The Too Perfect Theory

All beginners in magic should address their questions here.
The Great Rotundi
Posts: 1
Joined: October 22nd, 2019, 10:23 pm
Favorite Magician: David Roth

The Too Perfect Theory

Postby The Great Rotundi » December 13th, 2019, 1:23 pm

I recently did a show.
In my quest to make the trick more incredible I made a point of not touching the props .
All of the adults were fooled the Volunteers had fun but it lead to two little twin girls realizing the only time the magic could have happened ( improbable object to impossible location)
All I have had to do since is touch one prop in a very fair, open two fingered method after the fact and I look like a master of sleight of hand ...if they catch that point

Jack Shalom
Posts: 991
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Jack Shalom » December 13th, 2019, 6:06 pm

" I look like a master of sleight of hand ..."

But do you look like a magician?

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 13th, 2019, 6:11 pm

I vaguely remember Roy Benson writing somewhere that it is a good thing to touch a prop even for a moment so things don't appear too impossible. I suspect you are on the right track. Incidentally kids are far quicker to catch a secret than adults are. Of course with twins you get double trouble!

User avatar
Christopher1979
Posts: 537
Joined: January 23rd, 2017, 10:46 am
Favorite Magician: Ricky Jay, Dai Vernon, Darwin Ortiz, Ed Marlo
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Christopher1979 » December 13th, 2019, 7:07 pm

performer wrote:I vaguely remember Roy Benson writing somewhere that it is a good thing to touch a prop even for a moment so things don't appear too impossible. I suspect you are on the right track. Incidentally kids are far quicker to catch a secret than adults are. Of course with twins you get double trouble!


They really are!, I remember going to a diner in Los Angeles and the waiter showed two children a card trick. They worked out the secret in seconds and started shouting at the waiter "WE KNOW HOW YOU DID IT... WE KNOW HOW YOU DID IT". Obviously the parents didn't tell them to behave and this lasted for about half an hour till they decided to leave. I felt sorry for the waiter actually.

Bob Farmer
Posts: 2730
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Short card above selection.

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Bob Farmer » December 13th, 2019, 7:51 pm

I think kids are harder to fool because they don't have a fully-formed ego. Adults are confident they know the world and how it is supposed to work (so they can be deceived if that bias is taken advantage of) whereas children are more free thinking.

In my experience there is an analogous situation with smart people and dumb people: the former are easy to fool because they pick up all the cues they are supposed to and they understand what is and isn't possible, whereas the dumb guy misses the cues and sometimes doesn't realize what the "magic" is.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 13th, 2019, 9:07 pm

The best magic has a simple solution. Unfortunately kids go for the simple solution and are usually right! Adults look for more complex solutions when the real solution is right under their noses. A friend of mine knew a little about magic through associating with me but she was really a lay person. She said the way she worked out how tricks were done were in her words, "to use child's logic" and she was correct!

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8372
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Jonathan Townsend » December 13th, 2019, 9:10 pm

Wait a sec, you did the trick a second time recently but with that slight change in choreography - and it was more deceptive?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 13th, 2019, 9:34 pm

Some of the best training I ever had in magic - I guess you could call it "magical boot camp" - was working Bar Mitzfahs and Bat Mitzvahs in South Florida during the 90's. Those kids were sharp as a tack, and there was no filter - just brutal honesty. If there was any flaw in the way I was doing a trick or routine, I learned about it real quick...

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 13th, 2019, 11:14 pm

Alfred. I learned the same way working to other teenagers when I first started magic. Heckling was normal and I found it wonderful. It kept me on my toes and I learned my technique better so they wouldn't catch me. And of course I learned the best way to handle hecklers and most importantly get them on my side. A major mistake magicians make is that they fight the heckler. Far more beneficial to win them over because if you do they will become your best booster.

Of course the original poster is talking about young children rather than teenagers. I have found for that age the best bet is to make them LAUGH! The secrets of the tricks don't matter that much.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 14th, 2019, 8:17 am

Yes, I agree completely. There is a bit of a different psychology unique to each age group: young kids, adolescents, young adults, right on up to the eldest, who have seen and tasted a lot of life. An understanding of this psychology and how to apply it is IMO one of the most important factors in how effective one will be as a performer. And there is no substitute for experience. The audiences will teach us -- if we are willing to learn.

brianarudolph
Posts: 402
Joined: February 26th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby brianarudolph » December 15th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Bob Farmer wrote:In my experience there is an analogous situation with smart people and dumb people: the former are easy to fool because they pick up all the cues they are supposed to and they understand what is and isn't possible, whereas the dumb guy misses the cues and sometimes doesn't realize what the "magic" is.


I believe that's call the Dunninger-Kellar Effect.

User avatar
Paco Nagata
Posts: 294
Joined: July 3rd, 2019, 6:47 am
Favorite Magician: Juan Tamariz
Location: Madrid, Spain.

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Paco Nagata » December 16th, 2019, 4:55 am

Magicians are used to saying that they "fool."
Actually they are NOT supposed to fool, but just to show (do) magic, as I think Dai Vernon tried to transmit, however, people always try to look for a solution because don't believe in magic. So, as a conclusion, we could argue that the job of the magician it not only to do magic, but also to VOID its solutions, and it is when the Rick Johnsson's theory comes:
"Some tricks, by virtue of their perfection, become imperfect. Conversely, Some tricks, by virtue of their imperfection, become perfect".
What is to say, a "too perfect trick" has a "too unique clair solution."
How can we void a "too unique clear solution"?
Well, making the trick "less perfect." So to speak, transmiting other possible solutions at the same time, and then, voiding them one by one along the routine. For example:
1- We have a deck of cards with two duplicates cards on top.
2- If we take one of the top card, put it very clearly in the middle and just snap our fingers making appear it on top again, it would be "too perfect."
3- People will take for granted that there are two equal cards.
So it would be advisable not to do it so clearly.
So for example:
The magician (with no duplicates) takes the top card, put it in the spread middle, applies a "spread pass" and shows the card on the top. Spectators will be more intrigued because they will not be able to take any solution for granted, since there is not so clear (sleight of hand? Duplicate? All the same?) In other words: the magic trick is NOT perfect, so it works!
So, now begin the process of voiding the possible solutions:
1- The magician takes again the top card and TILT it. Snap. Double turn over and it comes to the top. Spectators may suspect duplicate or sleight of hands.
2- The magician hands the card and takes out a marker to ask for signing it. TILT, and the duplicate solution disappears. Spectators begin to SEE some magic, but still think about sleights.
3- Then, the magician shows the AC (double), turns it over on the deck, takes the top one (indiferent) and loses it in the middle very very clearly.
4- The card come to the top so clearly!
No duplicate, no sleight?
In short:
The solution to eliminate solutions is to begin making it not perfect.

An interesting analogy would be in science, the "Supersymmetry" theory (SUSY) that can solve any physics problem, but it is a problem by itself since according to mathematics, if the Superymmetry were Real, nothing could actually exist! So, it is necessary as well the imperfection in physics for things to exist, and it is called "Spontaneous symmetry breaking." So, in the Art of Magic you need to BREAK THE PERFECTION to get it works as magic for the spectators.
"The Passion of an Amateur Card Magician"
https://bit.ly/2lXdO2O
"La pasion de un cartómago aficionado"
https://bit.ly/2kkjpjn
Latest erratum corrections and improvements update, 16/06/2020.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 16th, 2019, 9:33 am

That is a very intriguing post, Paco. Thanks for taking the time to share that. Definitely food for thought.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 991
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Jack Shalom » December 16th, 2019, 10:25 am

I think that framing is a little misleading.

What is sometimes called a "too perfect trick" is actually an imperfect trick that can be made more perfect by more careful thinking about it.

User avatar
erdnasephile
Posts: 4358
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby erdnasephile » December 16th, 2019, 10:52 am

Bob Farmer wrote:I think kids are harder to fool because they don't have a fully-formed ego. Adults are confident they know the world and how it is supposed to work (so they can be deceived if that bias is taken advantage of) whereas children are more free thinking.

In my experience there is an analogous situation with smart people and dumb people: the former are easy to fool because they pick up all the cues they are supposed to and they understand what is and isn't possible, whereas the dumb guy misses the cues and sometimes doesn't realize what the "magic" is.


I remember watching Jerry Andrus and he said at the top of his show (after using the Omni deck): "I can fool you because you're a human. You have a wonderful human mind that works no different from my human mind. Usually when we're fooled, the mind hasn't made a mistake. It's come to the wrong conclusion for the right reason." Without the logical framework that Bob talks about, that doesn't happen.

Re: dumb people. I once had an unintentional "touching the prop" moment not work so well. I was doing a spectator cuts the aces routine and accidentally brushed the deck with my index finger when asking the spectator to cut one of the packets. When the four aces were revealed, one of the spectators insisted that tap on the deck was when I made the four aces come to the top of four separate packets. It was weird and gratifying at the same time because he completely missed the add-on of the four aces at the beginning and the side steal palm displacement near the end--it was the first time I had ever used those moves in public. I felt great until I realized he was dumb.

(PS: I've never liked the "Too Perfect" theory. I think it is sometimes used to cover up poor trick construction and weak presentations.)

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 16th, 2019, 1:06 pm

I only think of the punters as "dumb" when I am selling them magic. It is a job requirement to detest the public who are walking about with my money in their pocket, after all. However, that is the grafting philosophy. When performing in other situations I believe the opposite. Under no circumstances should you ever think of people as "dumb" (unless of course you are performing for other magicians). You should never underestimate the intelligence of laymen and always give the people in your audience the utmost respect even if they are heckling you. And I detest the expression "fool" when it should be "mystify" or "baffle". I think that should be banned from the vocabulary of a magician. It is so demeaning and disrespectful.

A schizophrenic approach from me. When performing for people in a non selling situation I adopt the Howard Thurston philosophy of "I love my audience". When grafting I adopt the Ronnie Mcleod (an old friend of mine} approach of "I hate these dirty bastards who are walking around with my money in their pockets".

As for the "too perfect" theory I do believe in it, not only in technical matters of the sort under discussion but also in presentational matters too. I often think that perfection shows a lack of perfection in itself. Audiences don't want you to be perfect. They want you to be human. A little imperfection in a performance is actually a good thing.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 16th, 2019, 2:03 pm

Wow, Performer, you are psychic, aren't you? Cuz you read my mind...

[*It's light reading, by the way]

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 16th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Spiritual coincidence or to put a more earthly interpretation on it, "Great Minds Think Alike"

User avatar
erdnasephile
Posts: 4358
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby erdnasephile » December 16th, 2019, 7:58 pm

performer wrote:I only think of the punters as "dumb" when I am selling them magic. It is a job requirement to detest the public who are walking about with my money in their pocket, after all. However, that is the grafting philosophy. When performing in other situations I believe the opposite. Under no circumstances should you ever think of people as "dumb" (unless of course you are performing for other magicians). You should never underestimate the intelligence of laymen and always give the people in your audience the utmost respect even if they are heckling you. And I detest the expression "fool" when it should be "mystify" or "baffle". I think that should be banned from the vocabulary of a magician. It is so demeaning and disrespectful.


Fair point. I stand corrected. Referring to this person as dumb wasn't nice. I think a better description was that he tends towards being less analytical than the typical audience member I run into.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 16th, 2019, 9:00 pm

If there was a "like" button, Erdnasephile, I would click on it for your above response to Performer's post.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 16th, 2019, 10:34 pm

In actual fact the guy who you assumed "less analytical" actually proved the wisdom of the too perfect theory. If you hadn't touched the cards accidentally he might have been more prone to figuring out you were using sleight of hand. Perhaps you should touch them every time! Maybe anyway!

In actual fact I think there are three types of spectator. The "less analytical" are the best ones since they enjoy the magic more and are happy to be baffled by it. The second type are the quiet ones who "try to see how the engine works". In other words they try to figure out how it is done and are not content to let you get away with it. They don't heckle--they just try to detect the secret. Analytical types. The third category are the hecklers and naysayers. There are different techniques to handle each category of spectator.

User avatar
Paco Nagata
Posts: 294
Joined: July 3rd, 2019, 6:47 am
Favorite Magician: Juan Tamariz
Location: Madrid, Spain.

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Paco Nagata » December 17th, 2019, 12:35 am

The following is my personal analysis of types of spectators, taken from page 91 of my book:

Type of Spectators:
1- Spectators who let themselves being amazed:
They like to see magic even if they are aware that it does not exist. They see it as a way of getting away from reality and living a little fantasy. They respect the magician.
2- Sceptical spectators, three types:
a- They show their scepticism even if they don’t know the secret by proposing possible solutions aloud. There is not much interest in respecting the magician or the excitement of spectators.
b- They don’t show scepticism nor know the secret, but they rack their brains over to try to find possible solutions as mere satisfaction to their personal curiosity. They respect the magician and the excitement of the spectators.
c- They discover or already knew the secret, but they remain discreetly silent. They let the situation pass without more. They respect the magician and the excitement of the spectators.
3- Evil spectators:
They discover or already knew the secret and they
announce it aloud. They have read magic books without interest in becoming magicians. They don’t respect the magician neither the excitement of the spectators. They make fun of the Art of Magic.

Just for sharing thoughts.
"The Passion of an Amateur Card Magician"
https://bit.ly/2lXdO2O
"La pasion de un cartómago aficionado"
https://bit.ly/2kkjpjn
Latest erratum corrections and improvements update, 16/06/2020.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 17th, 2019, 6:21 am

I remember the first time I went to a magic store. It was the day I decided I wanted to be a magician. The store was in Brooklyn, New York, and I was 6 years old. In addition to all the magic apparatus -- the colorful silks, the brightly painted boxes with dragons and Chinese inscriptions. the gaffed decks and coin sets, the Magic Milk Pitcher (which I acquired that day, thanks to my mom) -- there were quite a few novelties and practical jokes. One of them was the "Squirting Flower." It was quite realistic looking, and the guy behind the counter (who had an ever-present, half-smoked, unlit cigar in his mouth) demonstrated it. Devious jokesters could pin it to their lapel, invite someone to "smell the pretty flower," and then zap the unsuspecting sucker with a squirt of water in their face. Quite sadistic actually, and of course, I was forbidden to get it. (One of the great regrets of my life). I thought about that flower today for the first time in decades, and it struck me, like a bolt out of the blue. It would be a perfect "trick" to perform for the "Evil Spectators." Not too perfect -- just perfect enough.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 17th, 2019, 6:54 am

I am not worried about evil spectators. I am FAR more evil than they are! I studied evil thoroughly and in fact I went to a university to do so. The University of Evil. It was a place called Blackpool where I got a masters degree in evil. In fact I even put it on my Linkedin profile. After all they did request something about education on there. Come to think of it I actually taught at the University of Evil and in fact had quite a few graduates who learned from me there.

In addition to that there are two chapters in my memoirs entitled "The University of Evil" and "More Evil at the University"

Anyway, I have written thoroughly on how to deal with evil spectators in my appendix to the annotated Royal Road to Card Magic which should be coming out very soon indeed. Just trying to work out a good cover for the book.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 17th, 2019, 7:11 am

I don't believe in fighting evil spectators. However, if you are the sort of person that likes to go on that unwise path the most effective device is the Banana Trick described in a great little book published by Harry Stanley called "50 crazy card tricks". All sorts of amusing crazy stunts with cards different from the normal run. Amusing and funny rather than baffling. The banana trick is marvellous for difficult spectators providing you are willing to deal with the fall out from them hating you and possibly taking violent revenge upon your person. I would not do it in the United States since there are more guns than people in that most peculiar part of the world and people do some very odd things as a result.

One stunt described in the Crazy Card Tricks book is that you arrange with a mischievous friend to act as "The Wizard" in the famous telephone card trick of that name. He agrees to do some long distance mind reading for you whenever he receives the phone call. You now ask some hapless spectator to name any card whereupon you give him or her the phone number in question to call the Wizard who is going to reveal the card.

The Wizard then screams and shouts at the victim with the foulest language imaginable, saying something like, "What the !@#$ are you talking about? What !@#@$% WIZARD! Do you normally harass people with prank phone calls? I am going to call the police if you keep doing this!" and so on along those lines. I think you get the idea.

"50 Crazy Card Tricks" . That was one of them. I expect the book (actually reduced to a booklet) is out of print now. But try and get it if you can. Especially the banana trick which I have no energy to describe. Suffice it to say your evil heckler ends up with a fist full of squashed banana and may well be in a mood to squash you in return after you do it.

Anthony Vinson
Posts: 306
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 12:34 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Anthony Vinson » December 17th, 2019, 7:55 am

brianarudolph wrote:
Bob Farmer wrote:In my experience there is an analogous situation with smart people and dumb people: the former are easy to fool because they pick up all the cues they are supposed to and they understand what is and isn't possible, whereas the dumb guy misses the cues and sometimes doesn't realize what the "magic" is.


I believe that's call the Dunninger-Kellar Effect.


And we have a winner!

Av

PavelTheGreat

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby PavelTheGreat » December 31st, 2019, 7:45 am

Depends on what you mean by "perfect". I assume that the proper theory is that the routine appears faultless, with no suspicious moves. Is incredible, but not necessarily amazing.

However, we all want trick to be perfect in effect. To completely astonish.

This is the question. How to achieve desired response from audience, not how to make illusion impossible to figure out.

In my opinion, is better to seem less than perfect as magician, so audience will appreciate your work. This is how to impress crowd, not by easily pulling string or pushing button. People didn't not cone to see trick, they cone to see performer.

And most important point is that "not perfect" is more realistic. Realism is the way to impress spectators. If is not believable, is not interesting. Is boring.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » December 31st, 2019, 8:11 am

Yes. I think I agree with Pavel. Especially his second last little paragraph. In fact I think I have believed that my entire life. Audiences don't want you to be "perfect". They want you to be human. They like you better and it lowers the subconscious and at times conscious irritation at being fooled.

Mess a trick up occasionally (not too occasionally!), drop some cards accidentally, forget what the hell you are doing once in a while, make a joke that nobody laughs at (don't too too much of it though!) forget your patter (or script if we have to use that awful word) and generally don't be too perfect. Audiences will love you for it providing you do it with discretion. Counter intuitive I know. However, it works. I have been doing it my entire life in magic so I know.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1592
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 31st, 2019, 9:08 am

Yes, indeed. Drop some cards, forget my patter, joke that nobody laughs at - I don't even have to try. I've been in this game for a long time, and I have no reason to believe I'll ever be anything close to perfect (or too perfect). For quite a while now, I have been contemplating what it is that attracts people to a great movie or literary work, and how then to apply that to my performances. Recently i read - and it may have been in Paco's book - that people know the protagonist will ultimately prevail in the movie, but it is the drama, the trials and tribulations that he/she must go through in order to triumph (just like in "Triumph," which is so aptly named).

Years ago at a bar I worked at with other magicians, I would have the bartender interrupt me (after a card had been selected and I had controlled it) to tell me I had an important phone call. When I would walk away and pretend to talk on the phone, and "not watching," another magician would come and apparently shuffle my cards face up face down, as in Triumph, and with a smile, he would put his finger to his lips to the spectators, as if to tell them not to say anything to me, so they could all play a little joke. Then, when I returned I would act as if I was proceeding to find the spectator's card, but suddenly look really confused (to the delight of the spectators and the co-conspirator magician) when I saw (and showed) that the deck was discombobulated, some cards face-up, some face down, etc.

And then, of course, the Triumph...

The dramatic tension is what draws human interest and magnetizes the audience. That is why I like to wrap a lot of my magic in stories and have a fair share of magician-in-trouble material. But it's an ongoing study - and a fascinating one. A wise magician told me years ago that no matter what level you get to, you should never believe you are "there," but always remain open to learning and growth....

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1380
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Tom Stone » December 31st, 2019, 12:18 pm

erdnasephile wrote:(PS: I've never liked the "Too Perfect" theory. I think it is sometimes used to cover up poor trick construction and weak presentations.)

"Too Perfect theory" is a misnomer on every possible level. It doesn't describe anything real, lack the consistency of a proper theory and have no predictive qualities. It was just a nonsensical throw-away essay about hypothetical situations with made-up examples that somehow got more attention than it should.

It's only value is as a Litmus test. Whenever we end up in a situation where it becomes tempting to believe this, so called, "theory" have merits, it is a sign that we've completely misunderstood something essential about the piece we're working on. If that happens, it is just to take a step back, drop all assumptions and wishful thinking, and move through the whole plot from start to end, step by step, examining each step, until the mistake is found.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8372
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Jonathan Townsend » December 31st, 2019, 7:13 pm

Tom Stone wrote:"Too Perfect theory" is a misnomer on every possible level.
Such is the nature of language especially where words are used to conceal meaning. Agreed that it's humor. Keep the method but change the effect. :) Funny guy.

A different tack could simply quote Sun Tzu about cornering an enemy. The battle being to convey magic without demanding the audience also play the fool.

Happy 2019/2020
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Dave Le Fevre
Posts: 158
Joined: December 24th, 2015, 10:29 am
Favorite Magician: Paul Megram

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Dave Le Fevre » January 1st, 2020, 7:22 am

A year or two ago, someone performed an effect (that he'd created) for a group of us. It was jaw-dropping. Utterly impossible.

An hour or two later, I realised what the method was. Because it's what the method had to be. The effect was so seemingly impossible that was the only way that it could have been achieved.

And that, to me, is a prime example of the Too Perfect Theory.

It's such a great effect that I purchased it and I perform it. And I'm still wondering how to introduce an "imperfection" into it in order that others don't follow the same logical deduction that I did. I believe that so far no spectator has got anywhere near the method. But it will happen some day.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1380
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Tom Stone » January 1st, 2020, 8:08 am

Dave Le Fevre wrote:And I'm still wondering how to introduce an "imperfection" into it in order that others don't follow the same logical deduction that I did. I believe that so far no spectator has got anywhere near the method.


"so far no spectator has got anywhere near the method" Yes, that sounds horrible. I can understand why you want to make it less good.

I'm still wondering how to introduce an "imperfection" into it
...and that's the problem. Instead of trying to improve the trick, you are considering making it less good. This is a prime example of how silly the concept is.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby performer » January 1st, 2020, 10:33 am

Perhaps it should be called the "Too Impossible" theory rather than the "Too Perfect" theory. In fact I think that defines it better. A trick can be so impossible that there is only one way it could be done. Not that it matters anyway, ---the secrets are all on bloody you tube.

Dave Le Fevre
Posts: 158
Joined: December 24th, 2015, 10:29 am
Favorite Magician: Paul Megram

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Dave Le Fevre » January 1st, 2020, 11:26 am

Tom Stone wrote:"so far no spectator has got anywhere near the method" Yes, that sounds horrible. I can understand why you want to make it less good.
I consider "so far" to be a temporary situation. So I'm wondering how to make it permanent. And thank you for making me smile.

Tom Stone wrote:I'm still wondering how to introduce an "imperfection" into it
...and that's the problem. Instead of trying to improve the trick, you are considering making it less good. This is a prime example of how silly the concept is.
I'd put "imperfection" in quotes because I don't really consider it an imperfection. However, no more appropriate word came to mind.

Let's just say that I'm pondering what I could change in the presentation to throw people further off the scent.

Bottom line is that it's a great effect. It gets strong reactions. But because there was only one possible method, I managed to divine the method. And if I could work it out, then some day a spectator will too. And I wish to reduce the probability that spectators will work it out.

Dave Le Fevre
Posts: 158
Joined: December 24th, 2015, 10:29 am
Favorite Magician: Paul Megram

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Dave Le Fevre » January 1st, 2020, 11:27 am

performer wrote:Perhaps it should be called the "Too Impossible" theory rather than the "Too Perfect" theory. In fact I think that defines it better.
I agree.

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1930
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Leonard Hevia » January 1st, 2020, 12:01 pm

The essence of the argument is to introduce a feint into the effect that leads analytical spectators away from the correct solution. The Object to Impossible Location effect leads the audience to the possibility of a duplicate. How else? Any magician who performs this type of effect is faced with this problem.

Roberto Giobbi believes the restored card in the T & R card should still have the creases and missing corner, as in the Paul Harris classic Ultimate Rip Off. If the card was perfectly restored to brand new condition, audiences would suspect a duplicate, and they would be right.

Tom Baxter apparently pulled off the perfect version of Stewart James's 51 Faces North. It seems too impossible and led me to what I believe is the obvious solution:

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/vie ... 4&forum=15

PavelTheGreat

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby PavelTheGreat » January 1st, 2020, 12:09 pm

"Too impossible" I understand. Yes, that is problem. Not only easy (logical) to figure out, but utterly fantastical (unrealistic). Therefore only good for entertaining the ones that love art for art's sake. I think Magic is better when is based on sensible concept, then becomes "impossible". Effect should be that of scientific discovery that make scientists jaw drop, in other words, defy current understanding in rational way, or in way that audience can at least believe. Let them think it could happen by certain means.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1380
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Tom Stone » January 1st, 2020, 12:58 pm

Leonard Hevia wrote: The Object to Impossible Location effect leads the audience to the possibility of a duplicate. How else?

That is an example of the performer being blind to the effect that actually is performed, while believing they perform what the effect description claim.
Roberto Giobbi believes the restored card in the T & R card should still have the creases and missing corner, as in the Paul Harris classic Ultimate Rip Off. If the card was perfectly restored to brand new condition, audiences would suspect a duplicate, and they would be right.

That hypothesis doesn't seem to agree with reality, as anyone who've performed DeCova's Flash Restoration, or David Williamson's Torn and Restored Transposition, can attest.

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1930
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: The Too Perfect Theory

Postby Leonard Hevia » January 1st, 2020, 1:19 pm

Tom Stone wrote:That is an example of the performer being blind to the effect that actually is performed, while believing they perform what the effect description claim.


The effect that is actually performed is going to require a method that does not leave a trail to the obvious solution. Why didn't Tommy Wonder have the audience hold the ring box before revealing the signed folded card inside? His method would not have held up.

Tom Stone wrote:That hypothesis doesn't seem to agree with reality, as anyone who've performed DeCova's Flash Restoration, or David Williamson's Torn and Restored Transposition, can attest.


If the cards are not signed by the spectators, the audience is clapping to be polite upon the restoration.


Return to “General”