<-|Top|Showmanship For Magicians|Trick Brain|Magic By Misdirection|Mail|->
<-|!*!|C|I|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|->
MAGIC
By
MISDIRECTION

---

CHAPTER TEN

---

Among the things, which contribute to the spectator's perceptions, are the magician's properties. These include his tables, his apparatus and the other auxiliary adjuncts and requisites with which he performs.

It is a corollary, I think, that when a person is confronted with a multiplicity of interests, he is inclined to give less intent attention to those things with which he is familiar. The very nature of the magician's performance requires vigilant attention on the part of a spectator. Usually there are so many diversified attractions, of varying degrees of familiarity, and usually the utmost alertness is necessary on his part; if he is to escape being deceived. The spectator does not know, of course, what to expect. As a result his attention must be spread over many things.

Since it is impossible to follow every detail vigilantly, the spectator must weed out as much as possible in the shortest possible time. So usually he passes over the familiar things with the least amount of attention.

Suppose the performer were to hold up two cylinders. One is obviously made by removing the top and bottom from a large tomato juice can. The other is a brightly gleaming chromium-plated tube. In the first case, because it seems obviously what the performer explains it to be, the attention is more an immediate acceptance than it is a careful scrutiny.

On the other hand, the brightly shining cylinder looks like someone had spent considerable time and trouble on it. To the spectator it is unfamiliar. He has never had such a device in his hands. He does not know what it is for. There is nothing about it to call for casual assumptions on his part. So for these reasons—and for others—the ornate device gets his complete and vigilant attention.

Suppose, now, that the tomato can tube contains an inner lining similar to that used in The Phantom Tube. Let us assume, also, that the plated cylinder has no special secret preparation. It is almost certain that the spectator would fail to concentrate his attention upon the vital device. If so, the deception would be successful, providing the magician did not attract attention to the tomato can tube unnecessarily.

The properties themselves have performed important functions in the deception. The commonplace character of the tomato can tube diverts attention from it. The special preparation evident, and the strangeness to the spectator, attracts attention to the plated cylinder. Even the everyday appearance of one, contrasted with the brilliant attraction of the other, definitely controls the spectator's interest.

As far as the properties are concerned, the deception is strong. But the performer handles these tubes. What the performer says and does can nullify all of the headway toward successful deception established by the properties. He can unduly stress the emptiness of the tomato can tube. He can point suspicion to it by insisting verbally that it is empty "and unprepared." He can make it seem important to the performer. If a device is important to the person who is attempting to deceive him, the spectator will find it important to himself as well.

Now let us reverse the case. Suppose there is no special preparation in the tube made from the can. Suppose, on the other hand, the plated tube actually is a Phantom Tube. Certainly it must be obvious by now that the performer is concentrating the spectator's scrutiny and attention upon the very nucleus of the deception. With a less clever device, the mode of deception might be revealed. Even with The Phantom Tube the deception is placed in jeopardy unnecessarily.

Let us go to The Master for an example. We examine The Growth of Flower's as performed by Harry Kellar. Kellar was before my time, so I must rely upon the description of someone else. Probably the most authentic account of Kellar's exact routine is that of Dr. James W. Elliott as it is outlined in ELLIOTT'S LAST LEGACY.

There is some difference of opinion as to the exact apparatus and method of working that Kellar used. Fundamentally, the trick depended upon two deeply draped stands. Attached to the center standards of these stands were shelves—one on each stand—that were hidden by the drapes that were open in the back. A load stood upon each shelf.

The effect was that the magician showed two flowerpots, each of which contained a quantity of sand. Upon placing some seed in the first pot, and upon covering the upper part of the pot with a large cone that was open on each end, a small plant was seen to have sprouted. Going to the other pot and lowering the cone over it, Kellar produced a large rose bush in full bloom. Crossing to the opposite side of the stage, he lowered the cone over the sprout once more, whereupon it, too, became a large blooming bush.

Kellar's loads, of course, came from the shelves on the deeply draped stands. While I did not see Kellar do this trick, as I have mentioned before, I did see The Kellar Flower Growth performed by another magician. I examined his apparatus thoroughly. In this method the empty cone was exchanged for a loaded one in each case. Hopkins' MAGIC, obviously referring to Kellar but not mentioning his name, states that the cones nested. The first empty one was placed right over the second one in getting the first load. After this load was released, both cones were placed over the third one and all three were brought up as one.

Because I saw the first method used and because another apparatus which later I examined was claimed to have been Kellar's, I am inclined to think that the method first explained, wherein the cones were exchanged, was the method Kellar used. If the second equipment was authentic, the nesting method would have been impossible because the cones would not nest. Also, all cones were highly plated which would have been unnecessary and even disadvantageous if the nesting principle were used.

But let us get on with our discussion of apparatus.

The apparatus in question presents several difficulties in making the deception successful. In the first place, the stands with the abnormally deep drapes were highly suspicious. Secondly, the necessity of obtaining these loads, whether by exchanging or nesting, without adroit psychological deception, would seem to make deception almost impossible.

Here is the way Kellar overcame these difficulties and made it one of his most memorable features:

He entered from stage left, carrying the cone, and walked to the footlights where he showed the cone empty. The two deeply draped stands were up toward the back of the stage. Nearer the footlights, one on each side of the stage, were two light undraped stands.

After showing the cone empty, he walked to the draped table on the left and showed the flower pot which was resting there. Taking some "seed" from his vest pocket, he planted these in the pot and covered it with the empty cone. Almost immediately he withdrew the cone and showed the sprout. This sprout had been taken from his pocket with the seed.

And as he tipped the pot forward to show the sprout, Kellar lowered the cone carelessly and unobtrusively behind the drape. Here he stole the load.

But he grasped the pot in his left hand, walking around the back of this table, and carried it forward to the undraped stand at the left of the stage. He left the pot, with its sprout, en this stand.

Then he went to the draped stand on the right and exhibited the pot there. He covered it momentarily and released the first load to reveal the colorful bush. Immediately he lowered the cone behind the drape, walking around behind this table, and made his second load.

From the right of the table he crossed downstage to the undraped stand at the left, upon which was left the pot with the sprout. He covered the sprout, released the load and revealed the second bush. Then he walked upstage to the bush on the right draped table, picked it up and carried it downstage to the undraped stand on the right.

Careful study of Kellar's tactics reveals why he was a great magician. He realized that the deep drapes were dangerous if employed directly. So he diverted suspicion from them by making it appear that if the deep drape had a purpose, its purpose was not connected with the cone. The bush started to sprout before be came near the drape with the cone.

Then while curiosity and a desire to witness the trick brought the attention to the pot, he acquired the first load. To eliminate any suspicion that the load was coming from the table, he carried the pot to the undraped stand. Presumably he was going to continue the trick there. But, instead, apparently still with the empty cone, he crossed to the other pot and produced the bush. The second load, like the first, was made when all attention was upon the subject of the production.

Immediately he went to the undraped stand, which made it seem that the deep drapes had no significance, and produced the second full-grown bush.

Carrying the first bush to the right stand afterward was calculated to leave the impression that it, too, had been produced upon an undraped stand. There were so many moves and so much detail, coupled with Kellar's superb diversion of suspicion from the deep drapes, which it was virtually impossible for the spectator to go back and reconstruct just what had happened. This was, indeed, deception at its best.

Note how Kellar covered the weak spots in the trick.

This deception was made possible, as a successful deception, almost entirely through skillfully applied psychology.

He knew that once the cone was shown empty it would hold close and unwavering attention. Under these conditions it would have been disastrous to attempt to make the load behind the deep draped table. So he had to arrange matters to give the appearance that the production was made without taking the cone from the spectator's sight. He also had to arrange some strong attraction to divert attention from the cone during the vital first load.

The spectators, of course, had no idea as to exactly what was to happen. The production of the small sprout, from beneath the large cone, was a surprise. This sprout was so small that it required complete momentary concentration on the part of the spectator to see it at all. After this minute production, attention on the cone relaxed.

Kellar so timed the tipping of the pot that the load was made at the exact time the pot was tipped forward. If the spectators were not to miss part of the trick—or all of it, as far as they knew they were compelled to look at the pot instead of watching the hand making the load, Well, they paid their admission to see Kellar's show. It is reasonable to assume that they would try to see the sprouting plant.

Probably Kellar's move—the picking up and tilting of the flowerpot, the loading of the cone and his walk around the table was made as a single, natural maneuver, rather than as a series of connected moves. Probably by the time the spectators could get a good look at the flower pot, Kellar had walked around back of the table, picking up the pot as he did so, and was bringing it forward so that the spectators could see it better.

Then, when he went over to the other pot, the audience was probably expecting the production of a similar sprout. Consequently when the colorful bush in full bloom was revealed, it not only came as a surprise but it held attention. Undoubtedly, at this psychological moment, Kellar again naturally and quietly made his second load.

But the second bush actually was produced upon an undraped table. And, as I mentioned before, the bringing forward of the first bush was undoubtedly planned to leave the impression that the first bush, too, had made its appearance on the small side stand. Also, the entire action was subtly diverted away from the tables with the deep drape, diverted and finally actually carried away from them. Then, as he started cutting off the flowers and distributing them, probably a curtain closed upon the vital stands with the deep drapes.

So it is possible, if you approach these problems intelligently, to accomplish deception successfully, even where the apparatus itself would, at first thought, be a handicap.

Many pieces of apparatus used by magicians are designed to mislead the spectator's impressions and perceptions. Among these are bottomless glasses, double-backed cards, shell balls, nesting shell bottles, mirrors hiding secret compartments and practically all of the others. The clockworks pack which causes the card to seem to rise unaided from the pack, like the simpler but just as effective threaded pack, is simply a device to influence the spectator's perception. So is the Kellar, or Maskelyne if you prefer, levitation. Or the devices for giving the impression of sawing a woman in half. Or egg bags. Or production boxes, vanishing bird cages, bowl producing tables, double handkerchiefs, ring reels, linking ring sets, fire bowls, fishing rods, or practically all other magical apparatus.

Fundamentally, these devices are intended only to influence the spectator's mind through his perceptive senses.

If the device is cleverly contrived, with the secret mechanism—whether the mechanics are simple or complex—difficult to fathom, often considerable of the weight of the deception may be carried by the apparatus. Yet some psychological deception must be practiced. If the device is awkward, if it in itself is not difficult to fathom, much of the success of the deception may depend upon the adroit application of clever psychological principles.,

Some pieces of apparatus, probably most of the apparatus magicians use, are tricky looking. Spectators are certain to regard them with utmost suspicion. Why not? The device looks just like what it most obviously is something with which to do tricks. All spectators must necessarily suspect it. Many spectators, knowing that it is a special device for accomplishing a trick, will accept the solution as proceeding from the device. These people do not admit they are deceived. In fact, as far as they are concerned, they are not.

They accept the solution as being made possible by the device. Exactly how the device may accomplish the deception—I mean the exact details—does not interest them. It interests them no more than the exact details of any other mechanism. They are not deceived by the radio, even though they may not understand its workings technically. They know that the arrangement of wire, tubes and condensers, once the radio is turned on and tuned, will bring in the program. Since the radio, as a complete device, caused the phenomenon to be evidenced, the mere pointing to the radio and saying. "That's what does it," satisfies them—completely. It is like showing some special tool, devised for some specific purpose, like showing the tool together with a sample of its work and saying. "Look. Isn't this remarkable? It's done with this tool."

Only the magician, generally, is interested in specific details. Does not the explanation of The Vanishing Bird Cage satisfy the usual person when he learns that the cage folds and goes up the sleeve? Yet there are many vital details left unexplained. and the mere possession of a cage which would fold, plus an empty sleeve, certainly would not equip a person to do the trick.

To establish firmly this fact that a mere general indication is completely satisfactory. I should like to cite the various exposures that have appeared in print. The Camel cigarette advertisements, as you will recall, were little more than highly generalized explanations.

I recall vividly that I was taking a 16 mm. motion picture of Thurston performing The Levitation of the Princess Karnac, during a regular performance some years ago. I had arranged this through John Hilliard. We had selected the balcony as the best location from which to take the picture, since it would include the actual theater atmosphere such as the proscenium arch and the orchestra. As any of you who possess such cameras will agree, the camera sets up quite a buzzing noise during operation. So while Thurston was apparently causing the girl to float, the effect being accomplished by what is probably the most elaborate magical mechanism, several spectators heard the camera operating. They immediately connected the camera with the levitation. I could see them nudge their companions, call their attention to the camera, then point to the activity on the stage. From the way they relaxed and settled back in their seats, I am positive they felt they had solved the mystery.

This argument, of course, holds true in varying degrees with various people. Some are content with a generalized idea—probably most, if the methods of editors of popular publications are any criterion. Others require more detailed information before their curiosity is satisfied. But few, I am certain, from among the laymen would be willing to admit that they have been deceived, if a device is recognized as the means of accomplishing the result. Deception disappears, from the spectators viewpoint, as soon as they become aware as to how the effect is accomplished, whether by a move, a mechanism or through other means. To them, a mere clue eliminates the deception. Actually, they are not deceived any longer. They are only ignorant as to how the mechanism works specifically.

All of this establishes an important point. No frankly magical device is nearly as deceptive as a device that looks like some ordinary thing familiar to the spectator. This is because, since the device is a special contrivance, it must be suspected. The spectators are unfamiliar with it, regardless of how thoroughly the magician may show it.

Since the spectators are unfamiliar with it, it is suspected, whether or not, in truth, it actually does accomplish the effect.

On the other hand, where an apparently familiar object is used for something that seems impossible, the deception is greater. This is because the spectator looks upon the object, as he knows it, not necessarily as the magician may have prepared it. Since it is an object with which he is familiar, psychologically the spectator will accept it as being like what it has been in his past experience. A bottomless glass is a good example. If this glass is handled as the usual glass is handled, referred to as the usual glass is referred to, there will be no reason for the spectator to construe it as anything but the tumbler with which he is familiar. Naturally, he is quite well aware that it has a bottom. Such a device, manufactured for containing something, just does not exist without a bottom. Except for those special devices magicians use, there is no such thing as a bottomless tumbler.

The magicians' usual apparatus is designed to give a false idea of emptiness, of solidity, of isolation, of absence of mechanism or other qualities necessary in connection with some effect. It is usually designed to accomplish some purpose such as an appearance, a vanish, an exchange or a transformation, motive power, identification, penetration, restoration or other effects as detailed in THE TRICK BRAIN.

If it is necessary that such apparatus have a special appearance, the natural suspicion attendant is, of course, unavoidable. It follows, then, that the apparatus must be capable of withstanding severe scrutiny without destroying the deception. If the specific apparatus cannot maintain the deception under these circumstances, it will be necessary to divert attention from it. The alternative to this is to contrive matters so that the deception seems to the spectator to be accomplished by or through something else, in some manner.

As far as deception is concerned, there seems to be no valid reason for deliberately forcing the apparatus to appear to be tricky. Neither is there any valid reason for substituting something that has a tricky appearance where an ordinary appearing object may be used.

Very definitely, I feel certain, suspicion may be diverted and scrutiny may be materially reduced if it is possible to make a piece of magician's apparatus appear to be something ordinary, something with which the spectator is somewhat familiar. Any deception is stronger when it is accomplished with something with which the spectator is acquainted—something with which the spectator has reason to believe the deception is impossible.

Tell me, do you believe it is possible to walk through a brick wall? Do you think it is possible to walk through a wall made of specially built and obviously specially painted panels? Which would seem the more difficult to accomplish? <-|!*!|C|I|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|->
<-|Top|Showmanship For Magicians|Trick Brain|Magic By Misdirection|Mail|->