I've been thinking about the relationship of magic to humor. Certainly not the first to do so. Both depend on surprise, expectations clashing in an unexpected way.

I tell a joke, it's about to go in one direction, but it ends up in another. There's a little moment in there where the audience puts together the expected and unexpected together and "gets" the joke. That's the laugh--their own construction of the turn of events.

In magic, there is a similar process. A coin is seen to be put in the hand. When the hand is opened, the coin is gone. There's an instant there where the audience has to construct and try to reconcile the expected and unexpected events. When that hits them, that's magic--"What the--!!"

If we want to maximize the surprise, then, why such blatant warning then as a snap of the fingers or wave of the hand? Why explicitly account for the magic? Wouldn't that lessen the impact? It's like explicitly saying before each punch line, "Okay, here's the punchline, get ready, something unexpected is about to happen."

Yes, I know good comedians set that expectation implicitly, but only the most heavy handed explicitly.

Maybe that's why David Blaine's "Watch" is enough.

But if the conditions are made clear enough, is saying nothing even more powerful?

"Surprise, expectations clashing in an unexpected way" is what happens with "Perverse Magic"

As I've said in my first posting to the Perverse Magic thread of the Genii forum, "Perverse Magic is magic that happens by itself against what the magician wants to happen".

I think that's why I'm so drawn to Perverse Magic, Gerald.

I was walking with my wife recently, and I told her a pretty stupid joke. She mentioned the rapper, Tupac, and I said, "Do you know his brother, Six?"

There was a moment where it was quiet, and then she put it together. Then she burst out laughing. And continued to laugh throughout the day every time she thought about it.

Why? It's a pretty lame joke. Had I said, "Do you know his brother, Six Pack?" she would have just groaned and patted me on the head in a placating way. But it was memorable for her because she had constructed the joke herself internally.

The magic analogy? Get them to construct the magic event in their minds rather than us telling them?

Our magic derives its humour from its absurdity. At the climax there is a dilemma; that which they know is nonsense appears to be true. It can’t be, it is absurd, but there it is. It is also impossible for nonsense to be true and therefore, then, it is not only absurd and amusing but also amazing. The charlatan’s magic is not amusing because he offers sense. The charlatan is not kidding and when he talks to the dead is audience do not giggle. Our audience is there for their amusement only, whereas charlatan’s audience is there for their belief only. If one goes to a charlatan’s performance and laughs their magic, they will be surprised and think one very rude or mad perhaps.

"Why explicitly account for the magic?"

In mythology and literature, people had to do something to make the magic happen - they have to use the magic artefact, or say the magic word, or go to the magic place.

"And now, I shall tell a joke to make you laugh, for I am Laughini, Master of Mirth. Listen carefully, when I count to three, I shall produce a punchline...," said no comedian ever.

And yet we persist in announcing our magic rather than just magishing.

They do not expect the nonsense to prove true but doubt it and thus they are struck with astonishment by the fact that it is.

If magic could happen by itself, we'd see it frequently in life. Magicians present themselves as people with arcane power and knowledge. So, a demonstration of that special power and knowledge (a wave of a wand, a pass of the hand, a special word) is the point of their presentation of self. That's the moment when they exert the special power that mere mortals don't have.

A stand-up comedian is a storyteller who specializes in stories with ironic and absurd endings. Once the audience hears the story, they can tell it to their friends the next day. A magician's cannot repeat what they witnessed.

So, the difference is the presentation of a mystery versus the presentation of a story. To use the analogy of a punchline, the punchline of a joke follows understandably from what went before. The "punchline" of a magic trick follows a gap in understanding. The "punchline" cannot be understood except by the magician's exertion of special power and knowledge.

Because the only way to present magic without being amusing is to be a charlatan, of course. I often wonder why so many magicians set their sights so low.

To drag this back to the original question - the reason most magicians snap their fingers or wave their hand is, I suspect, because they don't know how to write scripts in any other way.

There has to be some kind of process to explain what's going on. Humans don't do well without it. I call it an internally consistent logic (Which may or may not be from somewhere else, I just don't have a source for the concept) - We need things to conform to the story we have accepted. Spiderman can't fly. If we saw him fly, we'd go "That's impossible!" yet we ignore the web slinging, wall clinging, etc. as being consistent with the story we have accepted regarding Spiderman.

So the performer has to present a story that the audience can agree to accept for a particular time frame. So the performer has to set up some kind of process that gives some kind of explanation for how they are able to supposedly defy the laws of nature.

A lot of people just default to "And if I snap my fingers ... The card moves!" Because they either can't come up with anything else - or they just don't bother, or maybe it just doesn't occur to them to do any different. After all, the majority of magicians are imitating other performers, who are already doing those sorts of things.

There is nothing low about amusement. What is low is dragging our magic down into the depths of the quack like ability of the spiritualists, who are about getting people to believe, rather than to be amused and amazed.

Antonyms for amusement: gloom, melancholy, misery, pain, sorrow, trouble, unhappiness, depression, drudgery, sadness, work and boredom.

High aims for our magic eh? I don’t think so.

I was going to challenge this, then I remembered who I'm talking to.

I'll just leave this: Amusement is generally used to indicate mild entertainment. Something that one doesn't give any thought to once it's over. Why is it that magic, to you, seems to either be trivial, or fraud?

I never said that magic is trivial, or fraud – don't put your words in my mouth.

If our audience members are not amusement seekers then what exactly are they?

Amusement; Meaning "a pastime, play, game, anything which pleasantly diverts the attention" (from duty, work, etc.) is from 1670s, originally depreciative; meaning "pleasurable diversion" attested from 1690s. Amusement hall is from 1862; amusement park first recorded 1897.



Amuse; late 15c., "to divert the attention, beguile, delude," from Old French amuser "fool, tease, hoax, entrap; make fun of," literally "cause to muse" (as a distraction), from a "at, to" (from Latin ad, but here probably a causal prefix) + muser "ponder, stare fixedly" (see muse (v.)).

Look up amuse at Dictionary.com

Spectators attending our magical performances are there to be amused and amazed and for no other purpose.

Not all of us do this.

Telling a joke is "like" magic, but it is also different. Both rely on deception to lead the audience to a particular conclusion.

A punchline delivers a surprise, and a shift in perspective.

A magic trick delivers an intellectual dilemma. It is much different. Surprise is the weakest form of magic. Anticipation of the impossible creates a much stronger effect.

It seems to me that magic effects are intrinsically surprising.

"Hold the bottle by the neck. Watch the bottom. See this coin? I'm going to put it in the bottle!"

When the audience anticipates the impossible and it still happens, it is much more powerful than if they didn't know what was coming.

Telling somebody to expect to see the impossible done, does not mean they are not surprised to see the impossible done. They go along with the nonsense claimed for their amusement but they doubt it can be done because it is, or at least they are convinced it is impossible. Thus they are surprised when it is done.

Yes, but it is not the same. They had a chance to prepare and to "watch closely." They are sure they were not distracted--not taken by surprise.