|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 15:24, Lemniscate wrote: IMO there is a big difference between coin men "washing their hands" and other subtle moves or actions that serve to eliminate possible explanations vs. making specific statements intended to provide (rather than eliminate) an explanation of how what one does is accomplished. It seems to me that those who feel obliged to give an explanation often do so in an effort to disclaim any "psychic" or "paranormal" abilities by offering an equally disingenous claim (e.g., NLP or some such). Overt efforts to disprove a possible explanation as Jonathan has described are apt to have the very opposite effect by drawing attention to it. If you want to plant the suggestion in someone's mind that you are using a marked or other "trick" deck of cards even when you aren't, the surest way to do so is refer to your ordinary deck of cards "an ordinary deck of cards." When I produce a rabbit in an empty top hat at the end of my family magic show, the hat I take from behind my table is in the collapsed state and I describe it as "an old-fashioned hat that folds up flat so it doesn't take up much space in your suitcase" then as I snap it open I say "you just give it a little pop like this and it's all set to wear." That action, and holding it so the opening faces the audience, SHOWS that it is empty without anything else being said or done. Similarly, the fact that the books I use in the booktest routine in my mindreading act are distributed to the audience before the show begins and are not collected until after it's over dispels the thought that they are gimmicked or "special" books simply because the audience assumes that if they were (and several of them are, but they will all withstand close scrutiny) I wouldn't leave accessible to audience members for the entire show. Likewise, the fact that I use multiple books and multiple methods in the routine answers the unspoken question that is on everyone's mind -- "can he do that with any book?" -- without my having to say so. The bottom line is that possible explanations should be neither offered nor suggested, but rather should be eliminated by a combination of how one handles the items being used and what one DOESN'T say or do as much as, if not more than, what one does say or do.
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Inner circle Oklahoma 1223 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 16:05, Lord Of The Horses wrote: Agreed on the last part. But, it was important for me to know so I know how to address it. If it was an indication of a bad show or a bad personality on my part I need to be aware of that and make changes. |
|||||||||
|
PsiDroid Inner circle 2164 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 16:05, Lord Of The Horses wrote: I have to disagree: makes no sense and theres no need to allow them to inpect your props |
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 20:07, PsiDroid wrote: It was an ironic comment. I don't really think that leaving audience participants mess with your props is wonderful. And, for the record, I disagree with most of Jonathan's posts here... And that's fine. Different experiences, different views... different conclusions.
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
|
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 17:18, Dick Christian wrote: I still wholeheartedly disagree about magicians differing from mentalists in overproving. Magicians overprove all the time. Constantly. But we agree on the bottom line and that's all that matters. |
|||||||||
|
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 12967 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 20:39, Lord Of The Horses wrote: next time perhaps put a smiley face so we know what you mean.  <- see
J |
|||||||||
|
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts
|
Yes... I usually do but on that post I did forget about that...
However John... if EVEN you don't let your props in the hands of your audience at the end of your show... I thought it was a given I don't... 
Do you see the smile and the wink, John? Good!
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Inner circle Oklahoma 1223 Posts
|
I'm not saying I leave them out on a table for everyone to inspect. But, if I don't have to dig a pile of used billets out of a trashcan, then why do it? If there's nothing for them to catch, why hide it? And if you only use cheap props like foam board and envelopes, why take them from the specs at the end? Let them keep it as a souvenir. Then you don't have to worry about them suspecting any gimmicks or foul play in that regard.
Seems pretty obvious to me. If it makes sense to take it back and put it in my case, then I'll do it. If it makes sense for them to throw it away or for me to throw it away, then I'll do that. And if I don't have to dig it out of the trashcan later, I won't. I like to end up as clean as possible, as I'm sure most here do. I never say "come inspect everything I have". The goal is to try and disprove as much as possible while focusing on it as little as possible. Isn't that what this thread is all about in a way? I'm curious what else you disagree with me about. I don't say too much, I mostly ask questions to get input from others in areas I'm not as experienced in. |
|||||||||
|
chichi711 Inner circle 5810 Posts
|
I live by the rule of He/she that speaks first loses. If you come out and start going out of your way to "prove" stuff by speaking you have lost before anything happened.
|
|||||||||
Mr. Mindbender Inner circle 1566 Posts
|
People, days or weeks later coming up with possible methods? Heck, who cares what they come up with...if they're still thinking about your act a week later, then consider your job done!
|
|||||||||
|
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 21:02, Lemniscate wrote: Lemniscate, I think you and I are really in agreement. Granted that magicians and mentalists both "disprove." I was simply attempting (perhaps not very effectively) to point out the difference between in how the "disproof" is accomplished and the resultant effectiveness. The actions of the coin worker "washing his hands" or the card worker spreading the cards face up then lifting one end of the spread to flip them face down are both subtle ways of "disproving" trickery by allowing the spectator to assume on the basis of their own observation that the coin worker's hands are empty or that the cards are ordinary without the performer having to say or do anything else to draw attention to the fact. That is much more effective, and IMO far different, from what I believe Jonathan is suggesting by going out of his way to actually "announce" that the top hat is empty or, as is often suggested in discussing mentalism on the Café, suggesting an alternative but equally disingenuous method (e.g., NLP instead of "psychic" powers) as a pseudo-explanation in an effort to disprove the use of trickery when no explanation is called for.
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
OldNick Regular user Dresden/Germany 111 Posts
|
Jonathan, people never will stop trying to figure things out which doesn´t fit into their believe system. Many people even are angry about themself if they cannot come to a possible explanation.
In my opinion it doesn´t matter if they do this or if they don´t. Much more important is if they say: "He did a wonderful show and showed us impossible things..." - regardless if they add "but I think he did it this way:...". When they still are thinking about the things you did after days/weeks you can bet nobody is "sure" how you did it. Just look here at the Café: On every new trick review people will try to figure out how it works and come to their - sometimes absurd - conclusions. And sometimes they may have the correct method figured out - but does that makes the inventor to join the discussion to prove how it´s "not" done? Be proud if they are curious and keep talking about YOU! OldNick |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Inner circle Oklahoma 1223 Posts
|
Thanks nick.
Dick, not sure if you were inferring that I believe we SHOULD be obviously announcing that the hat is empty. But if that is the case please understand that that couldn't be furthest from the truth. Hence me using the example of turning the hat inside to make a joke about inside out hats being popular as an alternative to announcing that the hat is empty. I don't want anyone even thinking of trickery if they weren't already. I go to great pains to work in "disproof" as much as I can in a way that doesn't announce it. The best way, IMO, is to let them keep whatever is being used as a souvenir (assuming it's something cheap/disposable like a spoon, foam board, envelope, etc.) That said, I'm now realizing through the feedback that I've gotten that there are some things I have to address. I've been resisting it because I HATE "protesting too much". But, a little bit here and there I think will be okay. Richard Osterlind, I know, has no problem announcing how some people think he does it and/or announcing how normal and fair every step is. Personally, that's not the way I want to go, but it sure is tempting and I completely understand why he does that. I just wish there was a way to point out those things without having to point them out. lol That balance is an extremely tricky thing and every performer is going to have a different balance point they believe is right. |
|||||||||
|
mindshrink Special user Delhi,India 916 Posts
|
Excellent topic and excellent posts.
Initially while performing (for friends or a familiar audience)and your persona had not become 'so commanding', then the need for giving explanations exists as those familiar with you would get back to you with an explanation.So initially there maybe a need for giving explanations of 'how it was not done'. Later when a magi has the commanding presence of LOH or others of his stature,the magi could offhandedly indicate 'how it was not done' without stressing or verbally explaining anything. There fore there is the need for "different layers of deception" as I put it.That is using different principles. Eg: Q&A---Blindfolds/giving back the torn envelopes/giving back intact envelopes and even doing a QA effect with somebody who is just thinking of his question and has never even written it down/or even with somebody in the audience who has his own sealed envelope with himself ! That would convince even the smart asses in the audience......how many explanations will he come up with/ Because you are going a step further...multiple layers of deception.... My 3 cents |
|||||||||
|
daffydoug Eternal Order Look mom! I've got 14077 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-09 04:50, dmkraig wrote: Been there, done that. (And learned to live with it.) They're in every crowd. No matter HOW incredible the illusion, no matter HOW hard you try to cover your tracks, no matter how perfectly you capture Paul Harris' coveted moment of astonishment, no matter HOW unexplainable the effect, there is ALWAYS going to be some numb-nut who comes up with the stupidest, most ridiculous, off the wall, left field explanation in the universe. (Some of them that I've heard were so ridiculous as to be utterly and contemptibly laughable!) It's like they simply CAN'T REST until they explain away the astonishment. I've seen it many times. You can either experience frustration, or you can let it ride and just accept that there are folks in the world who have this intrinsic need to explain away your "miracles". It's life. And that's my opinion.
The difficult must become easy, the easy beautiful and the beautiful magical.
|
|||||||||
|
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts
|
What Doug has said is certainly true and for that person, any method that is intellectually acceptable to him or her, no matter how outrageous it may be, is -- for them -- the answer and almost nothing the performer can say or do is likely to dissuade them. The only solution is to ignore it. If the solution they announce (and in most cases they probably won't announce it at all, but will keep it to themselves) is patently absurd, as is often the case, everyone else will recognize it as such.
As mindshrink has noted it is a very different matter when performing for close friends, coworkers and family instead of for strangers as a hired entertainer. The professional entertainer arrives, sets up for the performance, does the show, collects his payment, exchanges pleasantries with the host/hostess/sponsor etc. and leaves. He doesn't hang around and socialize with the group because he is "hired help," not a guest at the party. The amateur or hobbyist who performs primarily for family, friends and coworkers in a social environment can't escape from his "audience" remains subject to being pestered (especially by those friends and coworkers with a limited concept of the "social graces") with either their explanations or demands that you reveal the secret. (It is assumed that family members are either so sick and tired of magic that they never ask or have learned not to ask for explanations -- of course your own young children and/or grandchildren are the exceptions to that rule.)
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
|
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts
|
Many years ago, at a party, it was mentioned that I did magic. A guy came up to me begging for me to tell him how a trick was done. He said that a magician threw a deck out to the audience. A person selected a card and shuffled it back into the deck. He then held the deck in his hand and the selected card jumped out of the deck, flew around the room, and ended up in the magician's hand.
I asked, "Are you sure that's what happened? Sometimes we don't remember things exactly the way the were." "Oh yes," he responded. "I remember it very well. I have a very good memory." Well, apparently it was not that good. I talked to him a bit longer and discovered that the trick he had seen had take place at a party I had attended. In fact, even though he had a "very good memory," he didn't remember that I had been the one performing at that party. The only thing even close to what he described was a trick I had invented and marketed some time ago called "The Leaping Card Rise Deck." In the effect, you completely fan out the cards and shuffle them freely. Then you have a card selected and returned to the deck. The card slowly rises while you hold the cards as in a standard card rise. The card is returned as you patter about how the person and the card have an affinity for each other. You hold the cards at your fingertips and the card leaps about six feet out of the deck toward the person who had selected the card. [A few years ago my friend Jeff McBride said it sounded a bit similar to his "Kundalini Rising," however the method I used did not require something other than the deck.] My point in this is that people--even trained observers--don't know what to look for and if your misdirection is good, will always remember the wrong thing. If they come up with a solution that is completely wrong, congratulate them and tell them to try it themselves. |
|||||||||
|
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts
|
A great story. I'm sure most "workers" have had similar experiences. Years ago when I performed regularly at a local restaurant, it was common for someone who had seen me before would bring friends to the place, invite me to their table and describe some absolutely impossible miracle that they remembered and ask me to do again for their friends. My solution was always to say, "if you liked that one, here is one that I know you'll enjoy" and then do something entirely different from the one they thought they were describing. Worked like a charm and always got me off the hook.
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
|
daffydoug Eternal Order Look mom! I've got 14077 Posts
|
"A String" in the spectators view, can explain a MULTITUDE of miracles. And not necessarily floating effects via i/t. But others which are not even remotely related to any hook ups.
How many here have heard (groan) "You had a string on it!!!" Kill!! Kill! KILL the spectator!!!!" "Yes, Mr Mensa graduate spectator. You are a %#$@# genius, and you are correct. The card vanishing from the deck was explained by the modus operandi of a string attached to the card, which was attached to my right big toe, and upon pulling the string with my toe or secretly operating an electronic toe switch, the card was invisibly yanked from the deck, pulled surreptitiously up my right coat sleeve, then around to my back, where upon it exited through the invisible slit in the back of my coat, flew through the air while I was misdirecting you with my hypnotic, Mesmerian gaze, flew un-noticed up to the rafters, where my secret leprechaun assistant spirited it away into never never land whereupon you will never NEVER see that card again! Hey! Give that man a cigar!!" Next?
The difficult must become easy, the easy beautiful and the beautiful magical.
|
|||||||||
|
daffydoug Eternal Order Look mom! I've got 14077 Posts
|
Ironic. I performed the "Locked room mystery" for my fiance. She is coming up with every crazy "explanation" under the sun. Oh, the irony.
The difficult must become easy, the easy beautiful and the beautiful magical.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Eliminating Explanations (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 9, 2010 10:18 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < 
|