All tricks easy to figure out?

[T'ai Chi]

Are all magic tricks easy to figure out??

I can't say I've met one yet that is too challenging to figure out.

That's not to say I have the dexterity, skill, acting, presence to do any, I don't, except for the canned ones and the easy ones, but just that most all tricks I've seen seemed really easy to solve.

What are some peoples' candidates for hard/near impossible to figure out tricks?

[Garrette]

TERASABOS

Five cups, mugs, hats, whatever...it doesn't matter.

Spectator takes something, preferably of emotional value, it doesn't matter what, and places it under one of the cups, etc.

Magician legitimately does not see which one it is placed under.

Magician returns and proceeds to turn over the cups until only the one is left.

No gimmicks. No sleights. Free choice by spectator.

Caveat: Impossible to figure out when performed by a skilled magician. Easy to blow the presentation.

[fsol]

Derren Brown did that with 6 cups as part of his russian roulette show and said that the russian roulette technique was the same principle. Now, not knowing how TERASABOS works, I wouldn't know if he was telling the truth or just using misdirection.

[Zep]

Figured already. Would "movement" be a key clue?

[Garrette]

Not movement, gestures, facial expressions, anything. No forcing a choice on the spectator.

If Brown did his six cups the same as TERASABOS, I'm not sure it could--in the details--be the same as the russian roulette method.

I'll give one semi-hint in the interest of full disclosure and say that the magician almost always turns over the right cup as the last one.

On occasion, the magician will instead turn the cup over on the first or second turn, but he let's you know that's what he's doing; it's not a mistake.

Now if that doesn't screw up the non-magicians' attempts to figure this out, I don't know what will.

[Zep]

No, not "movement" referring to the people, "movement" referring to the cups or whatever.

[Garrette]

Nope, not that either. At least in the case of Terasabos. I don't know about his russian roulette method.

The method is extremely simple (in concept, not execution), diabolical for that reason, and not at all related to what you think it would be.

There are NO tells (to use a poker term).

No more hints or answers.

[reprise]

Having watched Derren Brown on TV last night and being totally captivated by many of his performances within that show, I was quite delighted today to find that he explains on his website the methodology behind them and even offers "practise this skill" type exercises.

I understand the "mounting hugely expensive illusion which people will no longer want to see if they understand how it works" argument, but I remain in awe of the illusionists who can perform "simple" illusions whose execution I understand perfectly so well that they still enchant me. That - to me - is "magic". I know perfectly well how the various "joined rings" illusions work, but seeing them well executed still thrills me more than the "smoke and mirrors" (pun fully intended) disappearing elephant style illusions.

[Zep]

I don't know or play poker. What's a "tell"?

[Garrette]

A 'tell' is a giveaway that you don't know about.

For instance, in poker you sometimes have to bluff, which means to keep betting as if you have a strong hand when in reality you have a weak hand.

A 'tell' might be that everytime you bluff, you start drumming the table with your fingers or tapping your toes or humming a song or smirking or raising an eyebrow.

A fellow poker player who discovers your tell will always know when you're bluffing and when you're not, but you will never know how he knows. You just keep losing.

---

For TERASABOS, I was only trying to communicate that there is no equivalent in the method. The magician doesn't jiggle the table to see which cup moves less than the others, or see how the light shines less through one than the others, or see which one the spectator tries to look at least. Nothing like that.

The magician simply fools you in TERASABOS and fools you in such a way that, if you are not familiar with it, and he presents it in a manner similar to Derren Brown's manner, you are astonished, devastated, dumbfounded, bewildered.

[Zep]

I can think of at least three variations on a theme that is extraordinarily simple and easy to set up for this trick, yet they could easily go wrong too. How do I tell people without blabbing it, and how do I get to know if this is how it was done?

[Zep]

Thanks, Garrette. I understand now. No, my theory on this does not involve such complicated actions, and does not depend on "looking into their eyes" or stooges, etc. It's one of those things that is so obvious once you can see it, that even a child could do it.

[Peter S.]

The Hawk, one of Max Mavin's routines is completely impossible to figure out, even if you are familiar with the Gibreth Priciple, on which it is based.

[Zep]

Peter, you are speaking English but making NO sense... But since I'm not even remotely a magician, I'll just leave it alone for now!

[Brown]

At TAM2, I'll be happy to demonstrate some tricks that people almost certainly will not be able to figure out... and I'm a crappy magician!

[Garrette]

Hey! That's one of my performance names! Back off, dude, and bow to "The Crappy Magician!"

P.S. 'tis twoo, 'tis twoo, 'tis pity, 'tis twoo, but I am a crappy magician on the technical side of it. I do the presentation very well, though, if I may say so myself and I may because nobody here can stop me.

So there.

[Peter S.]

Originally posted by Zep
Peter, you are speaking English but making NO sense... But since I'm not even remotely a magician, I'll just leave it alone for now!

Okay, imagine this:
The magician freely shows a deck of cards and places the deck of cards in front of two people. He asks one of the spectators to give the deck a cut and each of the two spectators take a card from where the deck was cut. The cards are replaced and the magician asks each of the spectators to cut the deck again, (while this is done the magician looks away so there can be no doubt that the magician has no idea where the cards are in the deck). The magician cuts the deck in two piles and asks one of the spectators to riffle shuffle the deck. The magician then takes the deck and starts to deal the cards face down on the table. At some point the magician suddenly stops and asks one of the spectators to name their card. The magician then asks the spectator to turn over the card the magician stopped at to reveal it is, in fact, the card named. The magician then gives the deck a shuffle and starts to deal the cards again to find the second spectator's card, but stops saying, "This is boring, let's try something different..." The magician then looks into the spectators eyes and, after a few moments of concentration, names the second spectator's card.

It's interesting to note that throughout most of the trick, (until the magician cuts the cards for the spectator to shuffle), the magician does not handle the cards; all of the cutting and shuffling is done by the spectators. It's also important to note that the deck is not marked or stripped and may be examined.

[roger]

Originally posted by Peter S.
It's interesting to note that throughout most of the trick, (until the magician cuts the cards for the spectator to shuffle), the magician does not handle the cards; all of the cutting and shuffling is done by the spectators. It's also important to note that the deck is not marked or stripped and may be examined.
Examined, as in I can look at the faces of the cards to verify it is a normal 52 card, four suit deck?

[wert]

^^^Yep, it's a normal deck. I use this effect now and again. Very puzzling and effective "impossible Location".

[Brown]

Originally posted by Garrette
Hey! That's one of my performance names! Back off, dude, and bow to "The Crappy Magician!"Well, I shall say then that I am a "pitiful" magician who has no intention of quitting his day job.

In all fairness, I am a better juggler than a magician, and a better magician than a singer.

[Brown]

One of the tricks I've recently developed is a combination of about four different tricks. Basically, the performer makes a prediction, and shows the prediction to some spectators, but not to others. (For better measure, one of the spectators signs his name below the prediction.) The prediction is placed in the center of the table face down, and is not touched by anyone until the conclusion of the trick.

The performer then invites a spectator (or two or more spectators) to select, one at a time, a certain number of cards from anywhere from a shuffled deck that is spread out before him. The spectator is invited to shuffle the cards he selected, and to select a smaller number of cards from this group. This smaller number of cards is shuffled, and a single card is selected from this group.

The performer then recounts all that has happened up to this point, emphasizing that everything has been done with the free choice of the spectator, and that there was no way the performer could know what cards would be selected at each stage. The performer then reminds everyone that, before the first card was selected, he made a prediction that has been sitting in full view the whole time, and has not been touched. The question is... will the chosen card match the prediction?

When the chosen card is turned over, the spectators who saw the prediction early on might start to laugh or otherwise disclose that the prediction that they saw was incorrect. The performer invites one of them to turn over the prediction, and incredibly, the prediction is indeed correct! (Even though the prediction is different from the one they saw earlier, the spectator's signature is below the correct prediction.)

The result is a surprise for all of the spectators, some of whom see that a freely chosen card was accurately predicted. For the spectators who saw the prediction ahead of time, they are doubly surprised, because they thought the performer goofed in making his prediction.

I doubt that anyone other than someone very knowledgeable about card magic could figure out how this trick is done.

I will not reveal how this trick is done. I will say, however, that the trick does not always "work" as I've described. If the spectator inadvertently fouls up the trick, there are techniques for recovery in which I nevertheless find the predicted card, and these techniques are almost as baffling as what I've described.

[Cain]

I can't say I've met one yet that is too challenging to figure out.

Nonsense. Maybe you "figured" out a possible solution, but it's hubris to say that you figured out "the" solution. Unless you've seen a trick repeated several times to different audiences, how can you be sure you've discovered the secret?

Ah, the illusion of certainty... truly the most powerful self-working effect known today.

[Zep]

I agree! Regarding some tricks, I sometimes believe I have figured out A solution, or possibly a number of solutions. But without the magician revealing HIS method to me, I'm never certain I am right.

And, of course, some tricks I have yet to figure out... That's the fun of this, for me! Like solving cryptic crosswords (which I can't do very well anyway).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Cain

Nonsense. Maybe you "figured" out a possible solution, but it's hubris to say that you figured out "the" solution. Unless you've seen a trick repeated several times to different audiences, how can you be sure you've discovered the secret?

Ah, the illusion of certainty... truly the most powerful self-working effect known today.

I haven't seen any trick that I couldn't figure out so far. Not to brag, but that is just the truth.

Sure, there are MANY I couldn't figure out right after seeing it done, but after some reflection, experimentation, and using simpler tricks/methods as building blocks to solve the larger trick, it is usually pretty easy to come up with a very plausible solution to any trick.

[Cain]

Which tricks are you talking about? The one where grandpa "grabs your nose"? Or maybe it's the one where he severs and restores his thumb.

I remember one guy offering the following "explanation" for Blaine's handling of the invisible deck in his popular special:

"He just reverses two or three cards(near the top, bottom, or middle of the deck, and then asks hundreds of random people on the street to name a card. He's bound to be correct a few times."

Well, yeah, that's a *possible* explanation. Is that how Blaine did it though? No.

[LW]

As I've said before, I'm not even a competent amateur magician and more like a lazy wannabe.

However, this is one effect that I once presented:

I walked to a girl I know and asked her "Hey, name a playing card" (or, more precisely, I asked it in Finnish "Hei, sano jokin pelikortti"). After she named one, I asked her to put hand in the pocket of my overcoat, take out a sealed envelope, and open it. It contained the card that she had named.

You may ponder about that one.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by LW
As I've said before, I'm not even a competent amateur magician and more like a lazy wannabe.

However, this is one effect that I once presented:

I walked to a girl I know and asked her "Hey, name a playing card" (or, more precisely, I asked it in Finnish "Hei, sano jokin pelikortti"). After she named one, I asked her to put hand in the pocket of my overcoat, take out a sealed envelope, and open it. It contained the card that she had named.

You may ponder about that one.

Well, there are many methods for doing that. What comes to mind first, would be akin to Blaines' 'think of a card, but not the jack of spades/queen of hearts, that is too easy..' etc., routine.

(edited to change ace of spades to jack of spades/queen of hearts)

[Garrette]

Heck, figuring out a way to do that trick is easy.

What I can't figure out is how the heck he said:

"Hei, sano jokin pelikortti"

[Brown]

Al Jaffee of Mad Magazine wrote a book about magic in which he "explained" some of the tricks. For example, Jaffee describe how can a magician make it appear as though water runs uphill. The secret is to tilt the entire auditorium, audience and all, with a hydraulic jack.

Could it be done that way? Maybe. (There are some magicians who use a very similar principle, tilting or moving an entire stage to achieve an effect.) But usually there's a simpler explanation for some of these startling tricks.

I have often thought I'd figured out a trick, but upon learning how the trick was actually done, I felt like a dope because the the secret was so much simpler than what I'd imagined.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by LW
As I've said before, I'm not even a competent amateur magician and more like a lazy wannabe.

However, this is one effect that I once presented:

I walked to a girl I know and asked her "Hey, name a playing card" (or, more precisely, I asked it in Finnish "Hei, sano jokin pelikortti"). After she named one, I asked her to put hand in the pocket of my overcoat, take out a sealed envelope, and open it. It contained the card that she had named.

You may ponder about that one.

Does your overcoat have 52 pockets?:p

[roger]

Originally posted by LW
As I've said before, I'm not even a competent amateur magician and more like a lazy wannabe.

However, this is one effect that I once presented:

I walked to a girl I know and asked her "Hey, name a playing card" (or, more precisely, I asked it in Finnish "Hei, sano jokin pelikortti"). After she named one, I asked her to put hand in the pocket of my overcoat, take out a sealed envelope, and open it. It contained the card that she had named.

You may ponder about that one. Good God, I figured out the trick!! You found a way to get a pretty girl to stick her hand in your pocket! Very sneaky. Well done, sir, well done.

[LW]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Does your overcoat have 52 pockets?:p

No. Only three (and that was really the only pocket with an envelope inside).

[Brown]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
Does your overcoat have 52 pockets?This is how Al Jaffee "explained" a similar trick.

[LW]

Originally posted by roger
Good God, I figured out the trick!! You found a way to get a pretty girl to stick her hand in your pocket! Very sneaky. Well done, sir, well done.

I have also another to do with two pretty girls where I get to hold their hands and gaze deeply into the eyes of the prettier one.

I give a deck of cards to the first one, ask her to cut it and deal five cards to herself, and then give the dect to the other so that she can do the same. Then they both get to decide which of the five cards they like most, and exchange the other four with each other. Then I ask them to shuffle the five cards well so that I can't possibly know which one was the original.

The first girl then deals the cards face up on the table, I take hold of her hand and divine her card by gently moving her hand over the cards.

Next, I ask the second girl put extend her hand palm up, put all her cards on the palm and cover them by the other hand. I then put her hands between mine and stat to gaze deeply into her eyes, asking her to think about her card. Then I name it. (Though, to tell the truth, looking into pretty eyes is so distracting that I sometimes need two tries to get the right card).

[T'ai Chi]

Impromptu tricks that involve hot females.. That would be a magic book I'd buy.

[Cain]

I have often thought I'd figured out a trick, but upon learning how the trick was actually done, I felt like a dope because the the secret was so much simpler than what I'd imagined.

I think we should all refer to this as Cain's dictum. If you're not certain how an illusion works, the solution is simpler than you suspect.


Tai Chi- hot girls do not come included :)

Besides, applying Cain's dictum, I've already got it all figured out: marked cards.

[LW]

Originally posted by Cain
Besides, applying Cain's dictum, I've already got it all figured out: marked cards.

Not that I've ever used my marked deck for anything, but here's a helpful hint for those who want to create one:

If you devise a nice binary encoding of the different card values (two bits for suits, four for values), remember to mark them so that the more visible color represents "one" if you don't want to use time to learn to do one's complement arithmetic in your head.

Trust me in this.

[T'ai Chi]

A simple solution to using marked decks would be for the spectator to bring his own deck and ask if the magician would care to exchange decks. :)

Also, the spectator, when examining the magician's deck, could flip deck like a flip book, and see if the backs of the decks are changing as it is flipped.

[Silicon]

Jeeze, David Blaine's doing the Invisible Deck?


Did he get that at the Magic Shop at Disneyland?





Are some tricks so ubiquitous that they really shouldn't be performed by anyone over 12 years old?



Brown, sounds like your trick is a really great one. I'd love to see the trick and the variations you came up with.

For my impossible to figure out trick, I nominate The Turk. Anyone who admires cabinet illusions will enjoy the history of the first "machine" to beat humans at playing chess. It was a masterful illusion. And It'd still fool em today.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I haven't seen any trick that I couldn't figure out so far. Not to brag, but that is just the truth.

Sure, there are MANY I couldn't figure out right after seeing it done, but after some reflection, experimentation, and using simpler tricks/methods as building blocks to solve the larger trick, it is usually pretty easy to come up with a very plausible solution to any trick.

"but after some reflection, experimentation, and using simpler tricks/methods as building blocks to solve the larger trick, ", - this is a "pretty easy way"?

Sorry T'ai Chi, but the only way that you can say that you've come up with a plausible solution (or more accurately, a workable technique) is to practice until you think you can do it as well as the trick you saw, and then show your version to someone who's seen the trick. If he says it's not the same, you don't have the solution. And a "plausible solution" is not the same as a solution, which would be a workable technique.

I've "figured out" a few techniques, only to find that if I actually go all the way to trying to perform the trick, there's a catch somewhere.

I'm lucky to have as a close friend an incredible magician, Shawn Farquhar, who's won many awards in close up magic. He shares almost all his techniques with me, with the result that I can figure out a lot of tricks. But even Shawn will sometimes show me a video, and say "I'd love to know how he does this. I got an idea, but it seems awkward"

If Shawn can be fooled , anyone can.

[rustypouch]

So does this mean we let him watch a video where we know how things are done and get him to analyze it? (Anything except P&T's clear cups and balls routine.)

I see tricks I don't get all the time, and I love it.

[Peter S.]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A simple solution to using marked decks would be for the spectator to bring his own deck and ask if the magician would care to exchange decks. :)

Also, the spectator, when examining the magician's deck, could flip deck like a flip book, and see if the backs of the decks are changing as it is flipped.

Of course, if a magician is using a juice that won't work. You could be shown where the marks are on a juice deck and still not be able to see them.

[Brown]

One of the secrets that Mr. Randi taught me was a technique for secretly "marking" an otherwise unmarked deck ... during a card trick.

In addition, there are some card tricks in which you only need to mark a few cards, rather than the whole deck. Riffling the cards and looking at the backs will not reveal these marks if the marks are placed properly.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by rustypouch
So does this mean we let him watch a video where we know how things are done and get him to analyze it? (Anything except P&T's clear cups and balls routine.)


Sure, bring it on. :) PM me, so we don't reveal the secrets of any tricks in this forum.

I don't think that any trick is too difficult to figure out after some study. I'm not being cocky here. I simply haven't found any yet that have truly tested the ability to withstand serious scrutiny.

[Peter S.]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Sure, bring it on. :) PM me, so we don't reveal the secrets of any tricks in this forum.

I don't think that any trick is too difficult to figure out after some study. I'm not being cocky here. I simply haven't found any yet that have truly tested the ability to withstand serious scrutiny.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.
The Cigarette Vanish (http://www.petersosna.com/cigvan.mpg)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Peter S.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.
The Cigarette Vanish (http://www.petersosna.com/cigvan.mpg)

A PM was sent a few hours ago to Peter to see how close(?) I was in my efforts.

[Peter S.]

Not close at all!! Try again.

[T'ai Chi]

Ok, I just send in another guess by PM.

However, I guess it does suck (for my guesses) when there are multiple ways to do a trick. :)

[Gerri]

LOL Peter,
That was funny:eek:

[T'ai Chi]

Trying to get confirmation on my second (and final) guess. If Peter tells me it aint it (meaning it is way far off base), then I will graciously admit defeat. :)

[Gerri]

Like I said,Peter can be really funny sometimes and we have been cyber friends for a year now.That Trick was interesting.I wish that I could go to see one of his shows

[Gerri]

Hey Peter,
could you add these smilies to my board?:bgrin: :kiss: :lol2: :th:

[T'ai Chi]

Strike 2, I am out!

I still think I have a pretty good case based on the video, but I admit my defeat here. :)

[Gerri]

That Trick was called the Vanishing cigarette trick where Peter hides a Lit Cigarette in his hand,and of course it was gone after he opened his hand.That trick was done 7 years ago

[Peter S.]

The winner was Kevin Lowe, although he didn't quite have the description of the device right, he figured out where the cigarette went, as well as another important detail about the presentation. Very impressive!

Here's another one for you. I use almost the same presentation as the late Doug Henning. Bcause the trick is longer the file is much larger, (sorry).
Point to remember: Nothing is added or taken away; I could perform this trick in the nude but, believe me, you don't want to see me do it that way!


The Newspaper Trick (http://www.petersosna.com/newspaper.mpg)

[Gerri]

Peter,
I'll have to go to the library to see that trick on a computer

[wert]

Peter,

Seeing as how you're a magician, I'm surprised to see you encouraging the notion that magic is simply nothing more than a puzzle to be figured out.

[glee]

Originally posted by Silicon
For my impossible to figure out trick, I nominate The Turk. Anyone who admires cabinet illusions will enjoy the history of the first "machine" to beat humans at playing chess. It was a masterful illusion. And It'd still fool em today.

It was a clever illusion, but I think audiences are more sophisticated today, and would indeed see thru it.
Also there are some good books detailing the whole history of the Turk (which also explain the mechanism!)

[Peter S.]

Originally posted by wert
Peter,

Seeing as how you're a magician, I'm surprised to see you encouraging the notion that magic is simply nothing more than a puzzle to be figured out.

That's certainly not how I usually present my show, but in this context, in this forum, I don't mind. It's just a bit of fun.

When I do my show I'm really not concerned very much about fooling my audience - Even if no one is fooled by anything it wouldn't matter as long as they are being entertained.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by wert
Peter,

Seeing as how you're a magician, I'm surprised to see you encouraging the notion that magic is simply nothing more than a puzzle to be figured out.

I don't think he's encouraging the notion that magic "is just" a puzzle.

But magic "can be" a puzzle. Do you see the distinction?

Besides, we've already had people post in this very discussion that professional magicians do exactly what we are doing here. They treat each other's acts as a puzzle to be figured out.

I don't see how this is different, except that here the unwashed are playing the game along with the anointed magicians.

In any case, I enjoy the vanishing cigarette clip even more, now that Peter has confirmed that my theory about it is essentially correct. It's just a slick bit of work, and I like seeing it.

[wert]

Originally posted by Peter S.


That's certainly not how I usually present my show, but in this context, in this forum, I don't mind. It's just a bit of fun.

When I do my show I'm really not concerned very much about fooling my audience - Even if no one is fooled by anything it wouldn't matter as long as they are being entertained. Ah, but the deceptive part of magic is very important to having a properly magical experience I would think.


If I merely wanted to "entertain", I could merely drop my pants or take a pie in the face.

People would be entertained, but it certainly wouldn't leave any impression of wonder or astonishment.

Having your magic be deceptive is certainly not something I would downplay.

By this "logic", Copperfield could distribute flyers before each of his shows explaining his methodologies in detail.

People would still appreciate his subsequent show (using those methodologies) just as much correct?

:rolleyes:

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by wert
Ah, but the deceptive part of magic is very important to having a properly magical experience I would think.

If I merely wanted to "entertain", I could merely drop my pants or take a pie in the face.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.


People would be entertained, but it certainly wouldn't leave any impression of wonder or astonishment.

Having your magic be deceptive is certainly not something I would downplay.


It's certainly part of the fun.


By this "logic", Copperfield could distribute flyers before each of his shows explaining his methodologies in detail.

People would still appreciate his subsequent show (using those methodologies) just as much correct?


I can't speak for other people. For me it would depend on the trick and the presentation.

Some tricks have no element of skill at all. They aren't much fun once you know the secret. Other tricks are still just as amazing when you know the method.

Have you seen the scene in The Sting where Scarne (hand modelling for Paul Newman) displays a wonderful series of card tricks? I know how almost every effect was produced, but he does it so smoothly I simply cannot see him do it. I could watch that scene all day.

[Cain]

Christ, I thought for a second Wert only launched into his holier-than-thou nonsense when replying to me. It's sort of comforting to learn that this is his general attitude.

Edited to remove sig, which violates Forum language rules. -- Pyrrho

[wert]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
[B]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.Ah, but it's not magic now is it?


I can't speak for other people. For me it would depend on the trick and the presentation.

Some tricks have no element of skill at all. They aren't much fun once you know the secret. Other tricks are still just as amazing when you know the method. Ah, but you dither and change the topic. It makes not a whit of difference whether a trick requires skill or not. Take away the secret and it's not magic. At best it becomes an exercise in cleverness and/or manual dexterity skills.

Would or would not the majority of folks (in your opinion) have the same enjoyment, the same sense of wonder and astonishment, if someone like Copperfield (prior to the show)handed out a flyer with the methodologies to the effects presented.

I doubt it.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who see magic in an artistic sense, not just as a puzzle to be solved. Take away the mystery, and it's not magic anymore now is it? It's more roughly akin to juggling. (which is quite nice, but it's not magic)

Some folks allow themselves that moment of astonishment, something that "puzzlers" don't seem to attach too much importance to. I feel quite sorry for those who can't watch an artistic magic performance without feeling the need to deconstruct the whole thing. The feeling of wonder and astonishment is a much greater gift for me than merely "knowing how it's done".

Magic isn't just secrets or manual dexterity.

To reduce it to such is to not understand what it's really about.

[Garrette]

wert,

you "feel sorry" for those who "deconstruct" tricks? On what basis? This is equivalent to the lame response that evangelical christians use when they pity those of us who do not experience the wonder of god and religion. It is a needless pity, and theirs is a false wonder.

It seems you are defining "astonishment" in a manner that suits you, and if others do not agree, then they must be wrong.

In a broad sense, Paul Harris and Derren Brown, and some others would agree with you that astonishment is the goal and that magic is an art. I lean in that direction myself. But it is not the performer's role, and certainly not your role, to force a pre-determined astonishment on the audience but rather to gauge the audience and mold the performance to suit. That which astonishes me is not the same as that which astonishes my children or my friends or, I venture to say, you.

When I perform (only as an amateur, and usually poorly), I sometimes come away astonished, and I already know all the secrets. I am astonished at how well a performance was received or at how viscerally an observer responded.

It is akin to the pride felt after a strong theatrical performance. In that case, both the actor (which I have been--again strictly as an amateur) and the audience know "how it's done." The actor knows ahead of time what will happen. But if the performance is strong and suits the audience and the atmosphere, the astonishment comes.

When I lived in Colorado Springs, I frequented the magic shop there (called Zeezo's, for those interested). Once while there, the shop manager demonstrated an effect for a mother and her son. I knew the effect (as I happened to perform it myself on occasion) and watched his style. He did something differently than I did. He increased the already considerable impact of this particular effect by changing the handling midstream. It actually made the handling technically easier but added to the difficulty level of the misdirection he had to apply. In short, he put the key to the effect right there in front of the observers on the counter--and I do mean right there in front of them but his misdirection was so strong that they never looked at it; by the time they looked at the counter again, he had removed the secret. He knew I could see what he was doing, but as a fellow magician, he gambled correctly that I would not blow it for him.

It was astonishing. I knew exactly what he had done. I knew how he had done it. It floored me. Afterwards when I discussed it with him, he smiled and said simply "Sometimes you have to be bold.

If you don't want to know secrets, don't learn them. Do not, however, presume that your preferences are the same as those around you.

That way lies intellectual tyranny.

[wert]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]wert,

you "feel sorry" for those who "reconstruct" tricks? On what basis? This is equivalent to the lame response that evangelical christians use when they pity those of us who do not experience the wonder of god and religion. It is a needless pity, and theirs is a false wonder.Ah, comparing religion and a form of entertainment. The last time I checked, Copperfield wasn't demanding tithes or using his act to determine the fate of someone's soul.

Apples and oranges. Next piece of bad logic please. :)

It seems you are defining "astonishment" in a manner that suits you, and if others do not agree, then they must be wrong.Nope, magic is designed to create wonder and astonishment. If performed merely as a puzzle, it's no different then simply buying a book of brain teasers. It becomes magic no longer. I understand that there are those unwilling (or unable) to enjoy magic without reconstructing it to it's mundane parts and I wonder why those folks watch magic in the first place at all? Surely there are other puzzles out there more fascinating than the relatively few principals that encompass the most common magic seen. (stage magic) It's no great intellectual feat to figure out the stuff you see Lance Burton or David Copperfield do if you put your mind to it. The point is, why bother? Is it not possible to enjoy something on a purely visceral level without the need to prove ones intellectual mettle by "knowing how it's done"?

When I perform (only as an amateur, and usually poorly), I sometimes come away astonished, and I already know all the secrets. I am astonished at how well a performance was received or at how viscerally an observer responded.How much astonishment would your spectators feel if you preceded your performance with an in depth thesis on the methods you intend to use? Try showing something really astonishing to someone that has a simple method. Then tell them the simple method and watch their face fall as they say something akin to "oh that's it"? You've effectively destroyed the entertainment value of the effect to them by marginalizing it. Magic depends on a bit of an air of mystery to be effective. Take away the mystery and you have something that might be entertaining, but it surely isn't magic.

It is akin to the pride felt after a strong theatrical performance. In that case, both the actor (which I have been--again strictly as an amateur) and the audience know "how it's done." Ah, but the point of an effective magical performance is predicated by the belief that the audience will not necessarily "know how it's done". Sure, no one (except some woo woos perhaps) believe it's actually magic occurring, but many will be willing to suspend their disbelief (and not treat magic as a puzzle) in order to enjoy the pleasurable feeling of wonder and astonishment.

The actor knows ahead of time what will happen. But if the performance is strong and suits the audience and the atmosphere, the astonishment comes.Astonishment in magic comes from deceptiveness (wonder, astonishment), and presentation. Take away one part and you diminish the effectiveness of the magic being performed. You're not going to convince me that the level of astonishment and wonder remains the same when all methodologies are known.


It was astonishing. I knew exactly what he had done. I knew how he had done it. It floored me. Afterwords when I discussed it with him, he smiled and said simply "Sometimes you have to be bold.Yep, but the spectators didn't know what he was doing. And if he had used another less bold method they would have likely have been just as astonished. Being bold is often part of presenting strong magic. No surprises there. (Well for a tyro perhaps)

If you had told those spectators before or after the effect of the methodologies being used, do you honestly think they would have had the same appreciation you had?

Once again, I doubt it.

If you don't want to know secrets, don't learn them. Do not, however, presume that your preferences are the same as those around you.I merely state that magic isn't purely a puzzle or manual dexterity.

That way lies intellectual tyranny. Oh please. Spare us the drama. The last time I checked, expressing an opinion doesn't relegate one to being a "tyrant" :roll:

[Garrette]

Posted by wert:

Nope, magic is designed to create wonder and astonishment. If performed merely as a puzzle, it's no different then simply buying a book of brain teasers. It becomes magic no longer.

To you. That's the point. To you it will be magic no longer. To others it might be. You're defining for everyone how they can be astonished.


Ah, comparing religion and a form of entertainment. The last time I checked, Copperfield wasn't demanding tithes or using his act to determine the fate of someone's soul.

You are observant enough, if you choose to be, to understand that I was comparing methods, not the institutions. Deliberate misunderstanding does nothing to raise your credibility. I stand by my analogy.


How much astonishment would your spectators feel if you preceded your performance with an in depth thesis on the methods you intend to use? Try showing something really astonishing to someone that has a simple method. Then tell them the simple method and watch their face fall as they say something akin to "oh that's it"?

I would not choose to reveal it to them. If someone chooses instead to deconstruct the effect and figure it out, then that person may well not only retain but increase his sense of wonder. I know it worked that way for me.


Ah, but the point of an effective magical performance is predicated by the belief that the audience will not necessarily "know how it's done".

For the most part, but not exclusively. Astonishment is an emotion, not a reasoned position. As such, it can have many catalysts. Your way is one. Artful manipulation of the senses is another. Discovery of unknown (to the individual) methods can be another. Perhaps not for all, or even many, but for some.


Astonishment in magic comes from deceptiveness (wonder) and performance. Take away one part and you hurt the whole thing.

Ditto.

You can't treat all audiences the same.

Yep, but the spectators didn't know what he was doing. And if he had used another less bold method they would have likely have been just as astonished. Being bold is often part of showing strong magic. No surprises there. (Well for a tyro perhaps)

The point is that I was part of the audience, too. He knew it. He simultaneously showed them one thing that kept them in the dark and astonished, and me another thing that enlightened me but astonished me just as much.

Would or would not the majority of folks (in your opinion) have the same enjoyment, the same sense of wonder and astonishment, if someone like Copperfield (prior to the show)handed out a flyer with the methodologies to the effects presented.

I agree with you. The majority would less the wonder, enjoyment and astonishment. Majority is not all.


I merely state that magic isn't purely a puzzle or manual dexterity.

Magic The Art certainly is not just a puzzle or dexterity; we agree. We disagree, however, on the implications.

You seem to suggest that all will respond identically and we must protect them from a potential loss of wonder. I take issue with that.

Oh please. Spare us the drama. The last time I checked, expressing an opinion doesn't relegate one to being a "tyrant"

But I like drama; I'm a thespian.

First, I said "that way lies" not "you are".

Second, I stand by it. Your opinion is of the sort that characterizes all magic audiences as identical and those who see wonder and astonishment differently than you as wrong.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by wert
Ah, but it's not magic now is it?


It could be more entertaining, though.


Ah, but you dither and change the topic. It makes not a whit of difference whether a trick requires skill or not. Take away the secret and it's not magic. At best it becomes an exercise in cleverness and/or manual dexterity skills.


That's an interesting "argument by definition". If you define magic as not being magic any more when the audience knows the secret, well, yes, giving away the secret stops it being magic.

If you tend to think that magic is a genre of performance, and that it's still magic whoever it watching, then it doesn't matter in the same way.


Would or would not the majority of folks (in your opinion) have the same enjoyment, the same sense of wonder and astonishment, if someone like Copperfield (prior to the show)handed out a flyer with the methodologies to the effects presented.

I doubt it.


Would the audience be forced to read the flyers at gunpoint, or would they have the choice not to read them?


Some folks allow themselves that moment of astonishment, something that "puzzlers" don't seem to attach too much importance to. I feel quite sorry for those who can't watch an artistic magic performance without feeling the need to deconstruct the whole thing.

Doesn't a significant part of the misdirection involved in magic rely on the audience trying to understand what is going on?

You get them to stare suspiciously at one object or activity, thinking that it's where the secret is hidden, and then you get up to mischief elsewhere.

To take the opposite to a ridiculous extreme, unless the audience is trying at least a little to spot the trick you could do any old rubbish and call it magic.

Kevin: "Observe this empty matchbox! I go behind the curtain for several seconds, and I make rustling sounds. Now I emerge and hey presto! The matchbox is full of matches".

Audience: "Wow. I don't care how he did that, it's magic".

The sense of wonder, for me at least, comes from trying and failing to figure out how I just got fooled. Not from never trying in the first place.

[Peter S.]

A know a magician who can do astonishing, almost inhuman things with a deck of cards. His skill is amazing, but the one thing he doesn't know how to do is be entertaining. When he isn't performing for magicians his performance falls flat.

There is a magician, (and I've been racking my brain for the last couple of days trying to remember his name), who has a special on TV a few years ago. With many of the effects he did the modus of the effects was obvious, but it didn't matter; the point was that they looked cool and were entertaining.

Of course, I would like to be entertaining and fool my audiences at the same time; that's what I strive for, but given the choice, I'll take entertaing over amazing every time.

[Gerri]

Peter,
I remember that the other magician's name was David Copperfield and he does those kinds of tricks,I think

[UndercoverElephant]

They are nearly all easy to figure out. Last week I watched a program about the "100 greatest magic tricks". Number 1 was David Copperfields "Death Saw", which is a rather typical example of how damned easy it is to figure out the answer if you are willing to think about it properly :

http://www.emagictricks.com/images1/img23.gif

Am I supposed not to give away secrets?

Not me, no. ;)

Well, since I am not a magician, just a critical thinker, so I know no secrets to give away. But I know a pair of mechanical legs when I see them! :D And I don't think you have to be Albert Einstein to work out where Davids real legs are. Is this so difficult?

Another one in the top ten was the trick where the woman walks into a box, two metal plates are slid in, one just below her diaphram, the other at the top of her legs. Then the middle section is slid out. Again - nobody has to explain to me how this trick is done. It's blinking obvious! Just like the Copperfield example - there's only so many places the womans legs can be, stomachs in seperated boxes aren't real stomachs, and the legs sticking out the bottom are surely also attached to a woman, just not neccesarily the same one that's looking out the top!

Am I a bad boy for giving these "secrets" away?

EVERYTHING has an explanation, you just have to be smart enough to figure it out. Quite often, you don't even have to be that smart. Usually the obvious answer seems to be rejected.

[Garrette]

JustGeoff,

You are under no obligation to respect the secrecy of magic tricks. Personally, I merely ask that you are discreet in deciding in which forum to reveal secrets. Is here okay? Maybe, except that the board (and it is a private board, I think) has asked that no secrets be revealed.

Likewise, if I were performing a show and you began yelling out secrets during the performance it would be beyond the pale. I think even handing out flyers just prior to or just after the show would be, while not perhaps morally reprehensible, at least indicative of a lack of respect or consideration.

Regarding the 100 tricks you could figure out, I don't doubt you could. Nor do I doubt you could figure out many others. I believe, however, that it is more difficult to figure out a magical trick as opposed to an illusion which you were describing. (I admit up front that I do not have a ready definition to discriminate between the two; it's like obscenity--I know it when I see it).

There are card and coin tricks that when performed by experts and observed by non-magicians cannot be figured out, or are, to be precise, nearly impossible to figure out. Simply saying "Well, he didn't put the coin where we thought he did" is not equivalent to figuring it out.

Conversely, there are tricks where even if you know how it's done, you can't catch the magician doing it. The one I can think of is Three Card Monte (referring to the street-corner sucker bet). I know how it's done. I can even do it moderately well; actually, I USED to do it moderately well; it's been a long time. But there's no way I would ever bet somebody that I could "find the ace." You know how it's done, but you still can't detect it being done.

---

Figuring out some magic tricks, if you're not an expert already yourself, is like deconstructing a Kasparov chess match. You know when he moved the knight and when he castled, but you don't know why he did it when he did, and if you played the same opponent and were allowed to use notes, you still couldn't beat him like Kasparov did.

[T'ai Chi]

When I tell friends and relatives how tricks are done, they really like it, and seem to get more pleasure out of it then being in a state of 'amazed ignorance'.

If I told them how the trick worked before I did the trick, that would be stooopid, because it would ruin the surprise for them of course, so I don't. After I do the trick, or someone else does a trick, and if they ask, and when I make sure they really want to know and this might ruin the 'magic' but they say it is OK, then I tell them. -They like to do the trick on others. :)

Most of them are about 95% there already with their possible explanations. I find that magicians telling the public that the public thinks everything is done with mirrors and invisible strings is insulting. If my friend asks if he can look at the deck, and this card trick involves an unexaminable deck, and I basically evade his request with patter or obviosuly swap decks, gee, I think he is almost there to figuring out the trick.

Same thing with an in half lady, finger choppers, levitations, a big thing disappearing, and so on, the more obvious tricks, and especially any gigantic stage illusions where the viewer obviosuly knows all the 'magic' takes place with the big apparatus that is on stage.

In the case of tricks due to skill, I usually show them the basics. Double lift, false shuffle, false cut, palm, etc., theory of various decks, mental effects, and then say that I or the magician is using 'some combination' of these to do the effect. I usually don't show them specifically because I don't have the skill to actually be more than a theoretician here. Moreover, they usually 'get it' without a start-to-finish demonstration.

In fact, there are many tricks involving skill that can be seen when viewed in slow motion.

There will never be a magic secret that can remain hidden after a thorough investigation.

[Rick Maue]

Greetings,

I find this thread rather interesting to say the least. I have been a magician for over 35 years. In fact, the routine that was discussed at the start of the thread (TERASABOS) is my creation. It appears in my release, The Book Of HauntedMagick.

The main reason this topic interests me is because those of us that approach magic as an art form (and not merely as puzzles to be figured out) benefit from hearing the views from all types of individuals.

Over the years, I have learned that some people simply appreciate the art, some are challenged by it, some are intimidated by it, and some simply could not care less.

As a creator/performer, it is always valuable to hear what others think of not only your own work, but also your art form as well.

I look forward to talking with some of you at TAM2. I am scheduled to give a talk late Thursday night on theatrical seances. I hope to see some of you there.


Rick Maue
Deceptions Unlimited

[Garrette]

Hello, Rick.

I got TERASABOS from Haunted Magick which I bought strictly for that effect after the dealer demonstrated it. I enjoyed the other effects, too, but that is the clincher.

I have yet to perform it publicly.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Most of them are about 95% there already with their possible explanations. I find that magicians telling the public that the public thinks everything is done with mirrors and invisible strings is insulting. If my friend asks if he can look at the deck, and this card trick involves an unexaminable deck, and I basically evade his request with patter or obviosuly swap decks, gee, I think he is almost there to figuring out the trick.

Same thing with an in half lady, finger choppers, levitations, a big thing disappearing, and so on, the more obvious tricks, and especially any gigantic stage illusions where the viewer obviosuly knows all the 'magic' takes place with the big apparatus that is on stage.

In the case of tricks due to skill, I usually show them the basics. Double lift, false shuffle, false cut, palm, etc., theory of various decks, mental effects, and then say that I or the magician is using 'some combination' of these to do the effect. I usually don't show them specifically because I don't have the skill to actually be more than a theoretician here. Moreover, they usually 'get it' without a start-to-finish demonstration.


To explain a magic trick by saying "he's using a double lift", is the equivalent of explaining how to play the piano by saying "you just have to hit the right keys at the right time"



I usually don't show them specifically because I don't have the skill to actually be more than a theoretician here.


Then you shouldn't tell people specifically then either. I think that if you actually took the time to be able to perform (and perform well) all the tricks that you're so happy to explain, you might have a different opinion.


In fact, there are many tricks involving skill that can be seen when viewed in slow motion.


And there's many that can't. So what? Some magic is designed to be perfromed live, and depends on the speed of perception, and on how many things a person can pay attention to at one time.


There will never be a magic secret that can remain hidden after a thorough investigation.

well, duh. A "thorough investigation" could include:

Buying the trick and learning the technique.
Going backstage and inspecting the props
Becoming a magician, and learning the craft.

Was that supposed to be a significant comment?

If you're sitting in an audience at a stage show, watch an illusion and think "the magician must be hidden in that box", and somehow think that means that you've "found the secret", then you're just displaying how little you know of performance. If magic was just about technique, then it'd be a sport, instead of an performance art. Or maybe you're a genius. I suggest putting your incredible powers of the mind to solving the unified field theory next.