Of course. Should be obvious, of course, but obviously isn't to some --- if I did a magic square and it didn't excite, amaze, stun, the audience members - if it didn't elicit cheers and shouts and a standing ovation, if it didn't ENTERTAIN - I WOULDN'T DO A MAGIC SQUARE! How obvious!

Obvious in all areas of magic - in my opinion. Close-up magic: If my Out Of This Universe, HaLo Aces, Magician Vs. Gambler, Card Sharp & Four Gamblers, my Ambitious Card Routine, That's The Truth! - and so many more (start reading the good stuff, folks!) didn't ENTERTAIN, I wouldn't perform them --- I'd simply search for effects/routines that DID entertain. How obvious! But not to some.

What it really (and obviously, to me anyway) breaks down to is - to those who say "It's a crappy trick" or "it's just a mathematical stunt" or similar remarks(really usually no matter WHICH trick they're referring to), should change it to what makes more sense - if they're going to talk about it at all, that is: "It's a crappy trick" or "it's just a mathematical stunt"

No way I could possibly argue it or disagree is a person said "It's a crappy trick WHEN I DO IT."

You are so right Harry. There are so many crappy tricks out there. Many crappy performances too. You did a masterful job in everything I've seen you do. You are quite the consummate performer and a marvelous entertainer. It is not the 'thing' we do, it is all in how we do the 'thing' we do. The real magic is making someones day brighter and turning their frown upside down. That's one reason I loved doing magic when we were house parents at the children's home.... we helped to turn their heartache into smiles.

Thank you, sir - and well said.

To all those who've called/written asking why I'm so "strongly" for a magic square - what I told them and want to make it clear here - I'm not particularly "strong" about a magic square. If I were to use the word "strong" at all for a magic square it would be for the one I do - the one for which there are links to above. Why? Only one reason - IT WORKS FOR ME! Forgive please - but I sometimes don't understand how come what's so obvious to me is not "so obvious" to others. I think what I said above might be worth repeating (it makes the point - I hope - and lets me do a bit of plugging - which will make some mad, but who cares?)

"Should be obvious, of course, but obviously isn't to some --- if I did a magic square and it didn't excite, amaze, stun, the audience members - if it didn't elicit cheers and shouts and a standing ovation, if it didn't ENTERTAIN - I WOULDN'T DO A MAGIC SQUARE! How obvious!

"Obvious in all areas of magic - in my opinion. Close-up magic: If my Out Of This Universe, HaLo Aces, Magician Vs. Gambler, Card Sharp & Four Gamblers, my Ambitious Card Routine, That's The Truth! - and so many more (start reading the good stuff, folks!) didn't ENTERTAIN, I wouldn't perform them --- I'd simply search for effects/routines that DID entertain. How obvious! But not to some."

Automatic Square by Tori Noquez just came out last week which is pretty good

I didn't think so at all, but for the price, it could be a starting point I guess for someone new.

I use Joshua Jay´s version, but thinking about changing to Automatic Magic Square (Tori Noquez version), Does anybody know how easy is her method?
Why does she call it automatic?

Late to the party. Just want to state that I think this post is both helpful and funny. Thanks, Dana. You made me laugh out loud. What a great contrast the butthurt posts that followed.

Some people can't handle honest criticism or even different opinions. Please don't try to defend yourself. It's really not your problem.

Memory work is an effect of magic!

Harry's show includes knowing every persons name in the audience. His work with memory has been considered the BEST. As such, it is easy for him convince anyone that its great mind solving the magic square.

Most mentalists I met do not like the magic square because
1) They are not good at math
2) it is overdone and not unique

The biggest problem with the magic square is so many mentalist perform it. The magicians that watch a lot of magic see it performed at nauseam. But you are not performing for magicians, so do not worry about that.

I disagree that a new magician cannot learn and perform this effect. I taught it my 10 year old child at the time. I would argue using Mark Desouza method, I could teach it someone much younger. And I would argue that mentalism is far stronger from a child prodigy than your average adult mentalist.

Try this general plot:

Ask an adult to merely think of an adult friends age. Little audience management that by saying adult, you want them to pick a number above 18. Now have them write it down on business card and put in jaks style wallet, or use the new POV post it notes. Either way the evidence is quickly out of sight into a pocket.

Now all the writing on the magic square has something to do with you determining the age.

I love magician in trouble, and after all the "random numbers" are up for display, you ask the number they were thinking.

Then, you show the resolution and wait for your applause.

As I am writing this, I am thinking of a new version of getting the numbers. Not sure if anyone ever used Bingo balls and miscalled the numbers.

Regardless, I think the effect is best performed if final value is apparently unknown.

You should watch a few different people perform it. My top 3 performances are from Harry Anderson penguin lecture is great, Harry Loryane memory work is the best, and ill add Mark Desouza to the list.

Best of luck. Learn it and try it. Just know its not a magician fooler.

Apart from the starting grid and (I believe) the numbers used in the maths once you know the spec's chosen number, what is the difference between Jay's version taught in his beginner's book (which is identical to the version in Lorayne's "Magic Book", BTW) and this "Automatic Magic Square" by Tori Noquez?

Thanks
Mark

I love the Magic Square been performing it for corporate events about 10 yrs now with a fun entertaining version. don't do it every show but when needed, I saw a colleague perform it at a theatre last night with a fabulous version of not knowing the nos, drawing the square filled in asking the spectator if there nos was on the square...it wasnt and after a card memory test returning to it and a nos called out from spectator was what was written on the square when all added up etc...no stooges but a brilliant reaction from the large crowd...very impressive..

In terms of performance style of the magic square.

Do you prefer that the audience calls out the number openly, or do you use it as a clever reveal of a thought of number?
And how do you close the routine, some performers do a prediction type of effect with it which would kill the premise of the square completely wouldn't it?