The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Invisible compromise reading list (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
Floyd Collins
View Profile
Inner circle
Ohio
1633 Posts

Profile of Floyd Collins
Please before anyone gets upset with what I am posting here, please do not think I am putting anyone down here. There are just some facts when it comes to reading technical or educational material verses reading novels.

Wow a book a day, unless you are a very gifted reader with very high comprehension skills, I would say that would be your first problem.
If I were you I would re read
any book, I would read each book three times.
Once for the understanding of what is in the book.
Once for content and
Once to fill in the gap of anything you did not understand the first two times you read it.

Unless you’re a seasoned professional, reading any book like 13 steps, pure effects, ect in just one sitting is not getting you the comprehension you need out of those books.

“I definitely need to work on. I still feel that my performances (for lack of a better word) are largely seen as “magic tricks”.

That is because they are! The key is to present them with different patter and to allow your timing to fit in with your effects. Blocking will help with your shows layout and flow, your presentation of your effects will come from your patter and timing, knowing when to pause a beat is so important in mentalism letting the dirty work slip right by your unsub.
This is something you will develop over time and with doing your performances over and over. You will change the effect till it fits your style, that is something you can not get out of reading books. Look at any book you read on this subject as a guide, but like all road maps there are many different ways to get there.
No one said it would be easy, or did they?

Check out my all new book "Chicken Scratches" visit my lulu store for more information.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/thecenterstage

http://www.collinscomedymagic.com
ignoramus
View Profile
New user
UK
27 Posts

Profile of ignoramus
Hi Alan

I would say that the cards aren't really a compromise. They are justified as a means to prompt the subject.

With the invisible deck routine, the deck is clearly a compromise. If I knew which card you would choose then why present it in such a way? I could have written it down and shown it to the spectators first. The only justification for this is to say something along the lines of, "...now you could have chosen any one of these face up cards...".

A truly invisible compromise might be hidden information such as the knowledge of a stooge e.g. Berglas’ Picture Post Challenge. I think the test of invisible compromise is this: Is it possible to rerun the tape and determine the method? If the method is invisible then one can only imagine possible ways of accomplishing the effect. It is not possible to “spot” the compromise.

If the subject writes information down then I can rewind the tape and see that it was written before being predicted. However, if the prediction is apparently made before this information is written down then the method is invisible (assuming I can’t see how the prediction could have been changed).
iSawThat
View Profile
Regular user
The Ivory Tower
188 Posts

Profile of iSawThat
Hmm, some interesting points brought up.

"To me it seems that the use of billets or a deck of cards would be a visible compromise. As I mention earlier, writing a thought down on a piece of paper will lead the spectators to believe that the information was read by the performer prior to the “mindreading”. Once a deck of cards is shown (e.g. for the Invisible Deck routine) the spectator will suspect a gaffed deck."

Have you ACTUALLY tried performing the invisible deck? Or done an effect with billets? Context context context...the reason why your spectators are treating your presentations as magic tricks, as aceofharts has pointed out, is because YOU do. Don't get me wrong, it's great that you are able to pick this up about your spectators. But the reason you're suffering from magician's guilt is because you're thinking like a magician! <<Annemann makes this point clear in his introduction to his Complete One Man act, though he only alludes to it in PMM>>

How many trick decks has the average person encountered in their life? When people see a deck of cards, what's the first thing they think of? Poker, chilling out, beer maybe, card games...THEN maybe if they're slightly initiated, and only then, might they even think of magic tricks. Even so, the furthest they'd go is maybe a 21 card trick or the basic key card trick (for 99% of the people you meet). This is without any other context that the performer, YOURSELF, brings to the pack. However, the moment you exhibit traces of "magician-isms", their focus immediately homes in on what you're doing, which is a magic trick! (Magician-isms: phrases like "i have here a deck of cards" or "tell me the NAME of the playing card you're thinking of"...people can tell this is not an ordinary mode of speech, and the only CONTEXT in which they hear it is when a magician performs for them!) After which what you do will be analysed according to the framework of a magic trick, and depending on how strong their logic is, they may or may not stumble on your method.

On the topic of writing stuff down, which also has a lesson to be learnt when using cards for mentalism effects (Not mental magic effects!): read the works of Bob Cassidy and Richard Osterlind. To paraphrase - it's wrong to assume that a REAL mindreader wouldn't ask for stuff to be written down. Many people in the heat of the moment forget cards they're thinking of, or some may decide to screw you over at the last minute by changing their mind when you're about to reveal their thought. People DON'T know what a real mindreader does, because they've not encountered one! If you were a REAL mindreader, and you ask them to write something down, because people tend to remember stuff better when they've written it, and to prevent them from changing their mind at the last moment and making you look stupid, who're they to think that you've peeked at what they wrote? For that matter, why would they even question you if you decide, mid-stream, to tear up the paper they wrote on because you're confident you got their thought correct?

Real life experience: I've been performing a centre tear routine (I hate describing it like this because it reflects magician-thinking, but it's the quickest way to make my point) that I dress up as pseudo body language reading. I've done it for EVERYONE, from successful business people to run-of-the-mill teenagers you'd find at McDs. NO one asks me why they need to write their thought down. NO one questions why I'm tearing up their paper. Why? Because I don't make a big deal of EITHER! They become effectively INVISIBLE. In fact, on a couple of occasions, when performing for people familiar with NLP and eye-accessing cues, they very knowingly "recognised" my technique as using eye-accessing cues, and marvelled at the level of proficiency I had reached! The paper didn't figure in their minds at all! They attached themselves to the CONTEXT that I had set out for them, and their logic existed only within that context.

Blocking may help, but ultimately I feel that it is CONTEXT CONTEXT and CONTEXT that make something visible or invisible. First step for you - think of a way to present the classic Invisible Deck such that nobody thinks of a trick deck or even wants to examine the deck. Then you know you're halfway there! =)
Mark Elsdon
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of Mark Elsdon
Chuck Hickok has some excellent essays in his Mentalism Incorporated books which contain great advice and much food for thought on the use of props in mentalism.

The use of playing cards in 'mentalism' is a whole other can o' worms...

ME
Check out The View From Here:
http://elsdon.blogspot.com/
Paul
View Profile
Inner circle
A good lecturer at your service!
4397 Posts

Profile of Paul
Re:"The use of playing cards in 'mentalism' is a whole other can o' worms... "

Lol, but some of us still persist.Larry Becker's 'Casino Royale' is a fine example of cards in mentalism and there are many others.

And even something like an ID or BW can be presented differently to the 'standard' presentation to make things seem more acceptable (and throw offs can be added for those in the know). The Lewis Gansen approach in the book "Magic Of The Mind", routines by Stanley Jaks, Punx etc.

I tend to think along the lines of isawthat, with regard to context. There seems too much worry about hiding everything, but perhaps some of these compromises are the difference between live performance and tv show performances which are often edited to show a different reality and are leading newer mentalists to higher expectations.

Paul.
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2497 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Wow, intriquing conversation, with many new (and old) arguments popping up.

However, the real value in this whole conversation, in my opinion, is the idea of blocking. I've consistenty thought that blocking and conscious design of blocking is vastly underutilized by most of those I have seen, in both magic and mentalism. This thread highlights this with all these experienced performers who don't even know what blocking is. While not surprising, it is incredibly depressing. What I am about to write is mainly for ignoramus, but anybody/everybody should take this advice (myself included for there is always more to learn):

Buy a good book on THEATER, or acting. Maybe join a local theater group. Many plays are designed to have specific impacts based on the position of the characters on the stage. If you don't know/appreciate this and the "tricks" they use in theater, then you are in for a real treat. Even if you do, look at more sources, more ideas, get more involved. Literally, I cannot count how many times I have heard, read, written that performers should have at least a small base in theater and yet here we are, no idea what BLOCKING (one of the most basic theatrical concepts) is.

Seriously, ignoramus, get a good book on theater. I can't name one offhand right now (tip of the tongue, I could do an internet search I suppose but that is part of the process I think). Everybody else who doesn't/didn't know about blocking and EVERYBODY else is recommended the same thing. I have no doubt most people will ignore this but, seriously, if somebody told you there was a way to increase the impact of your effects by at least 50%, wouldn't you jump on it? Why not now?

Lem

PS- For the record, I am not "actor" in the traditional sense, although I do have experience. 3 years of high school drama and 3 years of community theater on top of that. More than enough to look at many (even most?) performers and want to cry at all the missed opportunities. Not that I am superior to them, in any way, merely that I can see things they miss and can imagine how much better they can be.
ragingcalm
View Profile
Elite user
428 Posts

Profile of ragingcalm
Ignoramus

I think your invisible test compromise is far too strong.

TV rerun, ignores the fallability of the human brain and the limits of attention. Take for example the advert currently airing on British tv with the Gorilla and numerous psychology experiments exposing the limits of attention (My educational background is in Psychology).

Examples in magic: False Memories - the well documented phenomenon, which I'm sure most performers will relate to, where a spectator after an effect will tell his friend what happend often ignoring inconsistencies of swearing that they only thought of a card and never actually physically selected one.

So to Lem's suggestion of a book on theatrical techniques I would only semi-jokingly recommend reading a pop psych book on memory and attention.

Take for example two great effects in Mark Strivings' Mobile Mentalism, which essentially disguise the fact that a billet is being used or provide strong motivation for tearing the billet up. Two good effects with great presentation and justification. Whilst I would argue that they go a long way to obeying the invisible compromise critera, by your definition they would fall far short.

Whose definition is the correct one? As Luke Jermay writes in his excellent 3510(?) it is not how you feel about an effect but what the spectator feels. Whilst I would agree with him almost wholeheartedly, as aceofharts points out, at the extreme end of the spectrum, if you allow yourself to feel that the spectator will feel a difference (see the magic merely as a 'trick') then they will. I think this a minor point, but one well raised - you have to have belief in what you are perforiming.

Thanks
ragingcalm
View Profile
Elite user
428 Posts

Profile of ragingcalm
One of those interesting threads that remind you there really are gems of intersting information and well considered debate in the Café
ignoramus
View Profile
New user
UK
27 Posts

Profile of ignoramus
Thank you all for your comments.

I will follow your suggestion, iSawThat. When I first saw the invisible deck performed in a magical context, I wracked my brains trying to think of mental presentation. Derren Brown mentions that he uses a hypnotic angle in Absolute Magic, but gives no details.

Here is the presentation I currently use:

Think of card, now! Quickly! Don’t change your mind.

Queen of hearts. (said with conviction – not a question.)

If I wrong: Ah, that is interesting. Let’s try this again…

If I am right: You might believe that was chance or that everyone says that. In a way you are right. I did not give you time to think of a little obscure card to catch me out (hand gestures towards them).

This time I want you think of any card you want. I won’t push you in any way… you have one now. Don’t change your mind.

Four of clubs.

The truth is that I can guide your decisions in the way that I ask you to think. Obviously, this won’t always work (if I failed). I can suggest an idea to you and notice when that thought has registered with you.

(Place boxed deck on the table)

You see, it is actually impossible to think of something completely at random. Your mind will search for a queue from somewhere. This might be a distant memory or something staring you right in the face (arbitrary hand gesture). If I ask you to think of something, I can pick up on where you are getting this queue. Would you like to try this?

I want you to see the card here in front of you. Imagine it clearly and see a picture of it.

That’s the wrong card. Think of another one.

No, again. Please change your mind.

Are you seeing it in detail? Yes, I think you might have it. Don’t change you mind. What was the card? (remove deck from case)

Now you could have chosen any one of these cards. But you didn’t. You chose a card that you never saw (prepare face down card). Out of 52 cards which one did you chose? (repeated for a reason)

(Slowly reveal face down card as theirs)

Exactly.

-----

What do you think? I am sure you will spot that I have borrowed Derren’s presentation idea from his brilliant famous portrait stunt.
obijuan
View Profile
Loyal user
New Lenox
242 Posts

Profile of obijuan
Terville is an amazing effect.
teejay
View Profile
Inner circle
Liverpool, UK
1832 Posts

Profile of teejay
Quote:
On 2008-02-25 14:28, abraxus wrote:
Any kind of physical blocking off methodology is surely just that? well, it is in the jon riggs lecture on PW'ing...


Hi
Does anybody have the name of this item?
:)
Mark Storms
View Profile
Veteran user
Seattle, WA
393 Posts

Profile of Mark Storms
Max Maven's Positive Negative is a great effect that I believe is an invisible comprimise effect. It is on his video series VideoMind.

Docc Hilford Has a great effect "Number 6 of Clubs" ( verbal card force ) on his old VHS tape "Real Mind Reading".

Banachek's Book- Psychological Subtleties & Psychological Subltleties 2 have a wealth of Psychological Forces. Also "PK touches" is a great effect of his that I feel fits this premise.

Luke Jermay's "Touching on Hoy" is a Brilliant Invisable comprimise effect. In is in his book "Coral Fang" and extended thoughts on this in his new book "3510"

Hypnotic Suggestability Tests- Can't Open Eyes, Locked Hands, Rising Arms, Abnormal Lift, Stiff as a board, cant talk, stuck to the floor. ETC. A good place to start for these would by Ormond McGill's Book "The Complete Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnotism.

Also check out Kenton Kneppers works. Although he does use a lot of "instant-stooging" his thinking is worth a look.
Find out what you cannot do.., Then go and do it!
iSawThat
View Profile
Regular user
The Ivory Tower
188 Posts

Profile of iSawThat
Ignoramus>>> I like your line at the end "You chose a card you never saw". It's a good hook, though it suffers from a bit of incongruity after you've asked your helper to picture the card in great detail. But the "card you never saw" is an ingenious hook for the invisible deck! Try adding a subliminal slant to it by casually spreading the cards once in awhile face up while you're talking, glacing down as if trying to "hide" something (subconscious motivation and actual motivation will be nicely aligned here!). Do this especially when asking them to change their mind...you'll draw their gaze to the card, but quickly tell them to look back in your eyes once you see them glancing down.

The context, or pseudo-explanation, in this case could be the brilliant theme in Docc Hilford's "For One To End" linguistic deception: the subliminal mind took in all the cards that were shown even without knowing it, but because of the psychological pressure you exerted on them to change their minds so many times, they subconsciously took the path of least resistance to end up at the card you kept hidden from them. Not in so many words of course, it'll sound like a lecture! Haha..but you definitely have a gem of an idea there, just needs a bit of polishing and multiple performances, and I think you'll discover that people aren't too concerned about the cards anymore, but about your deep knowledge of psychology! =)
Alel
View Profile
Special user
Bay Area
669 Posts

Profile of Alel
Everyone could also check Jason Palter's iKnow.


Alel
ignoramus
View Profile
New user
UK
27 Posts

Profile of ignoramus
ISawThat - Yes, I agree that my monologue doesn't make much sense. My idea was to add to the confusion of the spectator. Probably not that great. I couldn't think of a better way to end it tbh.

I actually say, "You chose _the_ card you never saw", not "a card". Mistyped that one.

Mark - Touching on Hoy is great! I haven't performed it yet though. There is one element which doesn't suit me very well. At one stage you seem to be reading the minds of the three spectators. I feel silly looking at people and pretending something is happening - it's just not believable. I like Derren's method of pseudo hypnotising the person and pretending to read the letters from their facial ticks. This would take too long with three people, however.
ragingcalm
View Profile
Elite user
428 Posts

Profile of ragingcalm
Ignoramus, I have just read Luke's chapter in 3510 on it and was very impressed by his use of dual reality. I'm slightly baffled by the transparency of the false method he shows the audience. Muscle reading numbers and words? I can't even begin to imagine how an audience could believe that was done (and at speed too!). Has anyone thought of a better false method for this one?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Invisible compromise reading list (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.23 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL