Huh? The reviewer clearly says he was baffled and didn't know how the tricks were done? How on earth does that rebut my point that entertainment value is lost if one isn't fooled? He clearly admits to being fooled!

So it's not a 'me' problem here at all ... It's a 'you' not reading/comprehending my argument problem!

Yeah, your spring obviously needs work if people keep telling you it does. But I hope you accept my genuine praise of your performance even though I was tempted to be mean just because you'd been rude.

Be as mean as you like. Just be honest.

And it was a joke about hobby magicians seem to always know everything. Which amazingly enough you do.

Hey man think what you like. Good for you. If you don't come buy a ticket I will have to try to struggle through, bad spring and all. How ever will I make It?

It is sad one so eager to learn seems to want to do so with such a closed mind and narrow focus.

I am always honest.

Why take the spring comment so personally? It was a minor negative in a sea of positives. Don't be so thin skinned.

I didn't take it personally at all. But it is a microcosm of youu thought process.

You can't be entertained by cups and balls because you know how it is done. How sad for you.

Oh come on, your post above was clearly a reaction to my spring comment.

Yeah, I guess that I have lost something of the entertainment value of the cups and balls and a lot of other magic. But this is exactly the reason given against exposure in many magic books - one can never recapture the same amount of wonder as one had before one knew the method. Which brings us full circle - and weirdly supports the very OP you argued against!

No it doesn't. Not in any way and AGAIN you universalize your experience.

Most people forget methods in seconds and then if they remember do so incorrectly. YOU remember them and then it hampers your ability to be entertained.

If you understood it was a performance art and appreciated THAT you would be better off. As I said how sad for YOU.

Do they? Forget in seconds? Not in my experience. Again, I'm not just talking about myself - I talking about what I get from conversations with other people. And, again, it seems a lot of magic books are on my side here

Anyway, as witchdoc noted earlier we're just going round and round now.

It's been good - stimulating even - and I'm glad that after our previous spat this one didn't turn nasty. But I'm tired now, and we really are going to get nowhere. It's been fun, but I'm going to take a breather

Still liked your performance, even though Ithink you're a bit of a gruff, odd fish

Perhaps they do forget how it was done. I believe what most people usually won't forget is the experience from knowing how it was done. If they think they know how it's done it doesn't matter if they are correct or not. The trick is no longer magical to them. The moment of astonishment is lost.

And this is a performance issue.

Update for Witchdoc: spoke to a person who's seen DB live three times. Asked him about his and his friends' reactions. He doesn't want to know how, thinks it will spoil the magic. Most of his friends do though - he's a minority.

Here's the mistake. Though they know the method, they didn't know your method. If they know the secret, they won't be fooled. That's a fact. So back to my point, there is no magic without secret. Unless you use another definition of "magic" such as "what Zinedine Zidane does with a ball is magic". Because in this case, why we magicians are not exposing our every tricks to the audience, since knowing the secret is as magical as not knowing how it's done ? If the only thing that matters is entertainment and really nothing else, then we are entertainers, but not magicians. When people talk about Mullica, it's not just because he was funny but because they keep thinking to themselves "where did the cigarettes go ?"



This question is irrelevant. It's not that they know the secret that matters, but that they think they know it which matters. Once, I did the turnover pass, and I thought I did it perfectly right, but the guy said "Ok, I'm sure I know how you did it ! Can you do it again, I want to see it once more..." And I hesitated for a moment, but since he was a good colleague, I said "if I reveal the method, I want you to tell me what you saw". When I revealed how I did the move, he said "That's so impressive, and that's genious. That's really not what I thought you did. I imagined something very different.". That's an excellent illustration of what I'm trying to explain.

So even if they don't remember exactly the operation of a trick they saw a few months ago, it will have further consequences when you do this effect using another presentation or even concept.

As I explained in my earlier post, an idea that's being exposed can have dreadful consequences for effects which have nothing to do with what's being exposed. To repeat, then, if ProMystic products and the like are exposed, and you do a which hand or kurotsuke effects without special props, people will still believe you used some special stuff. Likewise, if a trick using an *xtr* coin is being exposed, other effects which use the same principle also would be in danger.


I don't think so. It would matter not because they are hobbyists but because they have no bits of imagination. Although an amateur is usually a hobbyist.



The secret, from spectator's view, is what they feel as being a fooler, not what they know or what we know. As I explained, above, someone who thought he knew how my turnover pass was done was utterly wrong, but because he had suspicions he wasn't fooled. Secret =/= method.

Likewise, if you use an ungimmicked watch to predict someone's thought of time, and gimmicked watches have been exposed to that person, he will still believe your watch is gimmicked, unless you give it to him to keep as a souvenir.



Applying an existing concept for a different use is very smart. Again, I don't think it's easy to do it. I won't name the guys, but I've seen many renowned magicians (live or on TV or video recordings posted on youtube) doing things which are not original at all. In my opinion, it's easier to be a renowned magician than being someone original, and on the other hand, just being original doesn't mean you're a famous magician of course.



That's a good idea, I know that. Problem is... that doesn't suit my style. You can't expect everyone willing to resort to this method. Some people may like it, some don't. Although I get what you mean here; if someone is very astute, he can make someone believes what he wants him to believe.



I know perfectly well that you can ditch or produce a coin with sleeving or another device/holder. But think about it. If the method is being exposed, that would mean that coin tr*nsfer also has been exposed, so when performing the effect, you cannot show both hands at the same time. Someone who remembers the method very well will be looking for this, and probably immediately asks to show both hands empty. He will be burning your hands, so ditching the *xtr* coin, even using sleeving, is not the best thing to do.

When people want to see for hands empty they will ask to look at both hands, at the same time. Same thing when you say "look my hands are empty" because in this situation the only natural display is to show both hands, both sides, to be empty, and not handwashing moves (which is not a surefire technique). I have many ungimmicked coin effects for which I show there is no *xtr* coin, but what I do is to only suggest that idea. I never say "look, no extra coin on both hands". I say nothing and just keep transfering the coin from one hand to the other. That's the same idea as using indian shuffle to show all cards are red backs when only one is red back and all others are blue backs : that's because when you openly say that all the cards have the same back, such a display is very suspicious and unnatural.

Well, perhaps here, what can save you is a shell... but I'm not sure about the practicality of performing CCC using shell as an *xtr* coin. Although I never tried.


In one of my first posts here, I said that indeed, creativity can be a solution, but the more they expose our methods, and the more difficult it is to imagine a viable solution. I live in France, and here, I've seen many professionals performed (for real, or live recordings) magic and nothing was original. I don't buy your hypothesis that because it works this way, they don't feel like being original. They know they do tricks like each other. They perform sponge balls like their other friends, so they should know they are not being original. So why ? Again, it's very likely because they can't imagine something very original.

To tell the truth, I'm an artist, I make drawings, and I know a lot about comic books, and artists always talked to me, when I was younger, to have your own style. Guess what ? I saw a lot of cartoonists, despite what I have been told, even the renowned names, having styles that are similar to each other. Nothing very special. Same techniques, same presentation of boards, etc. Originality is the exception, not the rule. And I don't believe it's anything different with magic. And what I saw confirms that feeling.


It's a fact that someone who's watching magic on TV is very likely to be interested in the method, since it's not engaging to them, since they are passively watching TV. It's not like they are being called on stage and then they cry at the end of the performance.

Every time I show some magic to my acquantainces, at my workplace or elsewhere, they ask me what I think about some magicians that they saw on TV, renowned names. I never felt they were amazed by the magical act, but more that they were interested in the method. When I was a child, I watched magic with my parents, on TV, and they always keep talking about the method. "Hey did you notice that magicians always wear long sleeves ? There must be something..." .



Don't worry, I noticed the thread kept going, but very fast, and since Monday, my daywork has been a nightmare, very exhausting, so I didn't have any motivation to post a series of long comments here. But today is day off for me. I have plenty of time.

Cool stuff, as usual, mh1001

Even if you do it well, this is irrelevant. If you use sw*mi to predict a number, like many other mentalists do, you'll get busted by people who knew about that gimmick and its use. Just like ... the TT vanish of a silk. If you vanish a silk this way (which is not a very creative way of using a TT by the way), no matter how well you do it, there is a non-insignificant increase in risk that you'll get busted. But use TT to switch billets or make prediction, and people are fooled. So, what I'm trying to say here is ... what other use of the sw*mi can you think of ? Personally, I don't really know, I have no idea. Other than this, how would I use sw*mi in the most efficient way to predict a number ? Maybe, try an envelope with a hole in it, then write "through" the envelope, or something like this, and then I would throw the gimmick in the sleeve. I think these are smart ideas. But even in this case, there is an increased chance that people feel that I could have used a sw*mi just because ... I was holding that piece of paper instead of letting it in a spectator's hands.

It doesn't matter if they can't confirm their suspicions. As soon as they have some suspicions, it's game over.


Who ? The same person who saw the secret, or a different person ? And who has exposed the secret by the way ? Again, that depends, like I said in my earlier posts several days ago. If it's someone who does a very bad performance, then it has a different feel when a real expert does the monte.

Also, as a complement to what I said in my earlier post above, I want to say that sometimes, it's almost impossible to prove you're not wearing special props on you because people usually believe it must be in your pockets or somewhere. I can't imagine on stage, if you perform which hand effects with no props, that you're going to let spectators who are on stage with you, to inspect your trouser, your jacket, your vest, your hat, your shoe, etc... so you are really not proving anything, but if these mentalism tools are known to the public, then they feel they know how you did it. I can't be clearer than this.

LOTS of assumptions on your part that you disguise as facts.

I notice that Evan Era made WMF:
http://weeklymagicfailure.blogspot.co.uk......era.html

If anyone reading this thread is interested in what direction my research went, see this thread:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......forum=27

That was exactly what I said. No matter which kind of presentation you use, if you perform the diminishing deck or card box, and people know about them, then nothing can save you. Although I never performed this effect, I know a magician who likes it and his audience really enjoy it, not just the effect, but his presentation and story. But what's the use if they already knew what's coming ?

And, as explained, some effects use a principle that other effects also use. By revealing a principle, other effects may be in danger too. For instance, if pen thru anything is revealed, I don't believe Chris Smith's Ignition or Katsuya Masuda's Blade will even survive.

I usually dislike the blog WMF but this time, I think he is entirely right.

Agreed.

If it is such a horrible problem my suggestion is a new hobby.

Seriously?

Well, I don't think I'm gonna respond to exposure that way. Cheers for your opinion, though.