After watching some footage I have recieved for the holidays, an extremely persistant problem keeps coming up in my mind.

Some of the magicians who were masters seemed very fully into "sucker" moves, whereby a false take seems to be made only to later show the hand empty. Not just for vanishes but in the general handling of the coins.

Personally I don't like to use moves such as this, because I feel coin magic should be as clean as possible and that by using the correct sleights, attitude and subtlety you should not leave any doubt in your coin moves.

Is this extremely naive?

Can you really not prevent a spectator from catching onto false takes and whatnot, and therefore "training" them to only catch the ones you want and then proving them wrong, can you control their urge to catch you? is this the way to go?

I am against any move where the audience thinks that they have caught you and then you prove that they didn't.... can you go through life with this view, or should you include many feints(as I've witnessed many masters do)

I'll be honest that while I can perform many many coin routines and am very comfortable with routining and misdirection involved, I generally only do 2 or 3 coin effects for spectators and that those don't have any feints but are generally very clean either using a shell or one ahead.... this isn't to say I don't know many routines using feints and the like, but I just don't perform them for laymen(already packed with various things)

So anyway, I'd like to hear other opinions so I can better form my own on this philosophy of misdirection and magic....

Thoughts? Just personal flavor or is one a better side?

Very interesting point. Something that keeps me busy as well. It strikes me as well how many feints the old masters applied to their magic. It would be interesting to know if they would have done it the same way if they were still alive. Also interesting to know if they would create the routines the same way (with all of the feints) if they were of our generation.

Apart from the very issue if sucker-effects are good entertainment or not I would like to offer the following hypothesis:

In the times of the "old masters" magicians (and audiences) were more likely to present/perceive magic as sleight of hand and/or trickery than the conjurors of our generation.

I really don't know if this is true so do not bash me for it. But where the extrensic message of a feint is "Ha, you thought you caught me doing something...but I didn't!", the intrensic message seems to be "However real it looks, I am doing sleight of hand here!"

Nowadays a lot of magicians strive for magic as pure as possible. Something that leaves the audience with no clue of how it ever could be done.
I am defenitely one who works for the most impossible magic. The works of masters like Ramsay or Slydini are priceless and there is so much to learn from, but the challenge for me is to be as good as them without mindlessly copying their techniques, but to learn why they did what they did and then apply it to my own style, character and time.

Now and then I do use some kind of feint. But never with the implication of "I'm doing only tricks here!" To be honest I use them when my technique/control of attention falls short, or to demoralize a person who remains in an analytical mode.
Learning Al Schneiders theory on Intention of Magic/Intention of Reality has helped me a little further in overcoming these problems. And therefor apllying less and less feints.

The one I use most is the spider-grip vanish. Will there be a day when I can do without?

I really hope some of the seasoned pro's (masters) will join in here!

Great post! A lot of good points by both Daegs and Don. I also would like to hear what the current "masters" think of this.

It reminds me of the too perfect theory and the logic that you should give the audience a logical out. If you are using a feint like the spider vanish, this leads them down the path, then shows them wrong. By the time that occurs, they cannot backtrack to figure out what really occured. Of course, a lot depends on your audience. If you have someone who is only concerned about figuring out the trick, the feint works extreamly well.

Craig

For me, a feint works well when you are peforming for magicians who are already familiar with the moves. Changing it only slightly can throw them off track. For laymen, feints work well in tricks with repetition of action (not necessarily of sleight), to prevent them from the line of reasoning that if its not in one place, it must be in the other. A feint is not a sucker move, however, it is just a move to misdirect their thought process. If you use the Spidergrip vanish as a sucker move, for example, you will anger your audience. If you do it in a more casual and subtle manner, it is not perceived as a "hey, I fooled you" type of action. Hope that was clear. Remember, there is a time and place for everything.

Since the spider vanish came up, I just wanted to say I am not against it(and use it) when not performed as a sucker.

To me the two lines of thinking are(with spider):

1: Oh I think he kept the coin in the left hand, yeah the right hand is empty, oh wow the left hand didn't really have the coin.

2: I think he took the coin into his right, wow he crushed it and it disappeared, where could it be, is it in his left hand? No that's empty too!

and I prefer the latter.... but I would also argue that only the former is a feint because in the second even though the moves are mostly the same, you are still convincing them that you actually took the coin, and the idea that it might be somewhere in the left only occurs as an afterthought.

My real problem comes with kissing of the hands for no reason only to show you didn't do anything, or some sort of tricky count to later show you are fine, or anytime you intentionally make the audience think a coin is somewhere that it shouldnt be, only to prove them wrong.

I think it also falls into honesty with the spectator.... anytime you perform a feint, you are personally creating two realities, what you are telling them you are doing, and what you are trying to get them to beleive.... I think this hurts the magic, again personally and probably one reason I'm against it now that I think about it.

I guess I feel once they know you are doing 2 things, then that somewhat bust your credibility with them. Some may say done very little it wont be apparent to the audience, but personally from watching many magicians(even when I was laymen) I did definatly get the sense that they knew I was watching a hand because they wanted me too... and that causes distrust later on, and only confusion because they might second guess every future thing too.

Thoughts?

Aaah, very nice alternatives you describe Daegs. Makes sense to me.
Combining your nr.2 alternative with mr. Rubinsteins suggestions on applying feint-techniques in repetitive actions seems like sound options.

I've been thinking about this today and I let my repertoire pass by in my head. The spidergrip vanish and a handwashing moment in my double benson-bowl routine are the only feints I seem to use.

For two years I've been working on cylinder and coins and I am glad I came up with a version that leaves out all of the feints. I showed it to some experienced magicians with and without the feints and they agreed the feints distracted from otherwise smooth magic.

For those interested I used a feint in a matrix routine I posted on the magic video depot (search for Dutch Assembly). During the last coin I use it. Just after putting it on video I realised it added nothing.It was solely based to keep magicians off track (and even that was rather silly) The routine has much evolved since I took the feint out.

I hope to hear thoughts from Jon, Curtis, Paul Chosse, the 2 Larry's etc. Let's keep this great thread alive!

From what I remember doing magic for easily excited and grabby college students... it really comes down to how they accept your performing persona and style so they go with the flow instead of trying to catch you out. Does it make sense to have some good sucker stuff just in case? I bet it does. From Reginald Scot's book... how to rap a wag on the knuckles seems to have made good sense back then and people are the same today.

On the sucker routines themselves, they can work without the "sting" if you frame the action in a story about something or someone.

Aside from some deliberate magician gags in Ramsay's work which was set up for magicians, I don't see much use for feints in magic done for muggles. Why lead them down blind alleys that they would not have inspected, and then leave them open to look there again when you least want them to?

As an example, let's play safe and use a card example here... say you did the "invisible palm aces" and after that they are looking to see if you are hiding things in your hands... you pretty much asked them to look. If you later do a cards to pocket, they already have the answer... you palmed them invisibly. And they might also catch you doing the actual sleights.

Just my thoughts for now. Your mileage may vary.

Very thought provoking...

First of all, your decision not to use a particular approach to magic is perfectly valid and we should all apply discipline to our basic premise as a magician. If a particular approach doesn't fit your style, don't do it.

However, as Mr. Rubinstein points out, a feint is not a sucker move. a feint can be very subliminal and serve the purpose of keeping the spectator off the logical path to discovering your method. For example. David Roth uses a fine feint in his coins across w/ s***l. In the final phase, does a very subtle feint that I think subliminally causes the spectator to double check the left hand being empty, which of course it is.

Ever since his lecture I've performed it this way. I think it makes the magic look more pure. But again, the move is subliminal... In my experience, I don't think the spectator is chasing me consciously. I just think it makes a great trick better.

As Michael Rubinstein stated,"A feint is not a sucker move".

Bob

That mention of somethind David Roth teaches brings up a question for me;

Do we have a term for things we do that cue the audience to check somewhere?

If we're causing them to check where we WANT them to look (somewhere OTHER than the work is occuring), then I think it would just fall into the umbrella of "misdirection." Sometimes there's no misdirection involved, though. For example, gesturing to a card on the table (I realize this is the coin forum, but this is a handy example) to indicate the spectator should turn it over and see what it is. In this case, the gesture/non-verbal communication is not meant to misdirect... just to elicit the response or action we want from them.

Bottom line... I don't know if there's an "official" term for it. But the generic term "cue" certainly seems to apply

I personally do not like to use feints. In most cases, feints lead your audience to believe you have made a mistake. I don't feel I am "that good" and would prefer to limit my "mistakes" whether perceived or real.

Proper foreshadowing...