Essay #1 in a series for this forum.


The term "suspension of disbelief" is one of the most
mis-quoted and misunderstood phrases in magic. It does
NOT mean the audience "believes you've actually done magic".

The term originally comes from a book by Stanislavski and the correct term is "willing suspension of disbelief". This is an important distinction and should not be ignored. As I understand Stanislavski,
he was referring to the idea that audience members become emotionally involved in the play-- NOT that the characters actually exist.

This is a process that starts when the audience buys a ticket or takes a seat and the light dims. They're demonstrating a "willingness" to suspend what they know to be fact in order to become emotionally
involved in the play. What's really important to remember, however, is the idea that it's a PROCESS. That takes time and control over the performing environment. Time and control you may not have when
you're doing restaurant magic or walk-around.

There are, however, performance opportunities that are perfect for creating a process that allows the audience to suspend their disbelief and learning to recognize those opportunities and take advantage of
them will be a HUGE boost to your career.

Paul Chosse and Ron Bauer have several effects in which the audience will get emotionally involved in a story and then be surprised to find out their seeing a magic trick!

Almost all of Bauer's performance scripts give the performer the edge of having an actual dramatic structure to classic pieces of magic. And not only that, the series will teach you some of the basics of creating your own scripts!

And now for the one-sentence-non-rambling version:

"The willing suspension of disbelief" has nothing
to do with the audience believing or not believing
that you've done real magic. It denotes emotional
involvement in the performance. Magicians have
twisted the term simply because of the relationship
between the words "belief" and "magic".

If you think it does, then wait for my next essay.

Steven Youell

After reading a zillion posts here on The Magic Café and meeting a number of magicians in person, it surprises me to realize so many would be performers assume that the spectators they are entertaining must believe the effects they see are achieved through some sort of real magical powers, else the trick is somehow thought to be a failure.

The Suspension of Disbelief is something the audience invokes, NOT the performer. Sure, the magician can lead the participant down the road to wonder and amazement, but it is the spectator who ultimately has the final say in the matter. To believe for a few moments, or not.

When we read a novel about Vampires and Ghosts, we know that this is but a fantasy and therefore we are in no real danger of encountering such creatures.
However, in order to actually enjoy the new book we have purchased, we temporarily allow ourselves to believe in such things (Suspension of Disbelief) thereby inviting the author to carry us into a world where monsters roam and perhaps we really are in mortal danger.

A good writer can cause a variety of emotions (depending on our imaginations) to occur, and we finish by telling our friends what a great book we just read. Film can take this a step further, often providing graphics and music which effect us in even more emotional ways.

As entertainers, we set the stage, and perform the play. If presented properly, the audience will believe for a few moments and then leave the performance telling friends about how good the magician was they saw this evening, and recommending that they too see the show. Isn't that what magic is all about, entertaining? Just a few thoughts.

Mr. Youell,

It is good to see you spell this out in some detail. I agree with your interpretation, and firmly believe it is the correct one. In a nutshell, if I understand you correctly, your essay's point is that there is a huge difference in willingly suspending disbelief and actually believing. To use Steve Brooks' scenario, I can willingly "pretend" in vampires while I'm reading a book or watching a film about vampires, but that in no way means that I actually believe in their existence.

I agree that there seem to be a great many performers, particularly among mentalists and bizzarists, who want people to actually believe that they have real powers, and who disdain anyone who doesn't subscribe to that school. IMO, such a tack moves the performer from the realm of entertainer and into the realm of charlatan, cheat, con man and fraud. let them suspend their disbelief as active participants in the performance, but don't try to make them believe in something that isn't true! The latter is nothing more than egomaniacal behavior akin to a "god-complex" in my view.

This goes back to something I have said many times: The show should be about the audience, not the performer! You should be there to please, amaze and entertain them, not to start your own cult.

And that, my friend, is why the original
phrase was the "willing suspense of disbelief"!

SEY

It has been a VERY long time since I've been involved in the theatre, but my recollection is that another of Stanislavski's many contributions was breaking down the fourth wall (the proscenium arch) and inviting in the audience. It is another dynamic of the "willing suspension." Theatre-in-the-round is another manifestation of the idea. These are purposeful design aspects of constructing the experience of the play for the audience. In a very similar way, the "framing" of a magic presentation must be purposefully designed to further invite the "willing suspension."

I was intruiged by Scott's mention of mentalism -- I have always had a difficult time effectively framing up a mentalist presentation. When I learned Aronson's "Histed Heisted" I knew what a killer effect it could be, so I had to get over my mentalism block. But I still could not present it as real mentalism. In the end, I've constructed a presentation that works for me, and I believe it invokes the right "suspension."

The presentation starts with me stating that I've never done mentalism before because I never have believed in it. But, I recently ran across "a secretly whispered about, but never verified" book that explains the real secrets of mind reading. I found it at an Argentinian Used Book Store over the internet, because it was spelled wrong in the database -- and it was a complete coincidence that I stumbled upon it. I say all this with a twinkle in the eye, and a slight mischiveous smile. I then present Histed Heisted as "an experiment." I've now done this several dozen times, and it has worked very nicely -- for me, it is an appropriate "willing suspension of disbelief" for this routine, but it is still the only mentalism effect I do.

Steven, I'm looking forward to future essays.

Nick

I fear that I am a david among Goliaths on this subject, and I probably should keep quiet, but it is a very intriguing subject! I posted to the "is card magic magic" thread before reading this, and I pretty much said my piece there. But to respond to Mr. Brooks saying, "it surprises me to realize so many would be performers assume that the spectators they are entertaining must believe the effects they see are achieved through some sort of real magical powers, else the trick is somehow thought to be a failure." It is indeed suprising sir, we can surely say that the effects we perfom are indeed not magic, however might we not contend that the manner in which the specatator is affected by our effects is indeed magical? Does that make any sense at all sirs?

A situation of willing suspension of disbelief can occur in a matter of seconds, depending on the situation, IME. Maestro Youell states that this is difficult (if not impossible) to do in a restaurant situation.

I contend that this may not be as difficult as it may appear.

When one approaches a table as the house magician, or as the hired entertainment for cocktail hour at a corporate event, one has the assistance of several things going for him or her - audience expectation, preconceptions, skepticism and previous experience (the last is a two-edged sword to be sure).

Audience expectation, upon hearing that one is a magician is often "okay, this guy's going to do something amazing and amusing - let's see what he's got." One can also exploit such things as table tents and lobby cards to increase expectation and improve positive responses on approaching a table or group.

Playing on this, you already have willing suspension of disbelief as they are already prepped to be amazed.

Preconceptions also figure into this mix as many people immediately think back to their experiences with magicians in times past, whether in real life, on TV or where ever else they might have seen a performer work. If their preconceptions of magicians are positive, you're already on your way. If negative, all it often takes is one good, entertaining effect to turn them around by disrupting the pattern of negative thoughts and/or memories. Willing suspension can happen very rapidly at this point, if it hasn't happened during your approach.

Skepticism can also be a useful tool in developing a willing suspension of disbelief. Sometimes, all it takes is a "sure it's a trick, did you think this stuff was REAL?" done in a joking way to get the person to relax and enjoy, which is really what the willing suspension of disbelief is all about in such circumstances, IMPO.

Frankly, one has to wonder just how deep into a willing suspension of disbelief one needs to still be entertaining as a strolling magician.

Does a standup comedian need suspension of disbelief? IMHO, they do, but not to the extent of a David Mammet play, or Shakespeare. Yes, they need for the audience to buy into the idea that the story they are telling is at least feasible (with notable exceptions for incongruity humor which is an altogether different thing, such as Robin WIlliam's routine of Elmer Fudd doing Springsteen's Greatest Hits) so they can lead the audience down the garden path and turn on the sprinklers.

WOuldn't you say that the use of willing suspension of disbelief is not a binary situation (on or off only), but a gradient? And can't that gradient be dangerous?

If an audience is being polite (or has their willing suspension of disbelief meter set too low), doesn't that give a performer a false sense of having entertained?

How many of us have had someone give a really positive response to an effect only later to overhear them denigrate you for doing such an obvious method? It happens all the time if my reading of the trade pubs is accurate..

Maybe we need to assess just how much willing suspension of disbelief is appropriate and what the variations might be for specific performing instances.

Just a thought or two, early in the day and with little coffee.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com

The context and purpose of the phrase cited above is quite plain to the reader of the essay where it was first used. A quick search via GOOGLE should get the curious on their way towards elucidation.

Sorry, I don't understand all your big words-- I just a guy who does card tricks...

Steven Youell

Ever notice that when you are performing tricks or routines that utilize sleight of hand, misdirection, etc. and then do a "mind reading" effect or two, that you get a different type of response from your spectators?

I'm not saying you get a better response when performing mind reading effects, but different.

I personally think that there are more people that WANT to believe in mental effects, and perhaps, these people just want to believe in mentaliam whereas "magic" effects are either: not as much fun to believe in or that these people tend to realize that when they are watching a sleight of hand artist perform they can "comfort" themselves with the thought that "I know he did something I just didn't/couldn't catch it or when it was done".

In my personal experience is that it just seems that when I "read their mind(s)" they react like I did just that. I read their mind. Often they are left believing that I really have.

Do you all experience similar situations or is it just me (yeah,right!!). Seriously, what do you all think?
Eager to hear your input because I CAN'T read your minds!! Lee.

I think mentalism is a slippery slope for the reason you mention. People are so ready and willing to take it seriously -- big temptation for a performer to just go with the flow. Far too easy to get an over-inflated ego for the price of a nail writer.

Steven has nailed the huge conflict for magicians in Stanislavski's phrase, I mean besides having no idea what the context of it actually was. Our use of the word "belief" is confusing when added into the mix of Stanislavski's.

That is why I coined the phrase "the willful investment in belief". Steven, does that sound like it better describes your pitch? The often overlooked step is that the magician must prove what worth it will be to his audience for their investment of belief in the moment of his performance.

Nobody goes to play thinking "I'm going to catch those actors in their ruses. I think they are using fake guns." Yet typically every audience has at least one or two people who are there to "catch the magician's tricks". If you do not show them the value they will get from investing in belief in your performance, then you are lost on them and likely the rest of the audience will follow.

But this could easily turn into an entire chapter in a book. I will leave it here.

Tom

"The term originally comes from a book by Stanislavski and the correct term is 'willing suspension of disbelief'."

Actually, this phrase was originated by Samuel Taylor Coolridge, who lived from 1772-1834. He predated Stanislavski by about 100 years.

Jason

And how did Samuel Taylor Coolridge apply the phrase to Drama or Entertainment...?

Steven Youell

The quotation comes from an essay on poetry. It pertains to the audience accepting the characters in the poem as representing larger iconic or archetypal human characteristics.

So's not to jibe, foist or barb, let's take a moment to read or re-read the original essay.

I try to keep perspective on this issue by imagining a performer doing the trick with two chairs, a board and a skeptical spectator. You can probably imagine the fun if you pick the right kind of sceptic... as the second chair is removed...

Bad pun intended.

His original turn of the phrase was in reference to the reader's response to poetry, but everyone immediately realized he had summarized most of the human experience of art generally. So the phrase—and the idea—entered world culture. Where it still resides as one of those handy terms. Whether you’re talking about a Spielberg movie, a Stephen King novel, a twitch-em-up video game, a multi-decibel rave, or a simple TV sitcom, they all require the same thing of spectators/ participants: a willing suspension of disbelief. That is if the spectator/participant wants to enjoy the experience.


I found the above after doing a search for the quote and STC's name. Darwin wrote about this very topic in Strong Magic, and included the quote (attributed correctly). That's where I first heard of it.

Jason