(Close Window) Topic: Making Individual Effects More Powerful
Message: Posted by: cschuh (Jan 22, 2003 8:04pm)
Hi Mr. Ortiz,

I was just wondering if there were any additional techniques (outside of "Strong Magic") that you use to make your magic more powerful to your audiences.

I already try to employ things like resolving all questions before the climax, removing any unnessary patter/movement/time, and tuning into the spectator's reactions to refine the effect later on. However, I do find that I'm searching for more methods to make the magic more powerful. After your reply, I would then like to post another question (in another thread) that regards to routines. Thanks!

Cheers,

Chris
Message: Posted by: Darwin Ortiz (Jan 25, 2003 9:41pm)
Chris:

Most of what I have to say about presentation I managed to say in Strong Magic. There is, however, another important issue that greatly affects the impact of your magic. That is effect construction. I’m not one of those who believe that any effect can be turned into a miracle through presentation. Any effect can be made stronger through presentation. But, to achieve a miracle, you have to start with a strong effect.

At the beginning of the explanation portion of his first Lessons in Magic video, Juan Tamariz makes some important comments on this subject. He explicitly states that he does not consider presentation the most important aspect of an effect. Instead, he calls sound construction the most important element. He compares a magic effect to a woman. Presentation is like the clothes and make-up; construction, however, is the skeletal structure. If that’s weak, everything else will collapse. (I recommend to any serious magician that he study Juan’s comments on the tape.)

We often say that one version of an effect is stronger than another. When we make such statements, we’re usually talking about construction. But we’re doing it in vague terms (“This version is cleaner”) and on an almost instinctive level. Without understanding the relevant concepts in a conscious, analytical way we can’t fully apply them in creating effects or selecting effects.

To clarify what I mean by effect construction, I’ll mention that the no-contact condition discussed in Strong Magic is an effect construction issue. (Discussions of the Too Perfect Theory also tend to touch on the subject.)

Yet, despite its importance, there has been almost no effort in the magic literature to systematically explore what constitutes strong construction. I’ve discussed construction issues in my three card books in the context of specific effects. However, this is a subject important and complex enough to justify an entire book (one that I intend to write someday).

Meanwhile, I strongly recommend Tamariz’s The Magic Way. This is an important book that has been almost completely overlooked in this country (although not in Europe). It is also virtually the only extended discussion of the subject of effect construction in print to date.

Ultimately, proper effect construction is about how laypeople think. And how laypeople think is the most important subject in magic.

Sincerely,
Darwin Ortiz
Message: Posted by: Kenguru (Jan 26, 2003 3:39am)
Hi Mr. Ortiz,

What do you think about the theory section in Roberto Giobbi's Card College (English version vol 2)?

I have found it very a interesting although brief discussion of construction and would appreciate you opinion.

Thank you.
Message: Posted by: Darwin Ortiz (Jan 26, 2003 3:47am)
Quote:

On 2003-01-26 03:39, Kenguru wrote:
What do you think about the theory section in Roberto Giobbi's Card College (English version vol 2)?


Kenguru:

I think it's outstanding. I would strongly recommend it to any magician. Magic needs more of this kind of thinking and writing. (Unfortunately, there are few magicians capable of providing it.)

Sincerely,
Darwin Ortiz
Message: Posted by: Darwin Ortiz (Jan 26, 2003 3:48am)
Quote:

On 2003-01-26 03:47, Darwin Ortiz wrote:
Quote:

On 2003-01-26 03:39, Kenguru wrote:
What do you think about the theory section in Roberto Giobbi's Card College (English version vol 2)?

Kenguru:

I think it's outstanding. I would strongly recommend it to any magician. Magic needs more of this kind of analysis. (Unfortunately, there are few magicians capable of providing it.)

Sincerely,
Darwin Ortiz
Message: Posted by: Kenguru (Jan 26, 2003 4:00am)
Thank you.

Can you recommend more reading on the subject and also on the Too Perfect Theory?
Message: Posted by: Darwin Ortiz (Jan 26, 2003 4:06am)
Kenguru:

That's the problem. There isn't much more on the subject worth reading. As to the Too Perfect Theory, practically everything written on the subject can be found in the Genii issue devoted to it. Offhand, I don't know the date. Perhaps another Café member can provide the information.

Sincerely,
Darwin Ortiz
Message: Posted by: Kenguru (Jan 26, 2003 4:14am)
I have the Genii issue but that is not a lot :(

If you come up with any new source please let me know.

Thank you :cool:
Message: Posted by: Allan-F (Jan 26, 2003 8:57pm)
On the "too perfect" theory: I'm not sure how standard or otherwise my view on this is--and I don't have the Genii issue that Darwin refers to--but I would be interested to know what Darwin or Kenguru or anyone else thinks of the following. My feeling is that effects are never "too perfect", but rather have too strong an initial impact for the conditions under which they are performed (so they are actually imperfect, due to weak conditions). Often when an effect is "improved", it becomes, at least on first impact, stronger... only to turn out weaker in the long run, due to the added scrutiny that the stronger initial impact brings out in the audience. So one's first reaction to a "too perfect" effect should NOT be to throw in clues to a false solution to lead the spectator astray, as I often hear suggested. One's first instinct should be to improve the conditions, if at all possible, and deal with the added heat. But life is not perfect, and neither is any effect (or it would be real magic)... so sometimes false clues may be called for.

Allan
Message: Posted by: Kenguru (Jan 27, 2003 3:52am)
Check this thread:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=21091&forum=27

I think you will get more insight there.
Message: Posted by: Allan-F (Jan 27, 2003 3:30pm)
Kenguru,

Thanks... yes, a very interesting thread on the "too perfect" idea, to which I've posted my thoughts, and I would direct further responses there.

Regards,
Allan
Message: Posted by: ASW (Jan 27, 2003 4:08pm)
While 'too-perfect' is a catchy (and oxymoronic) title, a friend of mine prefers the title 'too obvious' theory. I think this fits better.

To give you an example, Jamy Swiss (and others) often cite the cigarette through coin effect as too perfect in terms of effect. In reality it is too strong an effect for it to be plausible and quickly becomes obvious in terms of method. The fact is that any lay audience member is going to know, as sure as night follows day, that you can't push a cigarette through a chunk of change. It takes a nanosecond for them to figure that you would need to switch the coin they examined for a coin with a hole drilled through the centre. And guess what? They'd be right.

The same applies to most thread work, a fact that Mike Close pointed out in one of his Worker's books. Mike wasn't addressing the theory specifically but commented along the line that, "next time you levitate something why not ask the audience how they think you did it - and be prepared for a big surprise." The method is just too obvious, that's why the best presentations for effects where you float bills revolve around creating alternate explanations (It stuck to his palm, maybe it was static...?) and by not actually floating the bill except possibly for a split second. (Did I really see him float that bill or are my eyes fooling me?) etc

Just my 10c worth.

Andrew
Message: Posted by: Allan-F (Jan 27, 2003 4:28pm)
Quote:

On 2003-01-27 16:08, George Devol wrote:
Mike Close ... commented ... "next time you levitate something why not ask the audience how they think you did it - and be prepared for a big surprise." The method is just too obvious...

Right. But keep in mind that a real magician who could really levitate would be able to dispel such notions by allowing more examinability and spectator interaction, something generally not possible in levitation effects. So the effect isn't "too perfect" at all. It is imperfect. There is a mismatch between the initial impact (very strong) and the conditions (relatively weak). You must attempt to raise the latter up before bringing the former down.

Regards,
Allan
Message: Posted by: Darwin Ortiz (Jan 27, 2003 6:17pm)
Andrew and Allan:

The title “Too Perfect” is definitely a misnomer. It has resulted in much confusion due to people who respond emotionally to the term rather than analytically to the underlying concepts.

It’s also true that the problem, when it occurs, is not with the effect but with the (insufficient) conditions supporting it. The performer manages to eliminate every possible explanation—except the correct one.

The ideal solution is to incorporate conditions that eliminate the correct explanation (as well as all others). Due to the limitations of methodology, however, this isn’t always possible. Rick Johnsson’s recommendation (which I don’t endorse) was to distract the audience with a red herring solution. I’ve found instead that an effective approach often is to take the effect in a different direction. If floating a bill immediately points to thread as the method, instead use the same method to balance a bill on edge as Gaeton Bloom does. This does not immediately suggest thread the way the floating effect does.

Anyone interested in more of my ideas on this subject should seek out the Genii issue devoted to the Too Perfect Theory. (Can anyone tell us the correct issue?) I have no vested interest in selling Genii. However, I had a long essay there that allowed me to go into this complex subject to a degree not possible here. (In that issue, you’ll also get the benefit of thoughts on this subject from John Carney, Mike Close, Martin Lewis, and others.)

Sincerely,
Darwin Ortiz
Message: Posted by: Lance Pierce (Jan 27, 2003 6:23pm)
Darwin,

It's in the August 2001 issue (Vol.64,No.8).

Cheers,


Lance