Re: Approaching Magic Essay

[erdnasephile]

I was reading this outstanding book, and came across the essay entitled "Conditions & Impact" (pg 79-81). In it, Mr. Regal posits that it is essential to "clarify conditions prior to the trick's denouement" in order to avoid an audience's "intellectural process entered into after its conclusion". Specifically, he cites the weakness of tricks where part of the presentation is to hand out props for examination after the climax, in that this wastes the opportunity to produce amazement and/or instantly stops the emotional reaction to an effect. (Some effects that have got a lot of run on magic forums fit into this paradigm).

There may be rare exceptions, but I tend to side with Mr. Regal on this one--it just seems anticlimactic to pass stuff out at the end of a trick in an attempt to sell it better. Gauci's Houdini Card Trick comes to mind--very clever and baffling, but the routine begs for the props to be examined at the end--the structure of the routine is weakened as a result.

What's your take on this?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Not sure - it seems they really want to touch the stuff after magic happens. Not to look for gaffs but just to reassure themselves the items are "tangible" and to "feel" what's changed after it was affected by the magic. They do that kind of thing you know, even build shrines etc. IMHO it's not intellectual, but is instead primal.

Now if you are using such contrived props that they want to take a pen knife to pry them apart to see how they work.. well you brought than on yourself - all too perfectly.

[Kamal]

I agree with David Regal on this (and Darwin Ortiz as it happens). Paraphrasing Darwin from Designing Miracles, it's far better to burn the "method" bridges before a spectator gets to them.

Eg, show the deck has one card missing and then reveal it in it's impossible location. Not the other way around.

[Richard Kaufman]

This is classic theatrical construction: After your Triumph shuffle, you spread the deck face UP to reveal that all the cards are now facing the same direction except one. First Climax.

Second Climax: remove the single face-down card and turn it over to reveal the selection.

Ditto for card to impossible location. The card vanishes: first climax. Then reappears in impossible location: second climax.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I agree with David Regal on this (and Darwin Ortiz as it happens). Paraphrasing Darwin from Designing Miracles, it's far better to burn the "method" bridges before a spectator gets to them.

Eg, show the deck has one card missing and then reveal it in it's impossible location. Not the other way around.

I don't disagree with the principle. My concern and gripe on this matter comes when one engages the rational/logical functions of the audience in a sort of conscious puzzle solving dynamic. As has been found long ago in rhetoric and recently demonstrated in studies - what someone rationally/logically knows is not such a strong factor in their decision making or belief formation as we might like. If you're wearing a jacket they are likely to say "up his sleeves" perhaps even if you do what Downs did.

[Jonathan Townsend]

? When Houdini did the milk can escape or the "upside down" did he have his crew open and empty the things or were they left in place as he took his bows?

[Kamal]

Hmmm, I think you're mixing apples and oranges now. In a close up environment, there's a certain "hands-on" expectation, whereas on stage it's more like TV (look but don't touch).

Back to the OP - in a card to impossible location (using a duplicate, where I'm not supposed to know the value of the card) I go through a failed mind-reading moment.

I purposefully get the card wrong to allay any suspicion that I forced the card. So even if they think "he made me choose that card" it's immediately negated by the failed mind-reading moment. I mean, if I knew what it was, why would I get it wrong?


This is how I burn method bridges before they're crossed.

[James Cotton]

I agree with David Regal on this (and Darwin Ortiz as it happens). Paraphrasing Darwin from Designing Miracles, it's far better to burn the "method" bridges before a spectator gets to them.

It seems clear that Regal agrees with Ortiz, too, to the extent that it has influenced his essays. Good to see the recent upsurge in theory books.

[erdnasephile]

All: Appreciate the Ortiz reference, Re: burning bridges as well as the thoughtful comments.

Question: Would allowing the spectators to hold/handle props prior to ringing in the gaff would take the heat off of ending dirty since you've burned the bridge of "tricky" props? (i.e. then audience doesn't feel the need to examine things since they have already held/examined them).

If so, then this would favor say, Bob Kohlers U3F over Come Fly with Me as well as why Harry L. says using a borrowed deck doubles the impact of your magic. (In fact, there are probably some tricks that shouldn't be done with your own deck if "marked deck" would be the most plausible modus operandi since that could not be easily canceled).

Further, it would seem to be more beneficial to starting "clean" instead of ending clean (which is emphasized so often in trick ads).

I suspect we like things that end clean because we are often so adept at telegraphing guilt.

[Kamal]

About 2 years ago, when doing walk-around gigs, I switched to carrying only a single deck of cards and a sharpie - nothing else.

The switch was because of both the guilty feeling, and the lack of examinability of some of my effects.

Now, I exude a guilt-free confidence, and maybe one time in 100 someone asks to examine the deck (which they can).

Again, this is different to a formal close-up show where the expectations to examine the props is less. I've performed a version of McDonalds Aces in a formal show, and I never feared that someone would ask to look at the deck before, or the cards after.


If I had a choice, I would choose to end clean. I can BS my way past any initial questions, should they arise.

[Leonard Hevia]

In the chapter "An Examination of Examinations" Tommy Wonder had some interesting thoughts in his Books of Wonder on handing out props for examination. He disliked the idea of handing out props before or after the effect for the reasons outlined on this thread. His solution was to start clean, incorporate the gaffs into the effect, and end clean, whenever possible. His "Counterfeiters Spellbound" effect is a perfect example of this. He often overheard spectators mention the "trick coin" when he performed this and redesigned the routine to allow the spectators to hold the two normal silver coins before going into the effect.

Tommy was also not averse to boldly letting spectators hold on to gaffed props while he performed. In the "Tamed Card" the dirty cards are briefly held by the spectator. It reinforces the idea that the cards could have been examined should the spectator had desired.

Passing out props beforehand can also slow down the rhythm and pacing as well as relinquish too much control to the spectator.

[Brandon Hall]

[quote="Kamal"]Now, I exude a guilt-free confidence, and maybe one time in 100 someone asks to examine the deck (which they can)./quote]
I'll bet sociopaths make great magicians, huh?