|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
kipling100 Loyal user 260 Posts |
I partially agree with Lawrence's post.
I think the first effect (with the crossroads deck) is relatively easy to figure out, unless you produce the missing card afterwards. I think there may be a "too perfect" problem where the spectator never says a word, leading him or her to the only correct solution. If you produce the card at the end, say from the cardbox, I think it solidifies the prediction, which on its own, may be somewhat easy to reconstruct. In contrast, I think the direct mind reading and card stab is pretty powerful, in the right hands. The bonus material has a lot of good thinking too. But I think that all these effects require experience and presentation that I am not good at right now. In other words, I feel like that you should have some credibility as a mentalist before doing some of these effects. Personally, I have a lot of work to do if I ever want to present these effects. I do think -- in the right hands -- that the material in this book can be very useful. I understand that my above criticisms most likely stem from the fact that I suck at these types of effects, and not with the material itself. But I hope this somewhat cryptic review is helpful to those on the fence, who are in a similar situation as myself. -Dennis |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2247 Posts |
Too perfect? Isn't that what we're all looking for?! If a spectator could think of a card, imagine that the card is vanishing from the deck, they go through the deck, there are only 51 cards and their card is the one missing, Disolving Card is exactly what it would look like. How would you differentiate the real thing from Disolving Card? They look THE SAME. Granted, the Silent Running process seems different than the real thing but they wouldn't notice because it's such a cunning concept. I'm talking about the actual effect itself.
|
|||||||||
kipling100 Loyal user 260 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-03-31 15:10, PatrickGregoire wrote: Of course we want the effect to look perfect. I think the "too perfect" theory is a misnomer. What it really means is that, by the construction of the effect, the only solution is the correct one. Like destroying a card in full view and producing it a moment later -- it is "too perfect" because it screams duplicate. That is why it is almost imperative in that situation to have the card signed. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2247 Posts |
If you've performed Crossroads, you know that the Crossroads Deck fools. Now that there is no equivoque in the process of thinking of a card, it's just better. It's the same effect and so it'll work. People count 51 cards and don't find their card. Only one thing is conclusive. They're thinking "I could have thought of any card but all the others are there except for mine." Disolving Card is a solid concept.
|
|||||||||
vinsmagic Eternal Order sleeping with the fishes... 10960 Posts |
Patrick Please,,, there was a reason this efeect was not put on video
vinny |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2247 Posts |
Yeah I agree with you... What are you trying to say?
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-03-31 19:14, PatrickGregoire wrote: Bing! We have a winner. Top that madlibs!
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-03-31 16:58, PatrickGregoire wrote: I do like Silent Running, it’s a really interesting technique, but I think the original version of Crossroads with equivoque is more likely to fool an analytical spectator than the same effect using Silent Running. If the equivoque in the original is performed correctly, they should believe they had a free choice of any card (or at least any number card) if they think about it later. But with Silent Running, there’s more opportunity for an analytical spectator to work out the real number of possibilities because all the necessary information is out in the open as part of the procedure. If they remember how the card was selected and actually think about it afterwards, it’s not too difficult to reconstruct. That would be my concern with Silent Running – that it will blow people away at the time, but after I’ve gone they’ll analyse what happened and think – oh yeah, of course … The important thing would be to play down the procedure by which the card was chosen and make it seem as unimportant as possible. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2247 Posts |
Ben goes over when to go through the procedure and how to play it off. Try it out and see for yourself if it works well or not. It isn't important if some think it won't work, or won't work as well as equivoque. What's really important is if it DOES or DOES NOT work.
|
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-03-31 21:30, PatrickGregoire wrote: You're absolutely right. My point is just that, unless you get feedback from your audience the following day, it's almost impossible to make that judgement. Silent Running is one of those techniques where the 'out in the open' procedure is also the method (or a significant part of the method). I have no doubt that it will get great reactions at the time. My concern is whether or not the method can withstand the audience thinking about the procedure after the performance has finished. That's something you can't judge from the audience reaction at the time. If an analytical spectator realises the real number of possible choices after you've gone home - you are never going to know. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2247 Posts |
Alright I can agree with that. I'm not necessarily in agreement that they'll actually be able to figure it out though. Their thought process is taking a different path than what the process is actually taking them through. To explain this further would tip something off.
|
|||||||||
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-01 05:44, Caliban wrote: I would politely counter that the same could be said of many if not most effects. Unless we are performing ONLY for a friend or friends that we know, We cannot predict the success of an effect, or rather, the occultation of method, on any general audience including the ubiquitous person on the street. In other words, we are not gifted enough as human beings, performing for large groups to assess the individual analytical abilities of each individual audience member - we roll the dice, but we HOPE that our audience management and use of directed attention have minimised the adverse occurrence of any one person discovering method. Hypnosis has taught me that how we say things is very important. Ambiguity is a powerful psychological weapon. I have seen little if any discussion outside of the mentalism, bizarre magick, and hypnosis areas of the Café that investigate the psychological underpinnings not only of what we DO, but what we SAY and HOW we say it. Perhaps in one sense it MIGHT be argued that we are so bound in mechanical technique that we sometimes fail to account for what is more important in the mystery arts, and that is the fact that the effect is really created in the mind of the spectator. In addition, I would hypothesize that we are "too close" to our subject. Our familiarity with what we do could cause us to over think method in terms of anticipating that since we know what we are doing, it must follow that someone in the audience knows as well. We create an illusion of pseudo-knowledge. Most of us for example have done or still present Do As I Do or one of its myriad variants. All of us know the underlying principle. What we forget is that MANY non-magicians are ALSO familiar with the underlying method of this effect. However, they are NOT making the leap between their application of said method and the way WE apply it. Remember too that we are performers. We hone our presentations such that psychologically we reduce the risk of our audience discovering method. People are STILL doing Do As I Do and fooling audiences with it. Language is EXTREMELY powerful. History teaches us this; advertising teaches us this. And when we explore the psycholinguistic possibilities of language, we see amazing possibilities. Try this non-effect with someone: tell them, "Do NOT think of a dollar bill." It is impossible for the person NOT to think of a dollar bill because the mind first has to POSIT that which it asked to negate. How many of you thought of a dollar bill? The mind cannot grasp negation without positing first. Similarly, eq*****ue affords a delicious psychological ambiguity of psycholinguistic chicanery. As performers in an art where method must remain hidden, we must be cognizant of all the tools we have at our disposal. We should bear in mind that time tends to colour an effect in a spectator's mind as well. I have had people come to me months or even years after they saw an effect I did and what they told me I did was in NO WAY actually the effect! I WISH I could do the things people have said I have done. Finally, there is the tried and true method that works as well in magic as it does in boxing: keep HITTING them! We ARE tampering with thought processes so we keep hitting those process through varied and simultaneous punches. This of course doesn't mean one should rush from effect to effect with the breathlessness of a poorly conditioned boxer fading in the 3rd round. However, choose our attacks to pummel the bejeezus out of the spectator's defences. Why else do we deem a particular effect as an opener versus a closer? And why do we BUILD? Every effect stronger than the last? So, yes, for virtually any given effect there IS the probability and possibility that method could be discovered. However, if one KNOWS that one is performing for a particularly analytic group, then adjust accordingly - PLAY to that audience's predilection to analysis. Their analytic predisposition is the weakness you exploit IMO. Ahimsa, Vlad |
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Vlad,
I can totally agree with everything you say, except for one point ... Quote:
On 2010-04-01 11:49, Vlad_77 wrote: I'd say that this is, actually, slightly different to most effects because most other effects don’t have the method out in the open as part of the procedure. To protect the Silent Running method, I'll illustrate my point with a fictitious book test that I've just made up using a different method. Let's say I hand you a 200 page book and have you roll two dice to choose a page number. You roll a 2 and a 6 and look at page 26. I then reveal the first word on that page. No matter how I sell that effect, nothing can change the facts of how the page was selected. And if you think about it later, you only have to remember the procedure to realise that your choice was restricted to 36 pages. That part of the method is not hidden – it’s out in the open as part of the procedure for anyone who analyses what happened. This makes the method much more vulnerable to people thinking about it afterwards than most other effects. Now, Silent Running is much better than my fictitious book test and the method is more subtle, but it does have elements of the same problem. And I think it’s important to be aware of that so that you can take steps to reduce the risk. Ben has some good points about the selection procedure happening before the routine has officially started. And I particularly like the card stabbing routine because all the focus is on the stabbing of the card – and that’s the part they’ll go away remembering. I also agree when you say to keep hitting them. I would use this procedure in the middle of a sequence of the other effects, or as an opener if I did the direct mindreading version – I wouldn’t perform just a Silent Running routine on its own. |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3226 Posts |
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ebooks, PDF's or Downloads » » Silent Running » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |