<-|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

---

INTRODUCTION

---

When a magician steps out in front of an audience, lie does so as an entertainer. The fact that he is a magician is entirely secondary, from the viewpoint of his spectators. While it is true that the audience may be there because he is a magician, it is even more true that his spectators are there because they expect to be entertained-entertained by magic. Very frequently even this is not true. Many times the audience is there to be entertained, without consideration being given as to the particular kind of entertainment. Most frequently, perhaps, the magician is merely one of several types of entertainers.

Thus SHOWMANSHIP FOR MAGICIANS attempts to cover what I believe to be the most important field for the performing magician. It is intended to help the magician to prepare his performance so that it will be most palatable for his spectators.

To some, this may seem as if the cart were before the horse. At first thought it might seem more logical to start with the mechanics of magic. It might be argued that before you can have an entertaining magician, you must have a magician.

I choose the opposite viewpoint. I select this stand because I feel the performer must be an entertainer first. That is essential, in my opinion. Entertainment considerations must far outweigh the particular kind of performance the entertainer may elect to give.

Still under the head of showmanship, the particular vehicle having been selected, the entertainer must give consideration as to how his offering may be adapted for maximum entertainment results. This must be taken, always, from the viewpoint of the spectator.

After all of these important factors have been provided, then the entertainer becomes the magician.

The next step, it would seem, should be a thorough study of the mechanics of the particular entertainment field selected-in this case magic. THE TRICK BRAIN is intended to provide the basis for this second phase.

It seeks to uncover the mechanics of magic. Through a thorough discussion of the basic effects and the mechanical means through which they may be accomplished, a general foundation in the elements of the mechanics of magic is made available.

But a secondary purpose is also accomplished. The trick invention feature, I must continue to insist, is auxiliary to the fundamental idea. Yet it is important from the entertainment viewpoint.

Original tricks are important in the entertainment field because psychologically they should fit the personalities of their inventors. Really we don't need any more new tricks-as tricks. We have thousands now that we can never use. There are other thousands that should never be presented.

But we do need more tricks fitting the specific personalities of the individual performers themselves. This calls for new tricks. They must be new because the usual stock tricks-even the classics, so-called-are general. They are fitted to no particular personality. They are not suitable for all performers. In fact, many classics, like The Linking Rings, The Multiplying Billiard Balls, The Egg Bag, The Thirty Card Trick, The Cups and Balls, and many others, do not fit all magicians. Many magicians, skillful enough themselves, cannot perform some or all of them because they are out of keeping with that particular performer's style, personality, attack and other characteristics.

Technically, they may be able to execute many of them-or even all. But when these magicians attempt them in public, they fail to get maximum results because of something discordant or inconsonant in the combination of man and trick. To the degree that a magician fits the pattern of performers who have been successful with the classics, he will be successful with them.

But this is not advantageous to the individual magician. It forces him to conform to the common mold. It is only reasonable to assume from this that he loses individuality in the process.

Tricks that are tailor-made to the individual magician obviously should be best for him. Common logic should reveal this.

I realize that all magicians cannot be inventors. Some lack certain qualifications. Others are essentially performers, not inventors. Yet an understanding of the fundamentals of invention will help the individual performer to shape his magic in such a way that it may fit him best. This shaping may be in the details of method. It may be in the objects with which the trick is done. Or it may even be in the general effect. There are so many considerations that enter into the matter that discussion is difficult.

To emphasize that the classics have not been found suitable for all performers, let me cite a few cases: Of the list enumerated above I never saw Thurston perform any of them in public. Neither can I remember Blackstone using them in his program. Dante has used the billiard ball trick. Frakson features the ring trick. Cardini does a version of the billiard ball trick, but not the classic method. And recent performers of The Cups and Balls have varied it, as will be recalled in the performances of Gali-Gali, Scarne, Albenice and many, many others.

If you will review the programs of the various good magicians you have seen, you will find, I am certain, the classics have appeared only occasionally in, the individual performances, sometimes not at all, and often with marked variation in routine or method.

Even the slightest variation requires some degree of invention, however small.

The invention feature of THE TRICK BRAIN supplies material of value because it adds novelty to the general repertoire of magic.

In commenting on THE TRICK BRAIN, some reviewers observed that the mechanical invention feature lacks an essential spark of life. Most readily, it is agreed that there is no spark of life. But I take the position that NO trick in itself has any spark of life. It doesn't get life until the essential spark is supplied by the performer during the actual performance.

Again, other comments questioned the product of the trick invention feature. They questioned the value of the tricks so developed. They asked if tricks thus conceived would have that mark of greatness that is revealed by the classics.

First, I quarrel with the idea that any trick in itself is great. In my belief, tricks are only great because of greatness given them through great performances. I feel that these tricks we term "classics" have become so through the life breathed into them by those who have performed them.

The best answer to any contrary claim would be to cite that any of our classics become downright dismal when poorly presented.

Let's look at these classics to see what life they possess:

A number of rings, apparently solid, become linked and unlinked. That is the trick plot of The Linking Rings.

A small wooden ball appears. Then there are two, three and finally, four. They disappear one by one. Such is the trick plot of The Multiplying Billiard Balls.

An egg, placed in a small cloth bag, disappears. Finally, it is found to be in the bag again. You, of course, recognize the trick plot of The Egg Bag.

Two packets of fifteen cards each are counted out. They are placed in different locations. Three cards leave one packet and mysteriously travel to the other. The trick plot of The Thirty Card Trick has been told completely.

A number of small balls mysteriously appear under any of three cups. Then they variously appear and disappear under various cups.

Be frank with yourself. Can you find the essential spark of life in any of those trick plots? Can you find that ingredient which caused them to become classics?

I think not. Frankly, I don't think the vital ingredients are there. I don't think you will find life in any trick plot. That's why I feel that the trick plots evolved through THE TRICK BRAIN may be equal or superior to those tricks we have chosen as classics.

Well, where is this life?

It can't very well be in method. Methods in all of these classics have changed through the years. For example, consider The Linking Rings. They are being done now with stratagems unknown a few decades ago. In illustration, I might cite the Clash Link of Laurant, Hilliard's devices with the large ring, or those I incorporated in THE ORIENTAL RINGS, utilizing the smaller ring.

Methods for the billiard ball trick have been evolved and changed. Egg bag methods are innumerable. No two first-class performers, I venture to say, utilize identical methods in The Thirty Card Trick.

No. I don't believe a trick becomes great through method.

Then what is there left?

Presentation might be the answer. Perhaps these classics came into common use through outstanding performance at first. It is possible that one performer may have been originally responsible for each. Through outstanding presentation attention might have been concentrated upon them.

In those days one could not send a check to a magic dealer and get back Number Thirty-seven from The Professional Catalogue. In the early days of the classics new tricks came the hard way.

Professor Soandso might make quite a feature out of a trick with some welded iron rings. Professor Notsosmart hears about it. So he disguises himself as a customer and goes to see Professor Soandso. He sees the trick, figures out a way of doing it-or else gets Professor Soandso's assistant drunk and learns the secret.

So Professor Notsosmart's repertoire increases from one trick to two tricks.

But there are numerous Professor Soandsos. And many more Professor Notsosmarts. Soon the whole thing gets all mixed up. Now lots of professors are doing lots of tricks. Those tricks that are most generally adaptable to the styles and abilities of the average practitioners are done so often by so many magicians that they become common.

And so a classic is born.

It becomes a classic because it fits the average style and the average abilities.

And where is that spark of life? In the classic? No.

Hell, gentlemen, the only spark of life evident in the whole proceedings is the spark of life shown by the Professor Notsosmarts. They were lively, indeed.

The same process is going on today.

Individual magicians will develop a new trick plot or a new method, or an individual inventor or manufacturer will put a new trick on the market. If the trick fits the average style and the average abilities, it becomes an item that is seen frequently in the repertoires of many magicians.

But let that trick have something in its style or method which does not fit the average magician, or which is beyond his abilities-from the standpoint of presentation, character, method or other essential quality-and that trick remains exclusive to the first performer or inventor, whichever the case may be. It will never be referred to as a classic.

A "classic," you see, is a trick whose secret is known by magicians generally. It is a trick that the average magician can present effectively. But because it is a classic, it does not necessarily follow that it is the best trick for you.

Objection has been raised to the arbitrary selection method set forth in THE TRICK BRAIN. Some critics feel that it is not sufficiently adult.

Well, here is my answer:

Years of research are made available in THE TRICK BRAIN. This research is organized experience.

When you consider a problem, any problem, the channels into which your thought is directed are largely encountered by chance. All thoughts arise as the result of stimuli. One type of stimulus will direct your thought in one direction. Another will divert it elsewhere. This and that idea come to us. These ideas are suggested by numerous stimuli of varying types from varying sources. So a considerable part of our thinking, and the course it takes, is due to chance.

The arbitrary selection method set forth in THE TRICK BRAIN is intended, as explained in that work, to break up old idea associations. It directs the thought into the various channels developed through the research made available to the reader. Perhaps, some of these avenues would never be explored but for the fact that the experimenter is forced in that direction by the arbitrary selection method.

The tie-up of the "organized experience"-supplied through the research-and this arbitrary exploration of new paths is definitely bound to open up new vistas to the thinker. These are vistas which, perhaps, he would never encounter were he left to the normal idea association field as represented in the conventional "thinking around" a problem. Perhaps, the ultimate result may be the same in either case. But the latter is much slower and, undoubtedly, will never touch some of the ground the arbitrary method will force.

Showmanship considerations have prompted viewing presented magic from the viewpoint of the spectator.

Magical methods have necessitated examining the mechanics of magic from the confidential and exclusive coign of the magician.

Now we encounter the mental processes required by magic. These are from two viewpoints. Naturally, we must consider the aspect of magic from the viewpoint of the spectator. But the spectator's ultimate understanding of the happenings during the demonstration of a trick is quite at variance with what the magician knows to be true. This, of course, assumes that the magician's attempts at deception have been successful.

Throughout the entire presentation of a trick, the spectator is thinking. He is agreeing or disagreeing. He is convinced or unconvinced. Things seem natural and reasonable-although appearances may be otherwise. Or they seem unnatural and unreasonable. He is either deceived or not deceived.

This work undertakes to explore the psychology of deception. It will try to present the viewpoints of both the spectator and the magician. These are opposed, naturally.

Much the most important phase of magic is the attack the magician makes upon the spectator's mind. Ultimately it is the spectator's mind which must be deceived, or there is no deception whatever. All of the apparatus we use, all of the secret gimmicks we employ, all of the sleights and stratagems we invoke-everything which identifies magic as mystery-the whole is designed to deceive the mind, and the mind alone, of the spectator.

Regardless of which of the five senses the spectator uses to form his initial impressions, his final conclusions arise from thought processes in his mind.

How these processes develop, what factors enter into the final mixture to cause the spectator to react as he does, and other related phases of this phenomenon shall interest us here. These matters are not simple. They are extremely complex. Like all affairs of the mind, they depend upon complicated interrelations of thoughts, impressions, intuitions, ideas, and conclusions. The individual's heredity, environment, education and character influence them.

Often extremely subtle factors affect the result.

Because of the complexity of the problem, setting forth the fundamentals of the psychology of deception is going to be extremely difficult. It is being undertaken with considerable temerity on my part. Naturally, what I may say here only expresses my own viewpoint. I've said it before, but it is only prudent to repeat it: I am not omniscient. I realize I have been wrong about many things many times.

So please accept this attempt to organize the principles of the psychology of deception simply as an expression of my own analysis of the matter. When a more reasonable or more workable or more authoritative work in this field is available, throw this away and give me credit for trying.

Because this is a work on psychology it will be necessary to use certain stock trade-marks or it won't be legal. Here they are: Freud, James, Freud, Lange, Freud, ________(I've put in the blank spaces so you may add any of your own pets, to make it complete for you.) I fully intend this to be the last time that any of those names shall appear in this work.

Perhaps that alone will be an inducement to follow along with me for a while. <-|!*!|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|->