Wrong. I completely disagree with the cornerstone premise that you propose; I'm not "comin' round to seein'" because I think your logic is faulty and your perception of what magic audiences are all about is distorted by some sort of idyllic fantasy that has no basis in reality.

You support your position with nothing more than the suggestion that YOUR audiences are wholly entranced by by your incredible "beauty state" inducing performance, even as you are surrounded by (presumably inferior) "tricksters". I find this a less than compelling argument, particulary since you continue to offer no other authoritative support, and I've yet to find anything to support your contention in my own reading.

In short, and to clarify, I continue to completely disagree with your position.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

Movies are made with great special effects.

People go see those movies and have their emotions affected.

The majority of those people don't care one bit about the special effects as long as they don't get in the way of the story. Just like the majority of people don't care one iota about the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa.

These people take in the emotions these things ignite within them and in some cases marvel that someone could create such beauty...or horror...or... For them to analize these works would destroy the effect it has had on them...make them just paint on canvas.

The same is true of magic. We just happen to go about it in the opposite direction.
a) I have a strong magical illusion.
b) What presentation can I create that will be strong enough to stand with my illusion and what effect can I create with that. What emotion can I touch? What feeling can I communicate?

I realize this may seem Utopian or out of reach to some. It is because I look beyond the authoritative word and that already written. I look for answers outside of "magic". I reach for what others deem impossible. I believe that is what magicians do.

Sometimes I come up short of my goal. But other times...

So, am I out in left field? Keep reading. There are others who have tread this path before me.

And who might those be?

Regards,
Thomas wayne

I thought I've explained this exact point in a post preceding yours.

My whole view could be wrong.

I can only hope that when you are performing effects the number of people who are illusioned is the number of spectators and not one.

Hi Eli,

I could be wrong as well but your statements:

"The majority of spectator might be delighted by the esthetic beauty of an effect, or momentarily (for the duration of the effect) "suspend their disbelief" but afterwards they will always attempt to rationally reason what they have seen."

"To believe a person does not try to understand what he sees is to belittle that person."

seem to cotradict "The majority of those people don't care one bit about the special effects "

What I hear you saying in the above and other parts of your posts is that only the immature would accept movie special effects without questioning them and trying to figure out how they are done.


You do have one statement that I can extrapolate into something that might fit the feeling of my performance for the public.

"A legendary story isn't dismissed as absurd because it is obviously a fantasy story with it's own realities..."

You see, my performance angle has its own reality that people are eased into through the use of storytelling. I don't portray stunts but rather tell tales as though they are real. The audience accepts them as real and with each bit they accept I take them a step further.

I can't bust right out and pretend to give someone a temporary lobotomy. Once they have accepted several other premises, they are more accepting to the likelihood that such did happen.

Now, they may not actually believe I gave them a temporary lobotomy but I know they feel like I did. [No jokes about them wishing I had ]

The level of their emotional conviction about the event is what keeps them from getting analytical about it. They must resolve the emotional issue before the analytical.

And if I can keep them from resolving that emotional issue...

The problem I have with most trick presentations is their lack of emotional content. Without that the tricks are of little importance beyond polite applause.

When the illusion is presented in a way that gives it meaning it becomes "real" magic. Something that is more rewarding to accept, than to analize. For me, that is where the magic is.

Not in someone saying, "I got no idea what you did but I know you did something."

Thank you for your hopes, Eli.

I wish that I could just tell you all how to get to this place that I am, but we all get where we are going in our own ways because we are all different. If I could wave a magic wand and give out my enlightenment I would.

Unfortunately, there are many steps along the way which, if missed, will have you arriving unprepared for what is awaiting. It would be a shame for anyone to dismiss something because they were denied the discoveries that happen along the journey.

Keep reading, keep performing, keep dreaming.

If your audience is not wondering how an effect is performed then they have accepted that what they have just seen is possible.

If they accept that what you are doing is possible then they no longer have any reason to be astonished.
And where there is no astonishment, there is no magic.

my thoughts,
Gonz
:carrot:

I'll put it this way: Last month I saw David Copperfield supposedly teleport a young man to Hawaii in a matter of seconds. He vanished with the kid and then reappeared in the middle of the audience.

Now, in my rational mind, I know that it was done by some sort of trickery. However, there is another part of me - the right hemisphere of the brain, I guess, that actually wants to believe in it as real. As Stephen King so eloquently put it, "I know the monster is not under the bed, but I also know that if I pull my legs under the covers, its cold slimy hands can't reach me." Not an exact quote, but I really liked that thought he conveyed there. (For anybody who wants to look that up, it was in the intro to his NIGHT SHIFT collection - the whole thing is fascinating.)

There is a rational side to every magic show a spectator sees, and then there is the spectator's imagination. The rational side is interesting, even fascinating. The imaginary side is just plain fun - to me, anyway. Henry Hay wrote in The Amateur Magician's Handbook that "you let the audience perform their own magic, with the coaching from you". I think what really determines if it is a good or bad show is the attitude the audience has while they are trying to figure out how it was done. The magician can usually tell if he/she has created wonder in the spectator's minds just by watching their faces. Henry Hay also says "First, however, come the tricks. It won't do to talk them down . . . you could be a comedian, juggler, etc. without being , by definition, a conjurer. The tricks were probably what attracted you to magic in the first place . . . magic must fool to a minimum extent, of course . . . "

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that both of you have a point . . . magic must puzzle, but it also needs to have some extra entertainment value. Somebody who designs computer chips could make you wonder how he did it, but it wouldn't necessarily be entertaining to watch one being put together . . .
Well, there are my thoughts on that . . .

This has indeed been an interesting discussion.
Tom: Could you give me an example (perhaps the outline of a routine) which you believe illustrates your point? And perhaps you could explain what you think contributes most to the "questionless" wonderment.

My wife has said to me on occasion: "I don't WANT to know how that was done." I rarely intentionally tell her, but she is often my first victim when I think I've rehearsed to the point where I think the method is unobservable. The fact that she doesn't WANT to know - she will say - is because she enjoys the sense of wonder. But as Thomas has pointed out, this clearly means she has thought about the method - at least the existence of it.

On the flip side, I work in a community of software engineers. Some become OBSESSED over the method. They're not comfortable being "fooled". Their life work is to discover and explain the unknown. I remember one effect for my co-workers in which I cut string with my "scissor fingers" then proceeded to restore it via a simple means. One of those present was so flumoxed over how the cutting was done - he missed the most impressive part which his co-workers pointed out. But these are people who know me and their reaction is a bit different in part because of who they are, in part because they know me.

I mostly perform for children age 12 and younger and it does seem to be true that most of them enjoy the mystery and don't appear to ever question or consider the how. "Do it again" for them is not a question of hoping they'll discover the how, but sheer delight at the inexplicability - joy at being a participant. For example in Miser's Dream they shout "pull a coin out of MY ear", or "I think there is one over there".

Although children are much more sophisticated and insightful than adults realize, they are willing to accept implausible explanations if it suits them. For example, when my children were very young we'd come home in the car and I'd press the garage door opener which we kept clipped to a pocket on the driver's side door - not visible to the children. My son wondered aloud "how does it do that?" - "Do what?" I asked. "How does it KNOW when to open?" Oh, "I just quietly say 'POW' and it opens, sort of like 'Open Sesame'". My daughter exclaimed "Really!" thought for a moment and then shouted "POW!" Remarkably the door started closing (guess why!) For nearly the next YEAR they fought about who's turn it was to "Say POW" when we came or went.

So many views, so little time, I hardly know where to begin...

We do magic tricks - our audiences generally know that. To think that they will believe in real magic seems a bit much to expect when we warn them to start with...

They are gracious enough to be WILLING to suspend their DISBELIEF for a little while, provided we don't let them down.

In good movies for example, we suspend our disbelief, get emotional, believe the story. But only as long as the saloon front doesn't fall over as John Wayne leans against it, or we don't see a 67 Mustang in a 20's gangster plot. Even then, when the movie is over, barring bios, and sometimes even then, we get up and say something like "that was a great movie", "Deniro was awesome", "Glenn Close is fatally attractive". We DON'T continue to believe the story after the show is over!

We DO, however, appreciate the artistry /skill with which the artist/talent conveyed the story, stirred our emotions, carried a message, maybe even inspired us or changed our lives through their particular medium.

By the way, how arrogant was I as a young man? I thought it possible for me to do, by myself, all the things necessary to develop that state of disbelief! Imagine if you will that the great PC could do what Sinatra couldn't do! No stage manager, no light crew, no make-up artist, director, producer, sound man, prop man, costumer, no financing, no writers... None of that for me, I'd do it all myself! And you thought hubris was just a word in the dictionary...

Oh well, this is already too long and I'm just thinking out loud anyway - more ramblings later... PSC

So are we esentially talking about Harris' moment of astonishment here?

Actually, I thought we were supposed to be talking about how eliminating possible methods can enhance (or not, as the case may be) an effect.

I was trying to tie this whole thing into Harris moment of astonishment philosophy because I think it is apt to the current debate.

Where does that moment come from?
It comes from the conflict within a spectator's mind of that which he/she has just witnessed and that which he/she knows is possible.

If a spectator believes what he/she has just seen is real then, by definition, he/she must also believe it is possible.
This eliminates the conflict from which the moment arises killing it in the process.

In my nutshell:
If magic were real, what is there to be astonished about?

some more thoughts
Gonz
:carrot:

ps, Yakster, don't you find it interesting how you tried to start this debate under "real magic vs. uncle jed" and only suceed in starting it when talking about a different topic?

You didn't know I was such a master of mental misdirection, didja?



And for any lurking moderators, let's let this one continue off topic as it has really become a great discusson, if you please.

Seconded.

All of this I understand and practice in my own formal work; my character is really just an enhanced, scripted and rehearsed version of myself. I use stories from my youth and later life experiences, and a personal interest in unusual phenomena to draw my audience into an emotional relationship with the stories-within-a-story that I am acting out for them. I believe in Dai Vernon's assertion that one MUST have an "emotional hook" in order to truly entrance one's audience. I seek out this personal relationship with my audience because I know that is how and why they will remember me.

In short, I "get" all of that, and have gotten it for some time now.

What I DON'T get is your assertion that wonderment (regarding "how") in my audience is a sign that I'm doing something wrong. That's the part I want you to explain and/or support, preferably with references to respected authorities.

You said that "others have tread this path before [us]". Who are these "others" and where I can I read of their observations?

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

As this topic should be one of the cornerstones upon which we build our effects and routines, I, also, would like to consult some of your resources Tom. Could you share them please as this is getting a little deep for me to master through the "thread" medium.

WOW! I am ecstatic that there is such interest in presenting more meaningful magic. This is a testament to the quality of people on this board. So many people to answer and so little time.

Is this Harris's concept of the moment of astonishment? Well that was the starting point. My familiarity of that phrase and Paul's thinking dates back to the mid 80s. It was ground breaking then. It is time for at least some of us to move passed that to what lies beyond.

So, if astonishment is the way you choose to judge your magic, then I am working from a different place. Keep in mind, as well, that there are many things which are astonishing but aren't magic. Astonishment it seems to me is a product of disbelief. If you accept that premise, then it is a product of method. As I said, I believe magic, when it is at its best, creates a reaction that doesn't involve wonderment about the method.

Steven, you said your wife wants to keep the sense of wonder. Wonder of what? I doubt it is the method. I will go out on a limb and guess that she wonders about the possibilities, the ramifications, the what ifs...not the how. Notice she didn't say "I want to figure that one out on my own."

Serling said,"There is a rational side to every magic show a spectator sees, and then there is the spectator's imagination. " I agree. If you can keep your audience within their imaginations, you can keep them thinking of the possibilities.

Mr. Chosse chooses to warn his audiences...I do not. (Paul Chosse is quite adept at luring people, knowingly, into his trap) Simply a difference of approach. It follows that there is likely to be a difference of reaction. I should add that neither do I say that I posses the powers of great wizards or am the second coming. I just start with some strange examples of the magic that has been around me all my life and then I move them further with each step.

Paul does say of movies, "We DON'T continue to believe the story after the show is over! " To that I would disagree. Most people who enjoy a movie take with them the emotional effects of the movie. They don't talk about the techniques of the actors (typically) but might about the quality of the performance. Such is a statement to how they were affected by the performance. But to still be affected by it they have to, somewhere within, still believe the story emotionally.

But why believe? Not because it is immature but because it is more rewarding to enjoy the emotions than to tear down the experience. Yes, there are those who get their enjoyment from tearing down. You will meet those that only want to figure out your deceptions. Most of them are Engineers. You know what they say, however, the bigger they come the harder they fall.

Nailing that type of disbelieving person is very rewarding because he has brought a challenge with him...and you have won (of sorts). But to "win" you must use a different strategy. In fact, when ever I discover that I have not achieved my goal of belief in the magic I know I have missed something that could make the routine better. It might be a modification to the method which answers the investigation which had never been considered. It might be a strengthening of the presentation that enables me to more effectively draw this type of disbeliever into the event where everyone else is.

Many magicians choose to lay out a path that lets their audiences know where they are going and what to expect. They can be very entertaining and magical along the way. I choose to place my audiences at the edge of a forest. They enter where they want and I lead them to find their own path through my performance. Because they are "discovering" this for themselves they have a higher level of emotional commitment to belief. It is a respected idea: that which we discover ourselves we believe more strongly than that which we are told.

As to those who wish to be transported to enlightenment, it is not possible. Enlightenment is a journey. So I repeat:

I wish that I could just tell you all how to get to this place that I am, but we all get where we are going in our own ways because we are all different. If I could wave a magic wand and give out my enlightenment I would.

Unfortunately, there are many steps along the way which, if missed, will have you arriving unprepared for what is awaiting. It would be a shame for anyone to dismiss something because they were denied the discoveries that happen along the journey.

Keep reading, keep performing, keep dreaming.

Perhaps if we cross paths in person, we will have the chance to talk and explore this more in depth.

Cheers,

Tom

I've told this story before, in this very forum, but - at the risk of boring whomever may still be following this thread - I'll repeat it here to further explain my viewpoint:

Years ago I used to perform the cigarette through quarter to a poignant story about myself as a boy haunting Sid Brockman's Magic Shop in the basement of the Puget Sound Stamp works building in Seattle.

The story is about how all the local pros would gather at the shop on Saturday and each would take his turn amazing the others with a trick or two. Throughout the day they would try to cajole Sid into doing his one trick that puzzled them all. Finally after enough urging, Sid would borrow a quarter, borrow a cigarette and proceed to stun them all one more time with his one miracle. None of them knew how he did it and he steadfastly refused to tell anyone for the several years that I hung out there.

Time went by and I found other things to capture my interest and I didn't set foot in Sid Brockman's Magic Shop for many years. Then one day after I got out of college, I happened to be in Seattle on a Saturday and - out of the blue - I got the urge to drop by Sid's shop. Sid was the only one there; the old timers had drifted away and the Saturday gatherings had long ago become a thing of the past. So I reminded Sid of the old days and of the way he would just slaughter the other guys with his one miracle; Sid suddenly remembered me and said: "Come over here, kid.", and he taught me how to do his little miracle.

He told me that he had never shared the secret with anyone else, and he made me promise to never do so either. So I went back to my hotel room and practiced in front of the mirror until I felt confident enough to perform it for Sid. After a very hectic week of business matters Saturday morning rolled around again and I hurried down to Sid Brockman's Magic Shop to show Sid my progress. When I got there, the whole eight-story building was gone and there was just a giant pile of rubble where the building had been torn down to make way for a new freeway off ramp; and I never saw Sid again.

After I told that story I would ask if they'd like to see Sid's trick, and then I'd perform it and be done.

Now, let me tell you, the reaction that routine got me was very hard to top. Little or no humor, absolutely no silliness involved - and it just blew lay audiences away. Granted, the cig thru quarter used to be pretty visual magic, but clearly the whole story with the joy of childhood wonder and the angst of memories lost was the major source of impact.

HOWEVER, and there's really no way of getting around this, if you think that every person watching that routine wasn't wondering how the h*ll I did it, you're nuts. When the impossible happens right before someone's eyes, they wonder how you did it; and contrary to you ORIGINAL POSITION, this doesn't mean you're doing something "wrong".

THIS sticking point in your theory you still refuse to address...



"Attempt" nothing, it was d*mn funny, and it wasn't veiled either.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

BTW, the bulk of the story is about sid Brockman true - not about the CTQ trick of course - but that really is how Sid disappeared off the face of the earth (for me anyway). Later I learned that he had moved his inventory to his house and I was able to visit him a few times before he died. But I digress...

TW

Interesting thread, since I have nothing better to read. Come to think of it, I have, but there were a couple of points mentioned I'd like to take a stab out.

I always thought the Mona Lisa was a lousy picture anyway, beauty? I don't think so. The work he painted over was probably better. It belongs in the loo rather than the Louvre.

Sometimes Tom, I see the movies BECAUSE of the special effects, in fact, sometimes the story gets in the way. Often I come out after the movie, take ten steps down the road and think how improbable it all was, (like a fireman going to Columbia in Collateral Damage) but I've still enjoyed it.

But back to magic, I'm afraid I agree with TW.
Though I would like to see you work Tom and chat with your audience after, to see what they think

No doubt, if Harris ever publishes another book he will have another viewpoint. In the introduction to his Astonishment books he admits sometimes his comments contradict each other. Personally I thought his earlier work was better.

Paul Hallas

Great story about Sid. It does tell everyone it's just a trick, though. I might guess that is why your audience is puzzled instead of in belief.

Veiled was being polite , perhaps that caught you off guard.

Toward your attempt I can just say: I believe it was Rumi who said, "Sell your cleverness, purchase bewilderment."

Cheerio...

Tom, what is your answer to my earlier question:

If magic is considered real (and therefore possible), what is there to be astonished about?

Many thanks,
Gonz
:carrot: