There has always been some equivocation over the term "effect" in magic writing"

the combination of intent, trick, presentation and character -- the focus being to get people beyond the "trick" or "sleight."

the result that the performer desires to have occur in the observer's mind as opposed to the mechanics

only what happens in the spectator's mind -- the "impact" of the whole kaboodle

It is usually easy to determine meaning from context.

It seems to me that Alan indicates that in order to be "perfect" all these meaning should blend.

The magical business to the patter and the other forms of entertainment with which it is dressed, is as he is to she. It follows that the magician’s character is feminine like. That is why one will find the magicians character being in a state of delirium or psychosis and talking nonsense, except when spinning out his magical business. The magical business corresponds to the left brain which takes that information cross-references it with everything it knows as the past and uses it to postulate the future as only logic can dictate. The perfect trick is like the perfect marriage. Thus it is best for there to be a relationship between the two: A relationship between the magic and the nonsense, between the character and the magic. What springs to mind of the cuff is a crazy gambler, talking nonsense about is lucky charm, which turns out to apparently work as a matter of fact. As long as the magician is smart, pretty, and sweet, and gentle, and tender, and refined, he should be able to pull it off.

"being in a state of delirium or psychosis and talking nonsense"

ah, now I understand you tommy.

"It will have been seen by the foregoing that the presentation of a card trick may contain much more bosh than
action, and indeed the performance of the one just described might be advantageously prolonged by a great
deal more nonsense. In all card entertainments the more palaver the more the interest is excited, and the
address and patter of the performer will count as much if not more than his skill in manipulation"

ah, now I understand you Erdnase.

Consider the classic example of getting pixie dust in order to ditch a coin: this bosh does not usually resonate with either the presentation or effect.

If the in-transit action that hides the method also expresses the persona and enhances the atmosphere and clarifies the effect, then it is getting close to the perfect in-transit action. The more purposes the one line or action serves, the more artful and elegant the structure.

Yes it is better if there is an interrelationship between the magic, the bosh and the character. That is to say a common element in all that fits the bill. We card guys make or look for abstract “golden threads” which tie a few tricks together to create a routine. A single trick might not fit the bill of a particular routine. Thinking of a single trick is more amateur thinking than professional. The amateur cannot see the wood for the trees but the professional sees the big picture.

You can buy a PROP. You can buy a SECRET or METHOD (in a book, or dvd, or even from a person).

BUT...A trick, like music, only exists while it is being performed.

Ergo (!) you can't buy a trick!

(You can't buy, or own, magic either. Magic "exists" or "happens" only in the mind(s) of the spectator(s).

That is why I said they are illusions that do not exist in realty as they are dead and we merely resurrect them. Plays and so on only exist when they are played. They are illusions just like your memories are illusions. We are all necromancers, with all these dead tricks lying around waiting patiently for us to wake them up and bring them back to life.

If this be true, tommy, then screwing up a trick is nechrophelia

If we cremated all our magic books maybe then they could rest in peace. I dug up an old trick last night.

In retrospect I think that I have never seen a 'trick' so perfect that I concluded that it was the presentation that made it so.

Sometimes the presentation just seems to elegantly fit the trick.
Don Alan's presentation is just so fitting for the Ultra Mental Deck.
The use of plastic disposable Cups and Balls fits the effect but are also so appropriate for Penn and Teller in tone, style, theme, character.

I think the element of nonsense must be in the equation for it to be our art. A nonsensical assertion playfully offered is naturally taken as art, which is that which a lie accepted as fiction. The nonsensical assertion hooks the pigeon and sets up a counterpoint. When the nonsensical assertion is proven true with a sensible logical science magic experiment it is impossible to be but is and it results in a dilemma which is not only amazing but also amusing. The art of magic is nonsense science. Only a shyster, charlatan and quack would make sensible assertion and prove it true with magic. The shyster, charlatan or quack is after changing the perception of the public, whereas the legit magician is not and only after amusing the public. The perfect trick in our art must make them laugh. The likes of Uri Geller do not perform perfect trick as far as our art goes anyhow.

A series of effects is not a true routine until they are tied together with a gold thread. A true routine is like this painting.



In the sparkling scene above, Goya has used as symbol of springtime, youth and enjoyment of life. Everything in the painting is fresh, colourful and unexpected, including the rabbit which the man is playfully holding up in the air, ready to surprise the lady and the girl holding hands. It is not difficult to imagine a magician thinking along the same lines and producing the various elements magically in a scene of one sort or another. Even theatrical magic must be nonsensical; snow may vanish and rabbits and flowers do magically appear in springtime but not really by magic. In a poetic way or in a sort of fantasy way they can be produced. If there is no nonsense about it anyway, it is no art in my opinion.

Many magic routines require doing something that is not normal. This action can often be made to seem normal because of the presentation.

And, as you noted, you wouldn't necessarily notice the presentation helped the routine, because the presentation hid the action.

I can think of one Simon Aronson card routine where he states he is going to do something to make the routine more difficult, and indeed, what is done would seem to make it much harder to accomplish what he claims he will do. However, without this added "difficulty", the method won't work at all! I wish I could be more specific than that.

I don't that a routine necessarily requires the presentation-supporting-the-method idea to be "perfect", but I have noticed a lot of very strong magic has that characteristic.

What is a perfect magic trick? Consider the following.

Suzanne the Magician did Matrix for a customer in a bar aptly named, Sue’s Bar. He laid a five on the table and said do it again. She did. He then laid a ten on the table and said do it again. She did. He then asked her to wait and not go away as he wanted to get someone. He left and returned with a friend. The gentleman laid a ten on the table and said, “Show him.” She did. The friend then laid a ten on the table and said, “Do it again.” She did. Then they left mumbling to themselves.

Long ago while living in Minneapolis, I got together with some other magicians at a local restruant. During the meeting in the back room of the restaurant, one of the restaurant employees appeared interested in what was going on. Several of the guys showed him a few tricks. I did Matrix. Later another employee wandered in to see if he could see a few tricks. Some guys did some tricks after which he said. “No, I wanted to see the trick with the four coins.” I did Matrix. Later, another employee wandered in and was more brazen. He said, “Could I see the trick with the four coins.” I did it.

At a single’s party I did a bunch of magic and then sat down at a table and performed close-up. It included Matrix. Imagine five people sitting at a table, noses ten inches from the close up pad. After I did Matrix, someone said, “Do that again.” I did. Then someone asked, “Can you do that again?” I did. It was requested again. I did it twice more. Someone made a comment that they could watch it all day and not have a clue how it worked.

Those that know me often say I am a boring performer. I do not use pixel dust or say a magic word. I use body language to indicate when the magic is supposed to occur. I call it, “The Intention of Magic.” My patter normally consists of a description of what I am doing with a few corny groaners thrown in. I believe it is magic people want to see. In my performances that is what I offer. I just use patter to fill the dead time.

I will not say Matrix is a perfect trick. But one could use the above scenario to describe one.

I think that's a result that most of us here would be very happy with, indeed.

So what are the elements?

1) A simple, clear plot
2) Happens under their noses
3) Something Impossible happens
4) No chance of discovery, even when repeated

But why specifically Matrix? There are many other effects that fulfill the above criteria. What is it that I am leaving out about Matrix that gets $10 bills thrown on the bar?

Try this:

It follows the rule of three. The first shows it is possible. The second shows the first was not a mistake. The third shows it can be done at will.

It follows this principle: use different methods to achieve the same effect that appear exactly the same.

Another principle: the first magic events set up a situation in which the final event requires no manipulation or moves.

Another principle: do half the dirty work before the audience is aware that you are performing the trick.

The audience knows exactly what is going to happen.

Matrix is not unique in all of this but is a good example. Magic is a technology or a craft that when well done, appears as art.

Lots to think about there, Al. Thanks.

There has been so much wonderful thinking on here and I love all of it. Although there might not be a "perfect" effect, I've always maintained that the best magic effects are those which use multiple conflicting methods which cancel each other out. Spectators typically look for "a" secret, not several. When you combine multiple methods to create the same effect, combined with appropriate psychology that reinforces that the effects are the same, you have the ability to short circuit the logic centers in the mind creating thee richer sense of awe and wonder.

Some very interesting posts!

It's very evident that those who have replied, have done "a bit more" thinking, than many performers.

It reminds me of the old story of the young sailor and the old "salt" They are standing at the ship's rail, as the ship is on an ocean voyage. the young fellow says, "Man! There's a lot of water out there!" The old salt, replies, "What you see is just the TOP of it."

IMO, those who have posted have "peeked" underneath that "top".

The whole thread also reminds me of what my early mentors told me, when I was a teenager in the "40s: "It aint WHAT ya do! It's HOW ya do it!"

THE PRESENTATION IS WHAT "MAKES" THE EFFECT!