. Glass houses, friend.

Not exactly. Everything I've ever said about you has been in direct result of your own words. I've called you aloof, arogant, I've said you appear to talk down to people, and possible are egocentric. Over all from your posts, You do appear to be that way at times.

You have no problems calling someone out if you think your right. Now that someone else is doing it, suddenly it's wrong?

I hardly think someone can make a judgement on how well read I am with out even knowing anything about me. To me, that just seems like name calling.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Not exactly. Everything I've ever said about you has been in direct result of your own words. I've called you aloof, arogant, I've said you appear to talk down to people, and possible are egocentric. Over all from your posts, You do appear to be that way at times.

Dressing up your negative thoughts in pretty words doesn't make them any less negative. We can pretend that calling someone a "myopic egotist" is more civil and polite than calling him a "jerk-off" but the sentiment is exactly the same.

You have no problems calling someone out if you think your right. Now that someone else is doing it, suddenly it's wrong?

I'm saying that you shouldn't call someone rude while pissing on their leg.

I hardly think someone can make a judgement on how well read I am with out even knowing anything about me. To me, that just seems like name calling.

You do it all the time. Get over it.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,241
3
Back in Time
I think you both just need a hug. So come on, guys. Reach out and show some love.

If you guys want to have a hissy fit, you can do it through PM's.
 

Lex

Dec 18, 2007
51
0
50
Chicago, IL
Maybe so, but my point is more whether or not it's practical.

At this point, though, we're moving into the part that is at the performer's discretion--it's tough to make blanket statements here. For some people, such a presentation will be practical; for most, though, it will not be.

The path of least resistance and also predictability get a bad rap.

I'm not really rapping them either way, and your views seems fairly nuanced on the matter too. Earlier, you seemed to object to people taking the path of least resistance in picking the persona they performed, opting for the "street magician" mask that is prevalent and easy. Nevertheless, you are also noting that there are some ways in which the path of least resistance is appropriate: it amounts to a recognition of when you're working against yourself.

I don't see those as contradictory, but rather as recognizing that this is a legitimately complex issue: it is a life's task to figure out when you need to work harder and when you're working too hard.

In the end, I don't think we're differing much, but placing the emphasis on different parts of the equation. Moreover, we're down to the point where were trying to make general statements about something about which it is tough to generalize because it will vary so widely from performer to performer. And that's fine--it's where you end up sometimes.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results