"no matter how hard they watch the video over and over again there's nothing for them to see" DB

Having read "Pure Effect" and wacthed you International Magic lecture (which I enjoyed immensley) I couldn't help feeling that maybe you were a little harsh on traditional mentalism. isn't the extent of Invisible Compromise in some way correlated to the skill of the performer and the knowledge of the spectator?

Having watched Marc Salem a few years ago without knowing any magic at the time , to me , then, his method was invisible. Now I've sudied "Corrindar,Banacheck and the like his methods are visiible to me but they they were stilll invisible to the rest of the audience. I beleive your show is far ahead of your competition and so many of your methods seem invisible. But isn't this simply another way of saying "i've got the best tricks " and no one (including other mentalists) knows how they are done? Having watched Reminsice several times I finally figured out the bulk of the method, did it become a visible compromise? Or is it all in the eye of the beholder?If a well known visiting US mentalists hides their swami well enough is he performing invisible compromise?

I have been harsh in the past, but only for reasons of rhetoric. 'Invisible Compromise' was about creating an ideal, not something that one should insist that every performance adhere to. Equally it has been misquoted and misunderstood, to the point that I can't quite remember myself what I meant by it. But I stand by the idea of not compromising the effect - of keeping it simple and pure - a straight line - and eliminating clutter. Which goes back to Vernon, most famously. Don't worry about it - it wasn't about great methods, or not knowing how something is done; it was just about maintaining purity of effect by not letting the necessary 'compromises' interfere with the story of the routine.
It doesn't matter - you have my permission to dismiss it as rubbish. I talk a lot of boll*cks sometimes.

db