Thought I might start a dialog on a subject I have been thinking about lately.

When I was a "financially challenged" college student many moons ago, I did a psychic routine for my fraternity's parties. The most talked-about effect was where everyone in the room submitted his name and some other information on small slips of paper which were gathered. One was chosen, and the name read. Though blindfolded and far away from the slips, I then revealed the other written information and other details not written including how much change was in their pocket, etc. People were impressed, but the routine was basically a way to 'force' a "stooge." That's right. I was young and stupid.

Though 'time-honored' and undeniably effective, I have since sworn off using stooges. And while I do not wish to offend anybody who uses any technique, I now am having the same sort of thoughts of 'unfairness' concerning some (but not all) of what is termed 'pre-show' work as I am coming to believe that some of it essentially creates a 'stooge.'

That perhaps goes a bit far, but I hope some of you 'get' what I am hinting at. There are situations where information is gathered in a way that the 'later' audience would not be so impressed by had they seen the procedure, and where the 'miracle' happens primarily because the audience is under the impression that there has been no previous contact.

Mr. Strivings has been quoted as saying that pre-show work can make you look like a god, or something to that effect. I agree, and that is pretty much my problem.

Perhaps I completely off based in this view and in need of correcting. Perhaps others of you are having the same sort of misgivings as I am. Is this addressed in any of the literature? Apologies if this has been covered previously!

Annemann would employ 99 audience members out of 100 just to fool the one. Using a stooge is the same as using any other method. Double lift, shuttle pass, Elmsley Count, Stooge. They are all the same when it comes to method of effect. There is no such thing as "ethics" when it comes to methodology. We do whatever we have to do in order to achieve a desired effect, and if that means using a stooge, so be it.

It's very much a personal choice, just as the use of sleights are. There are no rights and wrongs. If you are comfortable doing a double lift and a palm then you will do effects involving them. Same with stooges.

Regards,

David.

I'm fascinated with magic, and I know many others are too, because I find it an intellectual challenge. The elements are all there in front of me. I just have to make sense of them.

These elements could include everything from hidden trap doors, stooges, etc. All is fair, as long as the puzzle is properly and fairly set up. As long as I have the potential to deduce the solution. If the audience is told flat out that there has been no prearranged information and there really has been, that's unfair. If I'm watching magic on TV and they say everything is shown in its entirety and it's not, that's unfair. It becomes the "guess what the magician is lying about" game? Rather than the "it's all here in front of you, now figure it out game."

If you disagree, where does it stop? Would you be cool with a TV magician doing an entire show with trick photography?

Basically, I feel the puzzle has to be properly presented. It's not an ethics thing. It's just my opinion on keeping magic entertaining. When the puzzle has been thrown out the window, and you don't even know what it is you're trying to figure out, there's nothing entertaining about it.

It's an interesting topic, and you're certainly not off base in raising it. It's been lightly touched on in some of the Derren Brown threads, i.e., does any pre-show work for his TV specials negate his claim of 'no stooges'?

Spectators pay their money to be mystified and most will not be bothered about how they are deceived. (Hopefully they'll marvel for days afterwards.) There would probably be an element of disappointment if they found out later that stooge work was involved, because they're willing to suspend belief for the duration of the show and believe in a performer with great mental ability.

Yet the same would apply to them discovering a miracle they witnessed and applauded was totally self-working and something a child could do.

At the end of the show, if they've been entertained, mystified and amazed, and leave wanting more, the methods don't really matter. It's the performance that counts.

Arrgh!

Firstly, stop thinking like a dang magician. In my opinion and in my experience doing Psychic styled work, the use of a stooge is something magicians and tent revivalist do, not MENTALISTS!

Now, let me eat my own words...

Stooges can be used in a creative manner. Rick Maue speaks a great deal on this idea and how it can save your butt in today's "Let's expose everything" world.

Unfortunately I can't go into extreme detail (due to secrets), but think about placing the Swami on the other hand, e.g., letting the stooge do the dirty work so the heat is off of you. (In fact, I believe a noted Mentalist did exactly that on a major TV special recently.)

Pre-show work, in my opinion, can create the feel of an instant stooge but, only when it is being handled wrong. I have no problems clipping questions and information if I have no alternative that's practical and which allows me to work "clean". The catch is, I seek alternative methods when and where possible. I despise having to do pre-show and have found that it's not needed nine times out of 10.

Bear in mind, the people you are clipping don't know you're doing it. Secondly, if you believe they're suspicious about your clipboard or whatever you're using, don't use it! Too, ask yourself why you fear that element. If you handle YOUR TOOLS like they mean nothing, the audience will see them in the same light. When possible have the host/ess hand out the clipboards to have folks fill out information (or an accomplice). Another excellent alternative is to use a little technique T.A. speaks of in Mind, Myth & Magic (I'll not tip it here, but if you look you'll find it. It's excellent, non-suspicious and works very well. I've been using it for a while now in my Mystery shows and love it!)

Instant Stooging is something I detest. Again, I believe it's a Magician's method vs. something that's "proper" for mentalism. The reason being is very simple: someone is being "let in" on a secret. Usually in a not so subtle way. Sure, the trick may be very cool, but the psychological advantage I want when people talk about what they experience, is lost.

I've spoken of this before: if I want to clue someone in, I need a way to cue them and make that cue vanish. In other words, I want that person to be uncertain, as if they've had a "Psychic" premonition.

One of my favorite methods is to use something along the line of THINK INK. It takes on a shape to cue the participant and then quickly returns to a puddle shape. No evidence! Other simple methods include the GHOST GLASS liquid or subtle "flashes" such as can be done in a Waterfall shuffle.

If you feel that you're taking advantage of folks by doing pre-show work, then change your style and act. Believe it or not, the magic community is the only place you're going to find such antics happening (outside of a very crude Spiritualists church, maybe).

Most of today's "Psychics" simply ask the question or imply a question and "fish" for someone in the room to respond (Watch John Edwards and you'll get the point.)

Experiment. Learn to find the way to accomplish your goals as a performer using methods that are comfortable to you as well as practical. I dare not go further at this stage in the game.

This can be a thorny question, but I feel it becomes crystal clear when you take into consideration one essential fact.

The moment I walk in front of a group of people to perform, a "show" is beginning. Not a lecture, not a church service, not an IRS audit, but a "show."

As an actor, I do plenty of pre-show work. I put on make-up, costumes, memorize lines, a set is built, lights are designed, and all sorts of other "pre-show" work is done to create an effective and entertaining "show."

None of this is ever considered unethical, and I'm not worried that someone may think that the characters or story I'm telling is real or not. It may have a relationship or resemblance to real life, but that's as far as it goes.

So why should pre-show work for a mentalist be considered any differently? My contract with the audience--whether it's a play, a musical, a cabaret, a magic show, or a mentalism show--is that I am going to entertain them using all the stagecraft at my command. Period.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I will do everything in my power to invoke a response from the audience, and if that includes using lights, music, elements of story telling, magical phenomenon, or demonstrations of psychic power, it's all part of the "show."

Now, I have to take mild umbrage to the use of the word "stooge." Someone modified it earlier in this thread by saying "instant stooge," which I feel is more on track to a proper deception of pre-show volunteers, but this term has been broadened over the years in such a way that is misleading.

A true stooge (or stick or horse in the hyp world) is someone who is "in" on the act and is another "actor." An "instant stooge"--in the original definition--is usually an audience member who is being "cued" or prompted to act in a certain way. (Remember the George Anderson ploy of writing "Now!" on his cigarette, and when he wanted the spectator to say "stop" he simply bent his fingers in and let the person see this "command!")

This term "instant stooge" has now evolved to include pre-show participants, and I feel that this is an improper inclusion.

If your pre-show work is properly done, the person from whom you gained information (or forced something on, etc.) will still be baffled and entertained during the show proper, albeit in a slightly different way.

So, if you accept this definition, what remains? We have pre-show work that is simply another aspect of the preparation of a "show." We have an audience member who has been asked to participate at a non-traditional time, i.e., before the show rather than during the show, and we have an audience filled with people during the show--the pre-show participant included--who are entertained. Pre-show + show + audience = ethical entertainment. QED.

For me, then, there is absolutely no question whatsoever about the "ethics" of pre-show work.

Now, dipping wallets to discover information ...

Fred Zimmerman

Like the title of the book by, I believe, Bob Farmer, "Beat'em, cheat'em and leav'em bleed'en", you're entertaining. As long as your audience is being entertained and not ridiculed, do what you have to.

I draw the line with stooges. If Derren can repeatedly find which hand a coin is in, I am impressed. I can do it rather easily, of course, if the 'spectator' is a stooge. In fact, most mentalism effects can be achieved much easier with stooges. I don't think this does much to elevate the art.

Take an effect like Max Maven's Psign. A spectator picks a number between one and eight. Turning the board over, it is shown that the numbers correspond to eight different designs. The design freely chosen by the spectator perfectly matches a prediction by the performer. It is a clever effect that is not clever at all if the spectator is a stooge, and not nearly so clever if a number is forced or clipped pre-show.

Contimental is terrific, but can be difficult to pull off, and is not quite 100% (spectator must know Europe and be able to spell). But a stooge with a pre-arranged country in his head without a doubt looks much cleaner to an audience, and a person clipped for a country pre-show eliminates all the problems with Contimental as well. I still like Contimental better.

If I marketed an effect where a spectator freely thinks of any word and then you dramatically reveal it letter by letter with no 'fishing' at all to thunderous applause, I could probably sell a lot of them until the reviews appeared here on the 'café.' Very easy to do with a stooge or a clipboard.

Is there really any incentive to develop any new effects when they cannot achieve the same results as stooges or pre-show? My opinion is "Yes", because a lot of people are interested in effects that do not involved stooges or pre-show.

I don't like stooges, but I disagree with Platt's argument. Magic and mentalism effects shouldn't be presented as puzzles for people to try and figure out in any case. Doing so will only diminish the effect and leave you with an audience that is aggressively trying to bring you down.

My problem with stooges is that the audience expects *you* to be the performer, and the rest of the audience to be on their level. I don't like the idea of the 'audience' being performers.

What about confederates? Those who cue? Or exchange (eh, Vision)? Or even write???

What about them?

Curtis.

I used one instant stooge routine in most of the over 400 mentalism shows that I performed at a theme park one summer. Would I do it again? YES! The response was overwhelming! Do I still do it? YES, when the occasion is right.

The instant stooge routine makes me no less of a mentalist than when I don't use one.

IMHO the same goes for pre-show work. If one is really a mentalist/psychic, one may not need it, but I'm with the rest of the mortals out there. The audience may not be impressed if they find out I used pre-show work or a stooge, but would they be impressed to know that I also used a trick deck or a small piece of lead to pull off a seeming miracle?

I never have a problem with letting a spectator "in on it," because I never claim to be a "real psychic/mentalist" (whatever that is - but I think most of you know what I mean) outside of the performance.

Prior to my show, I tell the audience that I have no supernatural power, but I will attempt to convince them that I do during the performance. At that point I assume the role of a psychic. At the end of the performance, I step out of that role and once again explain that everything that they have just witnessed was done through ordinary means.

As to the ethics of presenting yourself as really having these paranormal abilities, well that's another thread (and so is the discussion about the pros and cons of disclaimers)!

Terry

I've posted on this topic before, and I am not convinced by the argument that a stooge is on a par with any other method such as a DL. It is not. To say it is, is to dilute and simplify the distinction between the two things. A DL takes skill. A top change takes skill, and skill in misdirection. Both of these, to use as examples of methods, are devices woven into what the audience knows is a trick.

If I did a card trick with a stooge and other audience members, where the "picked" card was prearranged, and that they would call out this card on cue, then am I a magician, or am I just a member of a two team con act?

An Audience member finding out the method of the DL might be impressed by the simplicity of the method, and the skill in achieving it. A spectator discovering that the person who picked the card was a stooge would dismiss the magician as a complete fraud with absolutely no skill. The more one does effects that can ONLY be achieved with a stooge, instant or otherwise, then the more one is sailing close the wind in terms of exposure, and ultimately, career suicide...

Derren's desire to conceive of more and more effects is possibly sailing this course. When someone watches the effect where a member of the public stops a woman in the street, and the woman interviewed afterwards it so obviously a stooge, then people will be switching off in droves.

The best use of stooges and assistants that I have ever seen is by David Berglas in his 'The Mind and Magic of'. He talks a lot about stooges, assistants and pre-show work. Everything he says seems to make sense to me.

It's all about handling the person (the person you are getting information of, pre-show). Lee Earle has some good thoughts on the Desert Brainstorm vol.1 in his effect Combination.

I personally have no problems with pre-show, but I wouldn't use a stooge.

Okay, the basic argument for using stooges seems to be this: The minute you sit down to watch magic, you're being entertained, the show has begun, and the audience knows it's a show, so anything goes.

With that logic, would you be okay seeing a movie that begins with the quote: "This is a true story. Everything you see happened just the way it occurred"? Only to later learn it was 100% fictional story. You'd probably feel duped and manipulated. But with above logic, you'd have to say to yourself, well, it's just a movie, and a movie's entertainment, so the film maker can say whatever he wants. Because the minute I sat down to watch the picture, the "entertainment" had begun.

And the magician can say, "No stooges, no tricky editing, no preshow work" and that's all part of the entertainment.

I don't agree. It should be clear when the "entertainment" begins.

"It should be clear when the "entertainment" begins. "

Please share with us why this should be so.

Well, to add my two cents, I don't see a problem with using a stooge as long as I'm sure he or she won't give it all away after the show. Otherwise, it doesn't seem any less ethical than (mis-)reading a one-ahead billet. In either case, we're deceiving (or lying to) our audience.

Bob Taxin

Odd you should mention films, as one of the single most powerful films I've ever seen was based on this very concept. It claimed to be based completely on genuine events - I won't name the film as that would spoil it. The fact is without this element the film would have been simply average.

Another film that everyone now knows was fake is The Blair Witch project. Again the strength of this film was all the effort put into making us believe it was fact rather than fiction.

In my opinion the levels of engagement created by this ruse exceeded that of the discovery of the reality.

First of all let me say that I very rarely use stooges but I have done and I am very happy with those who do.
I have to say that I do find interesting the delusions of grandeur possessed by some within the magical/mentalist fraternity.
I mean to say, although there are skills involved in our art (and I believe it is an art) the reason why we achieve what we achieve is because we cheat. Or is it just me whilst everyone else is simply highly skilled? Or they really 'are' magicians?!
I do understand that some guys have what they might call ethics in not believing a stooge should be involved, and I do respect that belief. However, for me it's like admitting that I cheat but I'm not as bad as him cos' he 'really' cheats. Why not go the whole hog and simply quit all those devious tricks altogether and become a councilor?
Me? Show me how I can achieve the effect that I want to achieve without anyone suspecting how I achieve it, and I call that 'magic'.

I do not think this boils down to denying that all of our methods are 'cheating.' Mentalists and magicians use a variety of underhanded and some very clever methods which require much thought, creativity and practice.

That is my main point for NOT using stooges. Most every great mentalism effect can be equaled or bettered with a stooge. Drawing duplications are a piece of cake: your stooge and you have it all worked out ahead of time. Any word can be divined, any question can be answered. You find the coin in the hand every time with a stooge on the other end.

The point is that some deny stooges to raise the bar. They would rather cold read, which is challenging, than give a full accurate 'reading' for a person that you have pre-arranged to be chosen and who pretends to be amazed, though the latter method is more accurate and much easier.

Once again, no one denies the miracles that can be worked with stooges and other assorted pre-show work.

How about if you spent money for a "great" version of "Out Of This World" with a borrowed deck that is brought by the spectator to the show. Several other spectators shuffle and then, without the performer even touching the cards, the spectator lays out the face down cards into two piles according to his whim, and then the spectator turns the piles over in the first pile, and in the second pile, all are red.

You anxiously await for the manuscript, and when it comes it is only five words long "M***ked deck and a stooge." Most anyone would be disappointed with that, but, hey, the effect is much more impressive to an unsuspecting audience than any other version of OOTW that I have seen marketed or performed.

Still I suspect that most people would be disappointed with this method. I sure would.