Hack Lines that Magicians Should Avoid

[Magic Newswire]

From the minds of Paul Draper & Jason Andrews: http://bit.ly/N9RfcP

[magicrobharv]

For me, the worst hack line is when a magician says some nonsense, I.E., did you ever wonder about blah, blah, blah and then proceeds to the HACK LINE, "HERE LET ME SHOW YOU." I hate the "HERE LET ME SHOW YOU" line. The reason magicians have to say "HERE LET ME SHOW YOU" is because the audience cannot relate to, let alone understand why the magician is saying what he is saying. When the first couple of lines come out of the magicians mouth, for most people, what the magician says to them is not something they can relate to. Seriously, listen to how many magicians have to / choose to say "HERE LET ME SHOW YOU." I guess that is my pet peeve.

[erdnasephile]

I would agree that magicians are frequently a lazy lot when it comes to developing presentations, and too often unthinkingly fall back on these well-worn lines.

Yet, I think this video is a gross oversimplification. Indeed, some of the lines cited play enormously well for certain performers becuase of context, character, and delivery. The lines work here because the performer has been intentionally thoughtful in their selection and application.

IMHO, it's often not that the lines are "hack" in and of themselves, but rather the performer who is.

PS: Was reading some old magazines recently and came across a report about the person who actually created the "Oh, that was the clean one" line. In it's original context, it got screams and went over well.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Where did you find the "clean hand" gag in context? Citation?

[El Harvey Oswald]

"IMHO, it's often not that the lines are "hack" in and of themselves, but rather the performer who is."

The lines are inherently unfunny, cliche, played-out. This corollary to "no such thing as a bad trick" is even less apt than the application to tricks.

Performers seem to regularly mistake courtesy/pity laughter for the real thing.

[El Mystico]

"Use the funny line...no, the other one; oh, you were right first time I guess..."

[erdnasephile]

JT:

The line is Walter Blaney's. The article stating the context was in MAGIC--I'll try to track down the exact reference for you.

EHO:
I agree with your last sentence, and most of the lines cited are inherently unfunny, as you have said.

However, what I disagreed with was the blanket statement of the video makers that ALL of these lines should be avoided by EVERY magician. There's at least one line in that litany that I saw a very well known performer use during a public performance recently that got far more than pity laugher. I think absolutes are seldom 100% accurate when it comes to the performing arts.

And yes, I do think there are bad tricks! :)

[Paul Draper]

Direct from the description on our youtube video:

Hack Lines: A joke that has been frequently used by comedians or Magicians in the past, and is blatantly stolen from its original author. Short for "hackneyed" meaning over used, cheapened, or trite. (This definition was blatantly stolen from Wikipedia)

These lines were & are really funny when used by the people who invented them & entertainers who make them their own. Many of these lines were originated by great performers like:

Walter Blaney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YACRdgj_A_M
Michael Finney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YiOVubj-wg

We both love watching great performers use these lines in superb ways to delight their audiences. We just don't like it when some insert them into their shows without the work to make them their own.

-------------------------------------

And in our comments below we post:

I see that as akin to musicians playing classical songs that they didn't write. It isn't about the lines. It is about the skill in the presentation and making them your own. Or rearranging the lines / tricks so they align with your charactor and message. We only hate hack lines when they are unthinking and shoved into an act like a splinter into soft flesh.

[Paul Draper]

Also, Yes... I have used several of them. Jason has too. We should write our own... BUT THEY ARE SOOO GOOD! Sometimes it hurts to have it pointed out, perhaps we should have called them STOCK lines rather than hack lines. The key is in making them your own and truly understanding the line and how it fits perfectly with the effect and character better then anything else that has been or could be said.

Happy that you are enjoying our video.

Paul

For more info on us:

Jason Andrews: http://www.jasonandrewsmagic.com/
Paul Draper: http://mentalmysteries.com/
http://pauldraperactor.com/

[KirkG]

With all due respect, many of those lines are hack lines and some are used very well in context by not the originator of the line. I expect that many were developed in parallel. It is easy to be exposed to world wide performances now, but many acts were developed in the 70's and 80's before the wide acceptance of the internet.

[erdnasephile]

Where did you find the "clean hand" gag in context? Citation?

JT: MAGIC, July 2008, pg 57 where Walter Blaney talks about how he created the popular follow up line, and how 2 other famous magicians asked him for permission to use it.

[El Harvey Oswald]

Even if these lines aren't played out and unfunny in 100 percent of all circumstances, it's close enough to 100 percent that they should only be used after some candid deliberation, and after having received some an honest, critical assessment from someone else. That input from someone else is harder to come by when the merest critical point can get one labeled a "hater." So the problem is compounded by a paucity of candid, honest advice. As with most things where the odds stack up this way, the prudent, pragmatic thing to do is to avoid, or at least have a very strong presumption against, using the lines in this video, and a few others that are similar.

In other performing arts, there's a tendency for artists and critics to be antagonistic toward mass audiences' failure to appreciate highbrow art. Magic, though, seems to be the only performance medium in which a substantial contingent argues that a mass audience ought to have enjoyed, or actually did enjoy, lowbrow, derivative and hackneyed material.