Clueless

[Tom Frame]

Andy at The Jerx asked readers to submit anecdotes involving clueless spectators.

I'm TF.

https://www.thejerx.com/blog/2022/10/2/ ... c0ydond1ep

[Jonathan Townsend]

Those clueless audience members have interesting ideas for effects.

[AJM]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20019394/ ... money/amp/

[Richard Kaufman]

You can't fix stupid.

[DennisLisi]

I think that's what you get sometimes when you try to "do The Impossible". You get either a spectator who has faith that anything can happen (including their silly ideas), or someone so sceptical that they trust nothing they see.

I avoid "The Impossible" and strive for the unlikely or improbable--all the while, demonstrating clear, simple, and reasonable moves.

If you employ flights of fancy in your routine, don't be surprised if your audience has other notions.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I had an interesting experience once when I performed Ring, String & Wand, a fabulous routine I learned from Daryl. In the beginning, I had a spectator thread the ring onto the shoestring, as I always do, to allay any suspicion that the ring is not genuinely on there. And as usual, i pointed out that, "The reason I had you do that is because if I were to do it myself, maybe people wouldn't believe the ring was really on the string." Also, as usual, I had that same spectator look down into my open palm and verify that the ring (that he, himself, had just threaded on there) was genuinely threaded on the string. He even picked up the ring a couple of inches above my palm to physically inspect it.

At climax of the routine, the ring "penetrated" through the string, through my closed fist, and onto the wand, notwithstanding that each of two spectators (including the aforementioned one) tightly held an end of the string and an end of the wand. When the gasps of astonishment and applause this typically brings died down, the spectator who had threaded the ring onto the string and then verified it was on there, declared: "The ring was never on the string in the first place." I did not respond to his comment, as I realized that engaging with him at that point could only result in things going downhill. I thanked him and the other spectator assistant, and went on to the next trick.

From that point on, whenever I have performed the routine, I swing the threaded ring back side to side like a pendulum, as if I'm hypnotizing the audience, lightheartedly saying, "You will enjoy the show." Then, just before slowly closing my fingers into a fist around ring and string, I have a spectator verify that the ring is still threaded on there.

[DennisLisi]

I had an interesting experience once when I performed Ring, String & Wand, a fabulous routine I learned from Daryl. In the beginning, I had a spectator thread the ring onto the shoestring, as I always do, to allay any suspicion that the ring is not genuinely on there. And as usual, i pointed out that, "The reason I had you do that is because if I were to do it myself, maybe people wouldn't believe the ring was really on the string." Also, as usual, I had that same spectator look down into my open palm and verify that the ring (that he, himself, had just threaded on there) was genuinely threaded on the string. He even picked up the ring a couple of inches above my palm to physically inspect it.

At climax of the routine, the ring "penetrated" through the string, through my closed fist, and onto the wand, notwithstanding that each of two spectators (including the aforementioned one) tightly held an end of the string and an end of the wand. When the gasps of astonishment and applause this typically brings died down, the spectator who had threaded the ring onto the string and then verified it was on there, declared: "The ring was never on the string in the first place." I did not respond to his comment, as I realized that engaging with him at that point could only result in things going downhill. I thanked him and the other spectator assistant, and went on to the next trick.

From that point on, whenever I have performed the routine, I swing the threaded ring back side to side like a pendulum, as if I'm hypnotizing the audience, lightheartedly saying, "You will enjoy the show." Then, just before slowly closing my fingers into a fist around ring and string, I have a spectator verify that the ring is still threaded on there.

That is why I believe in establishing a reputation for honesty. If someone asserts that (for instance) the ring was never on the string, you can simply say that he or she was mistaken. If however, you tend to tell fibs about such things (as The Boy Who Cried "Wolf!"), you have no defence.

With this trick, you can do it over again and satisfy any doubters, and the consensus of the crowd will quell the scepticism.

The only thing I don't like about this trick is the necessary but otherwise inexplicable fussing with the ends of the string. If there were some way to eliminate or underplay this, it would improve the effect tremendously.

[MagicbyAlfred]

"The only thing I don't like about this trick is the necessary but otherwise inexplicable fussing with the ends of the string. If there were some way to eliminate or underplay this, it would improve the effect tremendously.

Dennis, there is not much, if any, fussing with the ends of the string in my particular presentation. To the extent I need to handle the ends myself, it is, as you say, "underplayed," as I am crossing the ends over the back of my fist for a stated reason that makes sense within the context of the routine -- i.e. fastening the strait jacket in which "Houdini" (the ring) has been bound. If you are interested, here is a performance I did of it shortly after learning it, and using a rope, as opposed to a string, in this case. The part where the spectators, themselves, hold the ends of the rope and the wand would have been much smoother and more seamless if I had initially told them the correct hands to use in holding on. This was something that got smoothed out completely with more performances. I have never had a spectator question me as to whether the ring was really on there since the instance I recounted in my prior post. As for telling a spectator they are mistaken, it's not my style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP-ixpmK2eE

[DennisLisi]

it is, as you say, "underplayed," as I am crossing the ends over the back of my fist for a stated reason that makes sense within the context of the routine -- i.e. fastening the strait jacket in which "Houdini" (the ring) has been bound.

Watched your vid. Well done! Not having performed the trick myself, I would think it would be less suspicious to simply grasp the bit of string hanging beneath your fist and immediately extend it for the first volunteer to hold. In other words--just casually select one of the two ends and stretch it out for the participant to grasp. When he or she takes hold, let go and you're all set.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Thanks Dennis, I'm happy you liked it, and thank you for the straightforward suggestion.

[Paco Nagata]

That is why I believe in establishing a reputation for honesty.

I've always considered this as the KEY to solve this kind of problem: to build a reputation as an enternainer magician.

I think spectators who act like that are the ones that never see or can see the magician as a magician, but as a regular guy who has learnt how to do a trick. And 90% of the cases happen with amateurs. Alfred is a professional, so he had the bad luck to get into this 10% in that precise experience he wrote for us.

If we can convey to our spectators the idea that we are just entertainer magicians, instead of impertinent people who went to a magic shop to make fun of others, we could get them to like us as magicians.