Whit,

I found your comments very enlightening. I've honestly never thought about magic that way because I've always been afraid of the whole "let's not make magic into just a puzzle" argument. The way you put it, though, is clear to me that what you are suggesting is not a puzzle per se, but creating this zone of impossibility in the spectators mind. And that is what we call wonder. I think whether or not that the feeling created is wonder depends on the spectator. I have had friends in the past who told me they simply hate magic becuase they can't figure it out. It seems to me that no matter what we do as performers, that some individuals will continue to scrape at the smooth glass wall that is created with a strong, well-performed effect. This feeling brings them only frustration. For others the feeling is one of pleasure. It reminds them (us) that we can be fooled and even as adults we can have wonderment in our lives.

I've clipped your posting to put in a file of magical knowledge I often refer to. Thanks again.

Working on getting this into a well formed statement:

Let's pretend you believe I am a magician and the little vignettes you are about to see are done by magic.

Is that about right? -Jonathan

Jonathon, I'd say it's closer to "Let's pretend I'm a magician, and the little vignettes you are about to see will LOOK like magic.

Like, is that really a death ray? A space ship in outer space? A real bullet tearing a hole in that guy's chest on the screen? Harry Potter's magic wand? Gandalf's magic staff? etc...

No. But, that's how these things would appear if they were real.

Ron,
Your post does a wonderful job of clarifying the territory and the bargain that we, as magicians,

enter into with our audiences. It is, as you know, the same bargain theater goers and performers enter into every day. The other deal, the one that Whit and some others seems to want to enter into, an intellectual guessing game in which the performer only wins if the audience loses, is unique in the entertainment field, in that no other art form engages in such a competition. It is also fraught with peril: If the audience doesn't wish to play the game, they are left with little choice but to tune out, or worse, become resentful. That is not my idea of a performance dynamic with which I wish to experiment. Yes, fooling the audience is part of what we do. So too is it what computer graphics, blood pellets, blank guns and explosive squibs do. Special effects tricks don't violate the laws of the universe in which they occur; they simulate them. Our "tricks" create illusions in our world that violate the laws of our world. Those are very different goals. In magic as I conceive it, the performer and the audience join together in experiencing the "what if" of magic. It isn't a competition it's a shared journey with the performer leading the way. I don't think you and I differ in the slightest, we simply use different words.

Wesley James

Wesley...

Perhaps we do agree, but I don't get that from what you wrote. I concede that argument differs from proof, though I don't recall that being in dispute.

Your notion that an "intellectual guessing game in which the performer only wins if the audience loses, is unique in the entertainment field, in that no other art form engages in such a competition." is way off. May I point out that the motion picture industry, the most successful part of the entertainment field, is founded on CONFLICT. CONFLICT leads to SUSPENSE. That's how the audience's interest is captured, and that's why the audience, which I'm confident includes you, has fun and keeps coming back.

Wesley, I've heard a lot of good about your work among magicians (a very different audience in most cases than the public, by the way, and I hope you don't take that in any way to be a negative comment). I'm not aware of how you interpret your work for the public, but when you say "In magic as I conceive it, the performer and the audience join together in experiencing the "what if" of magic. It isn't a competition it's a shared journey with the performer leading the way. I don't think you and I differ in the slightest, we simply use different words." I can only puzzle over how you can prove that to be true anywhere.

Or is that your argument?

Ron,
You are certainly free to argue, if you wish, but you'll have to argue with someone other than me. It seems we have very different ways of expressing very similar ideas. That's quite okay, I have no need or desire to change your style. There is no dispute between what you had said and what I was saying in that post or my response to your response.

We quite agree that conflict is at the core of good story telling, whether on film, on stage or in print. The conflict, however, is typically between the protagonist and the forces that precipitate his/her conflict. You are further correct that the audience is held in suspense by the evolving question of how the character will resolve the conflict. That is a far cry from a competition between the performer and the audience, which is what Whit seems to advocate. Moreover, it would be a rare work indeed in which the audience must lose for the character to win. In most work, the audience is led to identify with the protagonist and, as a result, if/when the character wins, so too does the audience. I would readily acknowledge that there are works in which outside forces win, defeating the protagonist, but there is usually some mitigating issue that makes the loss acceptable, or at least tolerable. I can, for example, recall how I felt, many years ago, as I left the theater after viewing the film Easy Rider. I was filled with rage at the evil act that had snatched the protagonists from us. Those characters were, admittedly, extremely character-flawed but they represented freedom, despite their highly-questionable ethics. The characters that take them from us represent bigotry. The film was powerful in part because of the message that bigotry can snuff out freedom, a theme that continues to echo in the world to this day. Nevertheless, a film such as Easy Rider is the exception that approves the rule.

My comments regarding "magic as I conceive it" were a recognition that other artists are free to pursue magic as they conceive it. It would appear, based upon his statements, that Whit has his own notions about the dynamic he wishes to create with his audiences. I strongly suspect that the dynamic plays out far differently from what his delineation would suggest. I can not prove that but, having heard excellent reports about his work from individuals whose judgement I trust, I will hold that view unless I witness evidence to the contrary. I have no need to prove my statement about my own view of the dynamic I strive for in my performances. One might argue that I fail to achieve my goal but no one can argue that it is not the goal for which I strive.

Wesley James

This has been a stimulating thread. Apparently, MANY people have found it interesting; it now ranks as the "most viewed" thread in the most popular "honored guest" forum in Magic Café history!

I believe that a lecture appertaining to magic, meaning, theatre, and "suspension of disbelief" presented by Mr. Bauer, Mr. Hadyn, and Mr. James would be a "standout" feature of most any magical gathering. In fact, this has been another Magic Café first: these three gentlemen have NEVER before been in the same "room," debating these aspects of our beloved Art.

Unfortunately, through a series of mishaps and miscommunications, some further words from both Ron Bauer and Wesley James were deleted over my clear objection. This is a very sad loss for any Magic Café member, in my opinion.

Know that Ron Bauer and Wesley James have paid their dues long ago. Both were working professionals when I was a third-grader. Both have more knowledge and experience than any major magic book or periodical publisher of today. Both have earned the entitlement of deep respect- they have mine. To mute the message from either is disgraceful.

It should go without saying that if anyone is not interested in the thoughts of these two men, the Internet offers many other places for disinterested parties to go. Channel changing is an obstacle for some, however inexplicable defining a mouse-click as a barrier might be.

Would we be so quick to stop the exchange of ideas (however passionate) from Al Baker, Erdnase, Marlo, or Vernon if they were able to post here?

I hope and pray not!