Is it the combination of intense and lasting astonishment with lack of being able to work out the method? Or something else?
What makes a strong trick?
- Thread starter Casualistry
- Start date
I think that would be about my answer too. You probably want to throw in something about engagement and entertainment, but that's a good basic description to me. It sounds like you should be reading Strong Magic by Darwin Ortiz. It is an entire and excellent book on this exact topic, though it does make for a good forum discussion topic so I'll toss in a couple more thoughts.
The astonishment aspect can cover the entertainment portion so it's not particularly necessary to cram story time into your presentation if that's not your strong suit (don't make them wait for the magic). I think the reason cards and coins make good tricks is that people are familiar with them and this helps with engagement. A trick will likely have less impact if you are using unfamiliar looking props.
The astonishment aspect can cover the entertainment portion so it's not particularly necessary to cram story time into your presentation if that's not your strong suit (don't make them wait for the magic). I think the reason cards and coins make good tricks is that people are familiar with them and this helps with engagement. A trick will likely have less impact if you are using unfamiliar looking props.
I agree that entertainment and presentation are different to strength,and that if a trick causes astonishment that's entertaining anyway.
Regarding familiarity of props that seems to be connected to puzzlement of method. If something looks tricky then the prop becomes a focus of (probably false) explanations, which reduces the bafflement element. However since unusual props also have an inherent interest factor there's a balance to be obtained there, I think, if an unusual prop can also somehow be removed from solution thoughts.
Regarding familiarity of props that seems to be connected to puzzlement of method. If something looks tricky then the prop becomes a focus of (probably false) explanations, which reduces the bafflement element. However since unusual props also have an inherent interest factor there's a balance to be obtained there, I think, if an unusual prop can also somehow be removed from solution thoughts.
Audience engagement.
It doesn't matter how skilled someone is, how objectively impossible the trick seems - if you engage the audience properly they will think whatever you are doing is incredible. If you engage the audience and get them emotionally involved they will talk about that performance forever.
Once competency is achieved, technically skill is more or less irrelevant. I know this will be an upsetting thing for move monkeys to think about, but it's true. Those skills are very esoteric and lay audiences simply cannot actually appreciate them - because they have no frame of reference to understand how impressive it is.
Simple methods presented with interesting, engaging scripting will always, always, always be more memorable than technical demonstrations.
One of the few card tricks I perform on a regular basis is literally not a trick. There's no sleight of hand, there's no method at all. It literally involves spreading a deck on a surface, and it almost never fails to generate a significant reaction. How does it work? "Do you ever think about coincidence? I do. I spend a lot of time thinking about how often coincidence can be mistaken for something significant. I'll show you. You - think of the value of a card, not the suit or anything just the value. Ok, now you - same thing. Think of a value of card." Then spread the deck and there's a surprisingly large chance the two named values will be either right next to each other or separated by one card.
Try it - it is surprisingly effective.
It doesn't matter how skilled someone is, how objectively impossible the trick seems - if you engage the audience properly they will think whatever you are doing is incredible. If you engage the audience and get them emotionally involved they will talk about that performance forever.
Once competency is achieved, technically skill is more or less irrelevant. I know this will be an upsetting thing for move monkeys to think about, but it's true. Those skills are very esoteric and lay audiences simply cannot actually appreciate them - because they have no frame of reference to understand how impressive it is.
Simple methods presented with interesting, engaging scripting will always, always, always be more memorable than technical demonstrations.
One of the few card tricks I perform on a regular basis is literally not a trick. There's no sleight of hand, there's no method at all. It literally involves spreading a deck on a surface, and it almost never fails to generate a significant reaction. How does it work? "Do you ever think about coincidence? I do. I spend a lot of time thinking about how often coincidence can be mistaken for something significant. I'll show you. You - think of the value of a card, not the suit or anything just the value. Ok, now you - same thing. Think of a value of card." Then spread the deck and there's a surprisingly large chance the two named values will be either right next to each other or separated by one card.
Try it - it is surprisingly effective.
Mentalism uses few common props.Psychological and physical forces,switches,peeks.Several methods cancel out the other.Also magic in another person's hands.Devin knight's great apple heist and Paul Harris's paperclip paradox or Dan Garrett's plastic cash objects disappear or travel without the magician touching anything.Stories do help but not everyone has that talent.The visual appeal is also good.
Witchdoc- I agree, but would separate out a strong trick from an engaging act. A strong trick may or may not be part of a good performance. But I'm curious as to what makes a strong trick strong (assuming someone is at least watching). Some tricks seem, to me, to be strong enough to get a great reaction with no prior engagement or surrounding presentation. Some tricks aren't. Why is that? What makes the difference?
Don - yes, visual shocks (a transposition or change etc) do often seem to have impact that other tricks may lack.
Don - yes, visual shocks (a transposition or change etc) do often seem to have impact that other tricks may lack.
This is a hard question to answer. I initially didn't 100% agree with the idea that there are tricks that are inherently stronger than another and I do still think that a good presentation can elevate any trick. At the same time, there's a reason we say people can "buy their powers" in magic. I have seen some really bad performances of great tricks (Double Cross, Invisible Deck, and Omni Deck come to mind) that still seemed to fry people.
However, I've also seen great performances of lame tricks (Bill Malone's 21 card trick) that worked really well and some really terrible performances of those great tricks that did not seem to hit the audience the way it should have. So I'm still not really sure if I agree with the idea that there are tricks that are inherently more powerful, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
My first instinct would be to say is that tricks that maximize the "cognitive dissonance" between what they know to be true and what they just saw tend to be more "inherently" strong. I think this could be why a lot of card magic doesn't have a lasting impact for people. They don't know exactly what you did, but knowing that you did something is enough of an explanation for them. There are tricks where it's not as easy to jump to this "non-explanation". Going back to Double Cross, they "know" you didn't touch them and they also "know" that there's no way you could have used sleight of hand to draw a perfect X on their hand. Yet it happened and they have no way to explain it away. The thing is, there are ways to elevate most tricks to this point. Some really minor changes are often all it takes such as doing it in their hands instead of your own.
Obviously having a deceptive method is important. If they can figure it out easily, it won't be as strong. But at the same time, there are plenty of tricks with fooling methods that aren't that interesting on their own. Tons of magician fooler card tricks seem to be this way. Sure the method is nearly bulletproof, but at the end of the day it's just a "was this your card?" trick with a ton of extra steps.
Part of it is also surprise. Joshua Jay did a survey and the most common answer for "what do you like about magic?" was "surprise". Don't quote me on this but I remember reading that on a brain scan, a person's reaction to a magic trick activates the same regions of the brain that the punchline to a joke does. People like to be surprised. Of course, surprise is a very short lived reaction and there are plenty of tricks out there that get a short term "surprise" but don't have any lasting impact. As stated before, a lot of card magic has an initial surprise, but no lasting impact. It could be related to people being able to fall into the non-explanation of "sleight of hand" but I'm not sure. It's just me speculating.
As WitchDoc said, having a presentation that connects with your audience in some form is very important in having a powerful trick.
So in the end, I really don't know. This kind of reminds me of the age old question as to whether the presentation or method is more important to a magic trick. My take on that debate it's a combination of both but for different reasons. I think it's the same thing here. It's a mix of factors that can vary between the tricks themselves, the person performing it, and even audiences. A person who likes to gamble might find a gambling demonstration much more impactful than someone with little knowledge of poker. As I said before, a trick that fools magicians might not be that interesting to most people.
However, I've also seen great performances of lame tricks (Bill Malone's 21 card trick) that worked really well and some really terrible performances of those great tricks that did not seem to hit the audience the way it should have. So I'm still not really sure if I agree with the idea that there are tricks that are inherently more powerful, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
My first instinct would be to say is that tricks that maximize the "cognitive dissonance" between what they know to be true and what they just saw tend to be more "inherently" strong. I think this could be why a lot of card magic doesn't have a lasting impact for people. They don't know exactly what you did, but knowing that you did something is enough of an explanation for them. There are tricks where it's not as easy to jump to this "non-explanation". Going back to Double Cross, they "know" you didn't touch them and they also "know" that there's no way you could have used sleight of hand to draw a perfect X on their hand. Yet it happened and they have no way to explain it away. The thing is, there are ways to elevate most tricks to this point. Some really minor changes are often all it takes such as doing it in their hands instead of your own.
Obviously having a deceptive method is important. If they can figure it out easily, it won't be as strong. But at the same time, there are plenty of tricks with fooling methods that aren't that interesting on their own. Tons of magician fooler card tricks seem to be this way. Sure the method is nearly bulletproof, but at the end of the day it's just a "was this your card?" trick with a ton of extra steps.
Part of it is also surprise. Joshua Jay did a survey and the most common answer for "what do you like about magic?" was "surprise". Don't quote me on this but I remember reading that on a brain scan, a person's reaction to a magic trick activates the same regions of the brain that the punchline to a joke does. People like to be surprised. Of course, surprise is a very short lived reaction and there are plenty of tricks out there that get a short term "surprise" but don't have any lasting impact. As stated before, a lot of card magic has an initial surprise, but no lasting impact. It could be related to people being able to fall into the non-explanation of "sleight of hand" but I'm not sure. It's just me speculating.
As WitchDoc said, having a presentation that connects with your audience in some form is very important in having a powerful trick.
So in the end, I really don't know. This kind of reminds me of the age old question as to whether the presentation or method is more important to a magic trick. My take on that debate it's a combination of both but for different reasons. I think it's the same thing here. It's a mix of factors that can vary between the tricks themselves, the person performing it, and even audiences. A person who likes to gamble might find a gambling demonstration much more impactful than someone with little knowledge of poker. As I said before, a trick that fools magicians might not be that interesting to most people.
I would posit that there's no trick out there that cannot be vastly improved by engaging the audience properly.
A 'strong' trick is strong because the audience has an emotional reaction to it. If the audience doesn't care about the performance, ie: they are not engaged, there will be no emotional reaction no matter how 'strong' the method is in itself.
There are some tricks out there that are interesting or 'strong' by themselves, but engaging the audience before performing said tricks will always yield a stronger reaction because the audience will care more.
As for tricks that get a strong reaction with next to no engagement, those are tricks that inherently create the tension/release cycle. Things like sponge bunnies, where people have an idea of what's going to happen before it happens, and then they are still surprised when it does happen. However, those tricks will still get stronger reactions with proper engagement.
A 'strong' trick is strong because the audience has an emotional reaction to it. If the audience doesn't care about the performance, ie: they are not engaged, there will be no emotional reaction no matter how 'strong' the method is in itself.
There are some tricks out there that are interesting or 'strong' by themselves, but engaging the audience before performing said tricks will always yield a stronger reaction because the audience will care more.
As for tricks that get a strong reaction with next to no engagement, those are tricks that inherently create the tension/release cycle. Things like sponge bunnies, where people have an idea of what's going to happen before it happens, and then they are still surprised when it does happen. However, those tricks will still get stronger reactions with proper engagement.
A strong effect is when the spectator remembers how they felt when seeing the effect. That sort of emotion is not possible without a strong presentation.
I'm not sure about 'not possible', but the correct presentation will help. Of course, what presentation helps is going to be very audience dependent - not everyone likes the same style of presentation. For example, a strong trick can be rendered unengaging through too much patter and waffle. I tend to prefer very direct presentations. Most others prefer elaborate talk, it seems. What improves a trick for them damages it for me.
What you call a "direct presentation" is what Eugene Burger called "narrating the adventures of the props in the magician's hands." It is what I call "say, do, see" patter. You say what you are going to do, you do it and you tell the audience to see what you did.
Good presentation is not audience dependent. I'm guessing that I probably would agree with you that most magic trick performances that use "patter" suck. There is a reason I don't use the term "patter" to describe what should accompany a magic performance. Just look the word up in the dictionary and you will see that the definition fits most performances. Good "presentations" do not seem contrived and are consistent with the performers character. In Ken Webber's Maximum Entertainment he talks about a speaker he saw talking about (if I remember correctly) securities law and how the whole room paid rapt attention. If the skills and preparation of a speaker can make securities law interesting, just think what putting in the work could do for a magician.
For magicians who perform for family and friends, you really don't have time to put in the work necessary to turn tricks into performance pieces. Those performers have to keep learning different tricks to perform for the same audiences in contrast to magicians that perform the same tricks for different audiences. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, just be aware there is a higher level of performance. One that authentically and genuinely evokes emotions in the audience other than surprise. It is the difference between someone remembering "the trick where you did [insert what happened to props]" verses remembering "the trick about [insert what you talked about in your presentation]." Not every presentation has to be or even should be heavy emotionally. I do an effect about my Uncle Jim's love of magic... and gin. The story justifies the use of an empty gin bottle as the location where the select card ends up. and allows me to get a couple of jokes in at Aunt Bertha's expense. I do a whimsical routine where I literally mix apples and oranges with a number of other cliches. My needle swallowing routine is accompanied by a glass of wine and some seriously presented puns juxtaposing the uneasiness of swallowing needles with reluctant humor. I do a routine about worrying and prayer quoting Russian philosophers and Dutch theologians. And yes, my egg bag routine is a moving story about a young girl in Nazi occupied France during World War II. Through the performance, the audience laughs, cringes, worries, thinks and feels emotion. That is strong magic.
Good presentation is not audience dependent. I'm guessing that I probably would agree with you that most magic trick performances that use "patter" suck. There is a reason I don't use the term "patter" to describe what should accompany a magic performance. Just look the word up in the dictionary and you will see that the definition fits most performances. Good "presentations" do not seem contrived and are consistent with the performers character. In Ken Webber's Maximum Entertainment he talks about a speaker he saw talking about (if I remember correctly) securities law and how the whole room paid rapt attention. If the skills and preparation of a speaker can make securities law interesting, just think what putting in the work could do for a magician.
For magicians who perform for family and friends, you really don't have time to put in the work necessary to turn tricks into performance pieces. Those performers have to keep learning different tricks to perform for the same audiences in contrast to magicians that perform the same tricks for different audiences. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, just be aware there is a higher level of performance. One that authentically and genuinely evokes emotions in the audience other than surprise. It is the difference between someone remembering "the trick where you did [insert what happened to props]" verses remembering "the trick about [insert what you talked about in your presentation]." Not every presentation has to be or even should be heavy emotionally. I do an effect about my Uncle Jim's love of magic... and gin. The story justifies the use of an empty gin bottle as the location where the select card ends up. and allows me to get a couple of jokes in at Aunt Bertha's expense. I do a whimsical routine where I literally mix apples and oranges with a number of other cliches. My needle swallowing routine is accompanied by a glass of wine and some seriously presented puns juxtaposing the uneasiness of swallowing needles with reluctant humor. I do a routine about worrying and prayer quoting Russian philosophers and Dutch theologians. And yes, my egg bag routine is a moving story about a young girl in Nazi occupied France during World War II. Through the performance, the audience laughs, cringes, worries, thinks and feels emotion. That is strong magic.
Lots of things to agree and disagree with there. Great post! 
Forgive the style of my reply, not sure how else to deal with so many points.
"You say what you are going to do, you do it and you tell the audience to see what you did." - No, that would not be what I call direct as it involves too much redundancy. No need to use any unnecessary words - they're unnecessary. More minimal than that is what I like. Often, saying what you're going to do in advance, and saying what they already know they saw, is pointless.
"Good presentation is not audience dependent" - In the sense that different presentations work for different audiences it is, IMHO. Some people like X, some like Y.
"Good "presentations" do not seem contrived and are consistent with the performers character." - Agree. But they also don't bore or irritate the audience, or detract from the magic. One can have a presentation that's consistent yet annoys or bores.
"If the skills and preparation of a speaker can make securities law interesting, just think what putting in the work could do for a magician." - For many, maybe. But some people would be bored no matter how good the speaker. I expect I would. I'm hard to please. A brilliant speaker can jazz up many subjects for many people, agreed. But not everything for everyone.
"For magicians who perform for family and friends, you really don't have time to put in the work necessary to turn tricks into performance pieces." - Totally agree.
"Those performers have to keep learning different tricks to perform for the same audiences in contrast to magicians that perform the same tricks for different audiences. There is nothing wrong with that." - Totally agree; hobbyists need a huge repertoire compared to the pro. Quantity is more important than quality in some ways for the hobbyist.
"One that authentically and genuinely evokes emotions in the audience other than surprise." - Yes, this is entirely possible for some to obtain and for some to enjoy. But the risk is that what works emotionally for some (most?) may turn others (like me) off completely. Audience and context matter, IMHO.
"That is strong magic." - I'm sure it's great. But I wouldn't like those sorts of presentations, and some of my social circle wouldn't either. Whatever works!
Forgive the style of my reply, not sure how else to deal with so many points."You say what you are going to do, you do it and you tell the audience to see what you did." - No, that would not be what I call direct as it involves too much redundancy. No need to use any unnecessary words - they're unnecessary. More minimal than that is what I like. Often, saying what you're going to do in advance, and saying what they already know they saw, is pointless.
"Good presentation is not audience dependent" - In the sense that different presentations work for different audiences it is, IMHO. Some people like X, some like Y.
"Good "presentations" do not seem contrived and are consistent with the performers character." - Agree. But they also don't bore or irritate the audience, or detract from the magic. One can have a presentation that's consistent yet annoys or bores.
"If the skills and preparation of a speaker can make securities law interesting, just think what putting in the work could do for a magician." - For many, maybe. But some people would be bored no matter how good the speaker. I expect I would. I'm hard to please. A brilliant speaker can jazz up many subjects for many people, agreed. But not everything for everyone.
"For magicians who perform for family and friends, you really don't have time to put in the work necessary to turn tricks into performance pieces." - Totally agree.
"Those performers have to keep learning different tricks to perform for the same audiences in contrast to magicians that perform the same tricks for different audiences. There is nothing wrong with that." - Totally agree; hobbyists need a huge repertoire compared to the pro. Quantity is more important than quality in some ways for the hobbyist.
"One that authentically and genuinely evokes emotions in the audience other than surprise." - Yes, this is entirely possible for some to obtain and for some to enjoy. But the risk is that what works emotionally for some (most?) may turn others (like me) off completely. Audience and context matter, IMHO.
"That is strong magic." - I'm sure it's great. But I wouldn't like those sorts of presentations, and some of my social circle wouldn't either. Whatever works!