|
|
TeddyBoy Special user New York, NY 595 Posts |
For years I have been hearing how the book Magic and Showmanship by Nelms provided valuable guidance to those who intend to perform magic. Upon opening the book, I could not get past the first chapter. Nelms divides magic into two groups- illusions and tricks. In brief, Nelms trivializes tricks as not having any meaning and therefore cannot induce any interest in the spectators, in contrast to illusions. For example, after describing the well-known Four Ace Trick (apparently an ace transposition) he concludes that even if your audience is amazed "If you could perform real magic, even very minor magic, would you waste it on an effect like that?"
He provides a real-life example in Houdini: "Meaning creates drama. Houdini's escapes made him the most famous wonder-worker of all time...What counted was the fact that he seemed able to escape from every sort of restraint this his challengers could devise. He amazed multitudes less by the feat that he actually showed them than by the countless other escapes which they believed he had performed. It was this reputation for being able to get out of ANYTHING, plus the fact that escapes are fundamentally romantic, which gave meaning to Houdini's performances. In later years, when he turned to straight conjuring, he was much less impressive. His fame still provided him with audiences, but all that the spectators saw was another entertainer doing meaningless tricks." To me, this is chutzpah with a capital "ch." There were several more statements putting tricks in a bad light. How can so many Café members recommend this guy's book? If you are a mentalists I can understand, but what about the rest of you all- the cardicians and coin conjurers and whatever? Am I off the mark here or do any others see the issue I am raising?
So many sleights...so little time.
"Slow...deliberate...natural." Bill Tarr Cheers, Teddy |
dustrod Loyal user Western Wisconsin, USA, Earth 233 Posts |
Maybe this isn't a direct answer to your question but I believe you'll find some disagreements with any "magic theory" book you'll read. I know I have.
I think the important thing is that it gets you thinking. As for Magic and Showmanship, even though the effects weren't anything I was jumping up and down about, there were sections of the book where I found the discussions very insightful. |
TeddyBoy Special user New York, NY 595 Posts |
Given the book's popularity I would expect that it provides very useful insights, especially to those specializing in performing illusions. Given his view of tricks however, I would think any useful crossover was probably a coincidence or a conjurer's creative reading of the book.
Dustrod, if I may, what is your magical focus or specialty? Illusion or tricks. Obviously, I am a trickster, exclusively drawn to the pasteboards.
So many sleights...so little time.
"Slow...deliberate...natural." Bill Tarr Cheers, Teddy |
dustrod Loyal user Western Wisconsin, USA, Earth 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2021, TeddyBoy wrote: TeddyBoy, Henning Nelms defines a trick as something that makes the audience wonder how it’s done while an illusion convinces the audience (even if only momentarily) that they have really seen the impossible. I enjoy cards, coins, & mentalism. For the few years I've been practicing my only real goal has been to perform for friends and acquaintances when the opportunities arise and to improve the level of tricks I was capable of showing them. I'd like to say that as I improve my skills, presentation and patter that some of these mere card tricks and coin tricks can be defined as an illusion. |
will lane Veteran user Will likes to post so he has made 339 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2021, dustrod wrote: I like this definition. The distinction is that a "mere trick" leaves your spectator thinking about the howiediddits; "oh he must have switched the card, I just didn't see when". But an illusion is about the astonishment of seeing something seemingly impossible, and the lasting impact that has; "i feel like I just saw a real miracle". Although I'd argue that, in real world vernacular, I don't know if I'd call even the best magic effects an illusion. An illusion is "a misrepresentation of a real sensory stimulus", so it's a bit audacious to compare something like a double lift switch to a Salvador Dali painting, or the Hermann Grid, etc... What I prefer to think is that "in the spectator's mind, there we create the illusion of real magic." Quote:
On Sep 13, 2021, TeddyBoy wrote: I've not read the book, but I have heard of this concept before. I think the misunderstanding is here; Nelms is not saying that magic tricks as a whole are meaningless or uninteresting. So he is not claiming the 4 Ace Trick (or the ACR, or Coins Across, or a double lift switch, etc) as a whole are worthless. What he is saying is that we should look at our repertoire of tricks (or rather our methods and presentations) not as "mere tricks", but to re-frame them in our spectator's mind as illusions of real magic. Again, we don't want our spectator thinking "he must have switched the card out when I wasn't looking, he tricked me". We want our spectator thinking "i feel like I just saw a real miracle". This video may better explain this concept than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO5WC6z27eE |
Wravyn Inner circle 3482 Posts |
Will, nicely said.
It is times like this that I wish Dick Oslund were still with us... It ain't the prop and it ain't the trick, the magic is what our audience experiences... He could have said it much better than that. |
TeddyBoy Special user New York, NY 595 Posts |
Thank you Dustrod and Will for responding. My sense is that you think I am overreacting. It would not be my first time, but I am still not so sure. I have read many texts relating to magic and never encountered such harsh commentary on an entire category of magic. Nelms does indeed claim that a trick may have the audience thinking about how it is done. But he further indicates that this is a somewhat lowly manner of experiencing magic; ergo the quotes I provided in the original post above. With respect to Houdini's later endeavors Nelms refers to him as "another entertainer performing MEANINGLESS tricks." Houdini! He further asks why would anyone with any ability, WASTE their time on tricks like The Four Aces. These are very harsh statements unlike any I have read in any magic book.
Further examples: -The magic of drama is INFINITELY MORE POWERFUL than the magic of trickery. (Top of p.3). (Nelms feels that illusions provide drama). -What occurs on the stage is of no consequence except as it affects the thinking of the spectators. (P. 4, 2nd paragraph). [Remember, Nelms thinks that only the drama of illusions provide meaning and food for thought.] -The conjurer who presents a trick usually begins by admitting it is a trick...as though to say "we all know that this is pure hokum...] (P. 5, 4th paragraph]. -No matter how astonishing a trick may be "it suffers from one major fault-IT HAS NO POINT". (P.5, last paragraph). -Even the celebrated classics of conjuring have NO POINT. The spectator may say "marvelous"...then shrugs his shoulders and adds mentally "but what of it." (P. 6, 2nd paragraph) Perhaps you guys are correct and I am being too cynical about Nelms. After all why would so many members here, many of them mere conjurers, recommend this book so highly if they felt insulted by Nelms. Anyway, I have moved over to Maximum Entertainment which seems like a pleasant read and through at least Chapter 1 no one has been trashed. Take care.
So many sleights...so little time.
"Slow...deliberate...natural." Bill Tarr Cheers, Teddy |
TeddyBoy Special user New York, NY 595 Posts |
In the spirit of full disclosure I will point out that Ken Weber sets out in Max. Entertainment that there are three categories of magic: (1) puzzles, (2) tricks and (3) extraordinary moments, the latter corresponding to Nelm's concept of illusions.
Weber's view of illusions likely overlaps with Nelms's. But tricks are not trivialized by Weber. In fact he writes that "superb tricks and the occasional extraordinary moment" should be our goal. This I can begin to wrap my brain around.
So many sleights...so little time.
"Slow...deliberate...natural." Bill Tarr Cheers, Teddy |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
More that sixty-five years ago I was mentored (paraphrasing), "A single effect should be selected with knowledge of what the audience expects of magic.
But a full routine must balance full astonishment with some simple trick they might figure out." Another magician oldster quipped about one of my performances, "You want me to eat honey with a spoon." Nelms was not a performing magician, so I place mediated value on his opinions. Worth reading, yes. "Rules to follow?" - no. In like vein I try and remember that the experience and expectations of today's audience is very different from that of magic heroes of yesteryear. Methinks little is gained from criticizing older writings out of context, or of treating them as useful rules for today. All of these diverse offerings are good if they make the reader think, but poor if they are an excuse for not thinking.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Henning Nelms On "Mere Tricks" (10 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |