Magic in BoingBoing

Discussions of new films, books, television shows, and media indirectly related to magic and magicians. For example, there may be a book on mnemonics or theatrical technique we should know or at least know about.
P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 12:12 pm

The Boomerang illusion is a very good Tenyo magic trick (that is included in Tenyo-ism). So I would imagine thousands of Japanese have seen it performed to them as a magic trick. It has also been included in many magic sets, I believe. People may not have seen it in a magic show, per se, but they most certainly have seen it performed as a magic trick.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7554
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 8th, 2016, 12:18 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:... may not have seen it in a magic show, per se, but they most certainly have seen it performed as a magic trick.


There's a mechanical version of the trick somewhere - a Tenyo item?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 12:52 pm


Brad Henderson
Posts: 3348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » January 8th, 2016, 1:23 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:The Boomerang illusion is a very good Tenyo magic trick (that is included in Tenyo-ism). So I would imagine thousands of Japanese have seen it performed to them as a magic trick. It has also been included in many magic sets, I believe. People may not have seen it in a magic show, per se, but they most certainly have seen it performed as a magic trick.


and he falls into the trap!

Yes. And if you know the Tenyo trick you know that it adds an element that undermines what the audience may likely already know - that the items are really the same size. It also adds another moment that creates an illusion beyond the mere application of the jastrow principle.

remember when I wrote about the possibility of adding elements of deception to this illusion? I'll let you go back and read that since clearly you didn't the first time.

See, if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of just trying to poke people, you wouldn't say such silly things. Remember when I suggested that you wait until you get a little more knowledge and real world experience under your belt before commenting?

RK's post in no way undermines anyone's experience of the Tenyo trick. The Tenyo trick is constructed to take advantage of the fact that many people DO know the basic illusion (a p and L version does as well - you would know that if you had that experience we discussed. In fact, it would be wise to explain the jastrow principle to the audience in order that they appreciate the subsequent phenomenon.) In fact, I perform both the Tenyo item and the p and L item after teaching the jastrow illusion to leave the groups with the feeling of magic - they are still deceived, perhaps more so, from having had the principle explained.

Again, more people are familiar with this OPTICAL ILLUSION from psych classes and optical illusion books.

nice try though, kid.

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 1:27 pm

You know, to play devil's advocate and give Widdle a helping hand since the poor chap is losing the argument I do have to concede that there is an excellent boomerang card presentation performed from the stage in a really good book which I was daft enough to lose on the subway and it is not an easy book to obtain.

I always forget the title of books but I think it was "Showmanship and Presentation" and I do know it written by Edward Maurice. It was a highly acclaimed little book decades ago and far better than that awful Henning Nelms book or the not quite as awful Fitzkee book. The difference was that this was written by a full time professional variety artist rather than a cartoonist who never did a magic show in his life and an amateur magician who did a bit of theatrical stuff in his spare time.

Anyway therein Maurice details his boomerang card routine in order to explain points in his philosophy. From memory I think he explains how he moves from one side of the stage to the other when he does the trick in order to "fill the stage" with what is essentially a small trick.

If people were still around presenting the Boomerang Card in the way that Edward Maurice did I would then be making a fuss and reprimanding Richard most severely. But there isn't and I won't.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 1:31 pm

The Tenyo version might take advantage of people already knowing the principle, but it doesn't depend on it. And what about all the boomerangs in magic sets?

It's no big deal that RK exposed the secret, but it does underscore your weird sense of inconsistency in the general matter.
Last edited by P.T.Widdle on January 8th, 2016, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 1:40 pm

Inconsistency, old chap. Not inconstancy which sounds a most unpleasant condition.

STOP PRESS: He edited it. Quite right too. We can't have professors not spelling properly. At least I think he is a professor from something that Brad wrote some time ago.
Last edited by performer on January 8th, 2016, 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » January 8th, 2016, 1:49 pm

Inconsistency? Again, I ask, how does one "expose"
an optical principle taught in every Intro to psych class?

You say the the Tenyo trick doesn't depend on the audience knowing the principle of the jastrow illusion, but what you also ignore (likely from never having performed it hundreds of times, or from your unwillingness to read what I actually write) is that it also doesn't depend on the audience NOT knowing it

The p and L trick is actually much better if the audience DOES know the jastrow principle!

and there you go with your straw men - when did I ever write that no one should ever explain a magic secret at any time? Show me that. Oh wait - you can't.

please argue with my words and not the ravings you hear inside your head.

again, Widdle, you're a hoot.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 2:18 pm

Brad Henderson wrote: when did I ever write that no one should ever explain a magic secret at any time? Show me that. Oh wait - you can't.


"people do not get interested in magic by being shown the secret to a trick. People get interested in magic by experiencing magic. Learning the secrets, if anything, pushes people away from magic. "

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 2:25 pm

A little exposure of magic helps. Too much hinders. And the exposures should be of minor tricks. Of course what consists of "minor" is subjective.

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 2:26 pm

A little exposure of magic helps. Too much hinders. And the exposures should be of minor tricks. Of course what consists of "minor" is subjective.

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 2:27 pm

deleted for duplication

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » January 8th, 2016, 2:32 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote: when did I ever write that no one should ever explain a magic secret at any time? Show me that. Oh wait - you can't.


"people do not get interested in magic by being shown the secret to a trick. People get interested in magic by experiencing magic. Learning the secrets, if anything, pushes people away from magic. "


Have you been to an eye doctor, lately, Widdle? Because that doesn't say that we should never teach a trick, now does it?

Do you want me to go back and find it where I state very clearly that I believe you can teach magic to people in ways that have positive benefits? Do I need to quote the many times when I have clearly stated that I disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that any exposure to secrets is inherently good for magic or will lead to people becoming interested?

again, please argue with my actual words, not the straw men raving inside that little head of yours.

Hoot!

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 2:34 pm

Ok, so optical illusions adapted into magic tricks are OK, like this Jastrow effect?
How about Loyd's Get Off The Earth? I believe there was a Steinmeyer adaptation into a trick in Genii using elephant illustrations.
Last edited by P.T.Widdle on January 8th, 2016, 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 2:36 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:
Have you been to an eye doctor, lately, Widdle? Because that doesn't say that we should never teach a trick, now does it?



RK wasn't teaching the trick. He just showed how it was done.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7554
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 8th, 2016, 2:39 pm

performer wrote:A little exposure of magic helps. Too much hinders. And the exposures should be of minor tricks. Of course what consists of "minor" is subjective.


Hoffmann's books and Tenyo items are directed at non-magician audiences.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 2:56 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:
performer wrote:A little exposure of magic helps. Too much hinders. And the exposures should be of minor tricks. Of course what consists of "minor" is subjective.


Hoffmann's books and Tenyo items are directed at non-magician audiences.


All the laymen who read Hoffman's books are now dead and the ones who purchased Tenyo stuff should be.

Mind you, a fair bit of the Tenyo stuff is what I call "toyshop magic" and isn't really a big deal. I have sold a fair bit of it myself. I just had it on display and never demonstrated it. The profit margin wasn't big enough for me to waste my time on it. They would purchase it because of the fancy packaging. If they asked me "what does it do?" I would reply, "I haven't the slightest idea but it is very good"

This worked quite well in Ireland where logic is not part of the national character.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7554
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 8th, 2016, 3:05 pm

performer wrote:...
All the laymen who read Hoffman's books are now dead...


They are online, in the book stores and ... public domain. All data inside are not secret according to the author at the time. As of 1920, that's fine with the IBM at least according to Crosby's article

https://books.google.com/books?id=7mZJA ... ks&f=false

from MUM

And Professor Hoffmann in his own words: https://books.google.com/books?id=3j8CA ... ic&f=false
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » January 8th, 2016, 3:12 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:
Have you been to an eye doctor, lately, Widdle? Because that doesn't say that we should never teach a trick, now does it?




RK wasn't teaching the trick. He just showed how it was done.


well, it's good to know you have finally realized there is a difference between teaching and exposing. though again, I ask, how does one 'expose' an optical principle taught in every beginning psych class?

I am happy you are trying to hang your argument on a single word choice. I have copied some of my previous statements to which you have replied. It should make it clear that you are willfully ignoring what I have written in some effort to provoke me. And hey, if that's what you need to make yourself feel inportant, poke away. It tickles. But I won't have my thoughts misrepresented. don't misrepresent me.

Brad Henderson wrote:which is exactly my point. the quality of the experience we have determines the likelihood of our future involvement - some experiences can do more damage than good. . .
not all exposure is good exposure


So, there are ways in which information can be presented to positive effect, but not all ways will result in positive results.

Brad Henderson wrote: . . . I DO think knowledge of some aspects of magic can contribute to that love for magic. However, as we all know, just as some performances of magic can lead to a love or hate for the art, obviously other experiences can produce different results as well. Widdle, you are clearly operating on the assumption that any exposure to magic - including the indiscriminate 'exposure' of methods to advertisements that reduce the art to things which are merely bought and sold - MUST and ALWAYS will result in a positive attitude towards or interest in learning the art


again, pretty clear. Some exposure in certain contexts can be beneficial, others not so much.

Brad Henderson wrote:because not all exposure to magic is likely to lead to an actual involvement in magic.

or else every exposure to magic would lead to an involvement in magic.

and clearly, it doesn't.


again, pretty clear.

Brad Henderson wrote:I was talking with a magic fan who was in attendance at a magic lecture last night. He expressed concern that learning magic would take away the feeling of amazement that attracted him to magic all these years.

We discussed how some knowledge can expose you to better performers, and help one develop more refined taste in magic and an understanding of what makes some magic 'better' than others - but yea, that learning magic often puts one further away from the feelings that one was hoping to get closer to through learning more.

Clearly then what we know impact how we feel about what we see. And while some knowledge can increase the depth or intensity of those feelings in a positive manner - the sword cuts both ways.
.


Seems to be a pretty consistent position.
Brad Henderson wrote:
P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:Exposure is exposure.


http://boingboing.net/2015/10/01/austin ... als-o.html


Ah, my young earth friend has taken the biblical method of argument - take a handful of words, out of context . . .

Is it possible to share magic information with someone in a manner that leads to a deeper appreciation and an increased ability to access the magical experience?

absolutely

is mere exposure to secrets the way to do that?

I can't say I have seen any evidence or a convincing argument made to make me think so. . .

the method doesn't make us care. The method doesn't make us want to do magic. The mystery does. And those who have experienced the mystery mignt choose
to seek out the secrets is a great thing - as long as they know what they stand to lose in doing so. But make no mistake about it, they aren't getting interested because they read about a one way deck. They get interested from experiencing the magic.


Seems you have been taking words out of context for some time now, Widdle. Seems I have been pretty consistent all along - constantly having to correct you and all.


Brad Henderson wrote:OK, . . .

This is not to say there aren't ways of interesting people in magic. I just have yet to see any evidence that merely telling them a secret is the way to get it done. And there are obvious disadvantages and costs from merely explaining secrets. To ignore those is equally foolish.

.


This was in response to RK - remember when you suggested I would be unwilling to disagree with him?

Have you made an hinest argument ever in your life Widdle?

The sad thing is, I can quote even more of these - from multiple threads!

Do I need to? will you stop willfully misrepresenting my position? for your sake, not mine. it makes you look desperate.

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 4:32 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:
performer wrote:...
All the laymen who read Hoffman's books are now dead...


They are online, in the book stores and ... public domain. All data inside are not secret according to the author at the time. As of 1920, that's fine with the IBM at least according to Crosby's article

https://books.google.com/books?id=7mZJA ... ks&f=false

from MUM

And Professor Hoffmann in his own words: https://books.google.com/books?id=3j8CA ... ic&f=false


Oh, nobody reads Professor Hoffman. I read magic books constantly on a never ending basis but even I haven't bothered to read any of Professor Hoffman's tomes. This might be because of various rude remarks from Wilfrid Jonson about his work in "Mr Smith's Guide to Sleight of Hand"

And I have never, despite your contention ever seen it in a book store. Or even a magic shop. Or anywhere. And online does not count because I consider such activity against the laws of nature.

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 4:47 pm

For the first time in my life I have seen extracts from Professor Hoffman. It looks more interesting than I first thought.

Just one thing though. I am wondering if the card trick section was ever published as a small book on it's own. I have a horrible feeling that the card section looks familiar and an even more horrible feeling that I first learned the pass from it. And I learned it in ten minutes too, believe it or not. Unfortunately page 12 is not featured in that extract that Jonathon posted so I am not sure. .

I just can't remember what bloody book I learned the pass from. I was astonished at how fast I learned it because it has the reputation of being such a difficult move. It was a really good description of the move and it was definitely a very old book. I think it was called "Tricks With Cards" I am just not sure who the author was. I know it was a very thin book and the text in the extract looks quite similar to the contents.

I would be quite taken aback to find I had learned it from Professor Hoffman without even knowing about it until now all these decades later.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 8th, 2016, 4:56 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:
Seems I have been pretty consistent all along...
...will you stop willfully misrepresenting my position?


All those words to defend your consistency in a thread about exposure on BB.
Methinks doth protests too much.

Anyway, I wasn't the first to point it out:

Austin area magician reveals own trick

"I find this curious as Brad apparently does not like it when others share interesting magical effects with the intent of driving interest in the art. I guess it is ok when it helps you book a gig?"

Sorry, RK, for bringing this up again. Please don't ban me. I'll move on.

User avatar
AJM
Posts: 1019
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby AJM » January 8th, 2016, 5:10 pm

Are you both married to each other by any chance?

Or perhaps the same person in turmoil/conflict in a sort of Gollum/Sméagol situation?

Just wondering...
Corner-boy Begrudger

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 5:14 pm

What I would like to see is a video of Widdle performing and then a video of Brad performing. It will have nothing do with the argument in question but at least we will be able to somehow or other give me a psychic vibe as to who is correct in this matter. I know you might say that one thing has nothing to do with the other but that is because many of you are not as psychic as I am.

Once I see both of them performing I will announce who I think has the most credibility. If Widdle really is a professor he will be used to speaking in public. And he will have more enthusiasm than Brad as neophytes often are more excited about their work than jaded professionals.

I think this could be an amusing exercise.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » January 8th, 2016, 5:39 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:
Seems I have been pretty consistent all along...
...will you stop willfully misrepresenting my position?


All those words to defend your consistency in a thread about exposure on BB.
Methinks doth protests too much.

Anyway, I wasn't the first to point it out:

Austin area magician reveals own trick

"I find this curious as Brad apparently does not like it when others share interesting magical effects with the intent of driving interest in the art. I guess it is ok when it helps you book a gig?"

Sorry, RK, for bringing this up again. Please don't ban me. I'll move on.


Have you read nothing I have written?

I saved you the trouble and posted the actual quotes. shall I also cut and paste the post where I mention that the video was constructed in a specific manner to address concerns of exposure? and where again have I said that one can never, nor should never, teach a magic trick? I would LOVE for you to provide that quote because, like the other straw men you throw up, it has never been uttered by me.

Let's stop playing around - clearly this has nothing to do with the issue of teaching/exposure or we would be discussing those issues. Instead, you are trying to cut and paste quotes out of context to make me look --- well, I'm not sure how you are trying to make me look.

Save us all some time - what is it that really is motivating these posts? Why the zealous drive to represent my words into meanings never intended? what is it that you hope to accomplish? Spell it out and maybe I can give that to you and save us all from your foolishness.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 23455
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Richard Kaufman » January 8th, 2016, 6:40 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote: Sorry, RK, for bringing this up again. Please don't ban me. I'll move on.


You damn well better move along.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4206
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Bill Mullins » January 8th, 2016, 7:38 pm

performer wrote: I am wondering if the card trick section was ever published as a small book on it's own.

yes

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 8:57 pm

REALLY? Good God! Maybe I have read Hoffman after all without knowing I read Hoffman. Of course I wasn't psychic at that time. Now I am curious! You don't know the title do you?

performer
Posts: 1843
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » January 8th, 2016, 9:15 pm

On looking over that google book extract I am really beginning to wonder now if I learned the Pass after all from Professor Hoffman. There are three things which are beginning to ring a bell for me. First and foremost is the style of the illustrations. I do remember the illustrations of the pass and this does look like the same illustrator. I also distinctly remember the "Mutus, Nomen, Dedit, Cocit thing in the book and it is here also. And I also vaguely remember the references to the "biseaute" pack nowadays known as the stripper deck.

It was a terrific description of the pass and I remember sitting there learning it. And after ten minutes I did it quite smoothly albeit slowly. But after half an hour I speeded up and I still do it to this day. I don't use fancy passes that are alleged to be invisible and I don't believe that it can be made without misdirection despite claims to the contrary. There is always some little flicker. People don't know what happened but they know something happened. Even in the so called invisible passes you see on videos it doesn't show the body language or the tenseness of the performer which always gives the game away.

I can't believe that I may well have learned the pass from Professor Hoffman and didn't realise it until over 50 years later.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 19th, 2016, 8:25 am

Magical MRI post

http://boingboing.net/2016/01/18/magic- ... ay-vi.html

I think we can all agree that this is a wonderful post, and good for magic. This is the sort of thing I was originally referring to way back when I started this thread. I like that the trick was promoted in the context of their live, monthly "magical meet-up" - a great idea for the audience of this blog. I'm sure some of them already have a monthly Poker game, so it's relatable.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7554
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 19th, 2016, 10:48 am

Not gonna worry about whether anyone else feels ...

I enjoyed reading the post and recognized one of the folks in the picture.

Also enjoyed seeing the demo video featured. Mark may be directing some boingboing readers this way.

Hi folks!
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 442
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby MagicbyAlfred » January 19th, 2016, 11:19 am

Maybe this thread should be renamed "Magic in Boomerang" cuz just when you think it might have gone Down Under, it just keeps coming back...

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 24th, 2016, 5:45 pm

Praise for The Jerx.

"The story of magic: how narrative destroys conjurers' effects, or elevates them to transcendence"

http://boingboing.net/2016/01/24/the-st ... arrat.html

observer
Posts: 240
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 5:32 am
Favorite Magician: Harry Kellar - Charlie Miller - Paul Rosini - Jay Marshall
Location: Chicago

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby observer » January 24th, 2016, 6:08 pm




Here's the important passage from that link, and yet it looks as if even the person who wrote it doesn't get it:

"At first, they were baffled and amazed, but once they were let in on the secret they were almost embarrassed at having missed the obvious explanation ..."

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 24th, 2016, 7:00 pm

The larger point of the article, "To increase the power of your magic, remove yourself from the magic," is an idea that was discussed in a past Genii thread about Carbonaro. I believe he also strongly thought magic was better without the magician.

In the case of the Connect Four trick, I also prefer the non-magician approach. However, I don't think it is aways better. The magician can serve an important purpose as a guide to help people feel safe during certain effects that might disturb, for example.

Without the magician, magic might have more potential to fool, but also to fool in the wrong way, so to speak.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » January 24th, 2016, 7:36 pm

well, that depends on how we define magic, and how that speaks to context and sources (of the magic)

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » January 25th, 2016, 8:29 am

Brad Henderson wrote:well, that depends on how we define magic, and how that speaks to context and sources (of the magic)


Agreed.

I'm surprised Carbonaro wasn't mentioned in either the Jerx or BB posts. There is a recent clip from his show where the "spectator" looked really upset about what he had just witnessed (It was a David Regal painting trick). Of course, Carbonaro reveals himself at the end, thereby relieving that poor man's discomfort. But what if, as the Jerx and Doctorow are suggesting, the magician is never revealed? That leaves all sorts of ethical implications. We are getting into psychic territory then. Even Derren Brown's new show had a reveal at the end.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7554
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 25th, 2016, 9:37 am

Framing magic? Okay let's look at content and context:
They get a story to tell others. We call that the effect. It's narrative in their lives. "And then I saw that card on the ceiling" - their story.

What that story is ... effect design. Whether or not you feature as a character in that story is part of the design.

How that works for you as a business - separate matter.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Leo Garet
Posts: 247
Joined: March 14th, 2015, 9:14 am
Favorite Magician: Nobody In Particular

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Leo Garet » January 25th, 2016, 10:06 am

observer wrote:Here's the important passage from that link, and yet it looks as if even the person who wrote it doesn't get it:

"At first, they were baffled and amazed, but once they were let in on the secret they were almost embarrassed at having missed the obvious explanation ..."


“Well I never!” said he. I thought at first you had done something clever, but I see there is nothing in it after all”.

“I begin to think, Watson,” said Holmes “that I make a mistake in explaining. ’Omne ignotum pro magnifico,’ you know and my poor little reputation, such as it is, will suffer shipwreck if I am so candid.”

Sherlock Holmes following an insightful series of deductions concerning Jabez Wilson.
“The Red-Headed League.”

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7554
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 25th, 2016, 10:37 am

Those who would be petty about their perceptions may also be petty in their own estimation.

Then again if you're presenting yourself as fraudulently clever ... the other shoe falls - it's you.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time


Return to “Alternative Media”