OK, perhaps this is a silly question. I'm a mentalist. I don't do straight magic, but I do bizarre stuff.

I was just wondering, what do you guys mean by the distinction between mentalism and mental magic? I think I can "feel" the difference, but I'm not quite sure.

Mental Epic for example is magic. But is it because of the proppy look or what? How do you make the difference? Also: are there worthy mentalism alternatives for Mental Epic? A triple prediction---without the awful card forcing part---could be great.
What do you think?

Tons of stuff available. There's at least one no-force mental-epic-like board easily available, lots of alternatives (predictions in glasses, etc.). My favorite is the old-fashioned Plexiglas board with four clips.

However, I suspect most would agree that what you refer to as the "awful card forcing" is the least of this effect's problems.

I love seeing this question come up. And it's not a silly question at all. We've long been on the cusp of a Mentalist Inquisition with this question at its apex. (I'm only half joking.)

Many people I've read and talked to about this seem to make the distinction based on the balance of the act. If you're doing a ring-and-rope routine, card tricks, whatnot, and then pull out a mental trick, most would say you did "mental magic." That just never made much sense to me.

I've said before and it bears repeating: context is the biggest secret in magic. Context lets you do anything you want and make it "work." When you watch Richard Osterlind do what any sane person would call a mental act, and then he does a newspaper tear, how can he get away with that? He frames the trick with his introduction. (Check out the excellent DVDs for examples of this.)

The Himber Linking Finger Rings. Is that magic or mentalism? Kreskin did (does) it. Osterlind does it. Many mentalists do it. ("I just did it and I'm ready to do it again." -- History of the World Part I) So do magicians. What did Perci Diaconis have in mind when he devised the trick? Doesn't really matter because the presentation -- the frame around it -- makes it whatever the performer wants.

The concept of "mental magic" is strange to me because a trick either presents a mental feat or it does not. Joe Berg's Ultra Mental deck is a famous prop used to do the Invisible Deck routine made immortal by Don Alan. Yet, at its basis is a powerful, powerful mental trick: a person simply thinks of any card in the deck and the deck is immediately spread, and there's their card -- the only one face down in a face up deck. Prediction, precognition, PK, hoodoo, voodoo, take your pick. Finally, consider the name of the deck itself: Ultra Mental. Yet the most popular (and for some, the only) routine for this deck is the Invisible Deck.

What about one of the greatest card tricks ever, Paul Curry's "Out of This World"? While many performers do this as part of their card act, at its very basis is strong mentalism. So, is it a card trick, mental magic, or mentalism?

The list can go on and on, but the bottom line really is -- and always has been -- the presentation bent, which is the effect a trick has on the audience. That includes what you say about the trick, and how you say it.

There is nothing at all wrong with mixing mentalism tricks and magic tricks. The effect you'll have on your audience, though, and how effective you will be presenting anything, is directly linked to how close to the appropriate context you keep things.

On stage, lighting and music changes help move from one illusion to another, very different types of illusions. In close-up or platform magic, that's done mostly by speaking the right words.

Well, that's my opinion on the subject.

John LeBlanc
Houston, TX

If the spectator is freaking out, you are doing mentalism. If she is asking you how you did it, you are doing mental magic.

LeBlanc's got it right. Find your voice and say what nobody else is saying. It's called (what?) ART.

Well said, John.

I find it so funny to have a thoughtful, well-written post detailing reasons why the poster believes one thing, then immediately following it a short post with the phrase "freaking out" as the only qualifier to a point of view.

Oh, how I love this forum sometimes. No offense Houdinibleeding (that is a disturbing mental picture), but your post made me laugh out loud.

Jason

Lately I've been thinking about this as well. In my mind, magic involves creating impossible illusions that leave the spectator thinking "there's no such thing as magic/there's no other explanation" (see Whit Haydn's essays for more thoughts on this).

Mentalism, on the other hand, is more concerned with "What if?". Richard Busch, in Mind Over Number, stated that in mentalism "How" is weak mystery..."if" is profound mystery.

As John said, it's all in the presentation.

Jason

From reading an excellent essay about magic on another website:
- The magician is faced with the cold fact that he is enchanting an audience with a demonstration of the impossible. But he is obviously unable to believe in this impossibility himself, simply because he had to practice so hard with his props that he cannot ignore the mechanism behind the effects.
- The mentalist can always begin with the 'real' aspects of mentalism, ie., magic squares, memorizing pi, contact mind reading. He can then take it as far as he wants, since he can claim that his effects are all based on psychological techniques (think Mr. Derren Brown). So, he can have the luxury of believing in the enchantment himself. A bit like Alice in Wonderland...

John,

That was a very eloquent and thoughtful answer.

Richard

Well... I thank you for your answers... I'm starting to see the bigger picture now...

Mystery

Yes, John an excellent and thoughtful answer.

For me as a magician slowly turning mentalist, in my mind I've come to think of one difference being that mental magic tends to deal with props and mentalism tends to deal with personal information about a person, like divining their birthday or name of their childhood pet. An exception would be Mental Epic which uses elements of both but is usually classified as mental magic.

Of course as John points out you can mix magic and mentalism and some "magic tricks" such as the Invisible Deck and Out of this World are as strong as some straight mentalism effects.

Bobby

This is also discussed in an earlier thread:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......forum=15

Yours,

Paul

I would add only slightly to this by saying that the very best magicians and mentalists I have seen are the ones that do believe in their effects, as they perform them.

Perhaps then, one only ever sees mentalism when the mentalist truly believes he is performing it.

This goes back in many repspects to what John was writing about: CONTEXT.

It’s said that the difference is that in mental magic you deal with props and in mentalism you deal with information. It’s also said that to do mental magic you go to a magic shop, and to do mentalism you refer to books.

I guess that’s accurate, but...

IMHO, people don’t care about the differences, as long as you are ENTERTAINING.

Of course, I completely agree. I think that is a given that, no matter what you do, you have to be entertaining.

In mentalism, I think the difference is how deeply you affect your audience while you are entertaining them.

[quote]On 2004-02-29 13:00, Jason Wethington wrote:
Well said, John.

I find it so funny to have a thoughtful, well-written post detailing reasons why the poster believes one thing, then immediately following it a short post with the phrase "freaking out" as the only qualifier to a point of view.

Oh, how I love this forum sometimes. No offense Houdinibleeding (that is a disturbing mental picture), but your post made me laugh out loud.

They are both right, though.

I have to say that having performed magic for almost 10 years, and now adding more and more mentalism to my act, the mentalism always gets the strongest reaction from people. I too use a bit of magic in my act still to this day...the rising cards, spirit slates (though it's more of a "spook show" effect now), linking finger rings, torn and restored cigarette paper, Hindu broken and restored thread. These are just a few of the pieces that I do still perform, but as John LeBlanc said above, it's all in how you frame the effect. What story do you tell?
Richard Osterlind and Ted Lesley are my two favorite mentalists, and both do a substantial amount of magic in their shows. I think that they can do this because they know from years of experience how to frame the "trick" in such a way that it fits right in, and may even be stronger as a result.

Rick

You bet it is!!!
I strongly reccomend Richard Osterlind's Change of Mind.
The version on the series is among the most brilliant I've ever seen.
However, the refined routine, marketed on Richard's web site is even better!
Pure Mentalism, nothing less!!!

Sven

......when this is said, I do have a couple of opinions to the matter.

Magic, Mental Magic, Mentalism, Purist Mentalism etc...
This discussion pop up from time to time, and when it does, I believe that it is not because of what's important to our spectactors , but because of our own egoes.
To me it seems that magicians feel that they are better and more important than mentalists, Mentalist feel that they are better and more important than magicians, and everybody feel that they are better and more important than children- and family magicians (with no reason whatsoeve BTW)

The spectactors want to be entertained, and if, repeat IF they should or could define the difference, they probably would define MAGIC as
A)Something they CAN explain
B)Something that they can't explain, but just know that there is an explanation to it

...and MENTALISM as "mind reading", "magic of the mind", clairvoyance etc, where they see

A)No Fancy boxes
B) No Silks, doves, lions, tigers, cards, flowers, billiard balls
C)No vanishing of the Statue of Liberty, Orient Express etc
D) No sleight of hand-stuff or manipulations,

but

Things they are showed, which they can't explain, and of which they have no direction to turn to to look for secrets.

But again, I believe that they simply don't care what's what.
They want to be entertained and have a great time.

So let's do that.
Entertain them.

Sven

Here, Here! A voice of reason from Norway!

I agree! I think that we sometimes forget that we are in the entertainment business.

Rick

I CAN AGREE MORE... And it's cool to read that some of you have not forgot, what this game is all about

People pay for see a show to relax and enjoy, not to be convince...

And this is easy to understand why, in the world we live today...They want to change mood for a small time

Entertainement and originality, combine make a spectator travel outside is small everyday world for atleast the time of you show...

I always keep in mind my main goal while doing a show... Make it like a big HAPPENING! And always try to not create a fence between my audience and me!

Humbly, from someone that pay his rent performing for 15 years

Kuffs