Justification for your sleights...

[Sam Hardy]

Hey guys,

I was thinking about developing patter for a small card routine the other day, and a thought hit me. And it's this thought that I want to share and discuss with you.

As I began to develop this patter, I decided to take on the mindset of a layperson. I videoed my performance of this piece, and then sat and thought; "What kind of dialogue would make this convincing?".

And I found that as I did each 'move', I didn't want myself to talk about how much more special the Aces are than other cards. This isn't justifying why I'm covering the deck from view (for example).

Gradually, the idea came to me that the moves you do in your magic must be justified. Don't jump to any conclusions just yet, let me explain in a little more detail.

Picture it yourself. A magician comes up to you, and after the small talk, he begins an Ambitious Card Routine. He says;

"Now, it's interesting you picked the Six of hearts..." He takes the card, and inserts it into the deck. "I'll take it, and put it into the deck". As he finishes his sentence, his palms shoot upwards as he executes a pass. "And now, watch... I click my fingers - and it's back at the top of the deck!"
This'll probably generate mediocre reactions.

If we take the same small routine, and really justify the sleights and actions you're doing, we get a much more powerful piece of magic. Let me explain again with an example of what the modified script would look like.

"Now, watch closely. This is your card, yes? Which you chose completely freely from the deck? Well, I asked you to do that for a reason, and it's because I want to show you something interesting I discovered not long ago. Let me explain. If I take your card, like this, and I bury it into the pack - about half way down - it's now clear it's physically impossible for the top card to be yours. Now, watch, if I wave my hands a bit like this... your card travels - inconceivably - through not just one, but twenty six cards, melting through them until it reaches the top of the deck. A miracle, it seems."

This is just a small example. By giving reasons for what you are doing, it eliminates that doubt in your spectator's mind that your actions are suspicious.

However, this type of convincing will only work well if you're confident. You really have to make the spectator believe your lie, and when you do, it really pays off.

I soon intend to film two separate videos with separate spectators, one using basic patter and another using what I've just mentioned, as a more visual demonstration. They should both be up by the end of the week - I just feel that text on its own makes it difficult to explain something like this.

I'm interested on your thoughts on this, please, don't hesitate to reply.

Thanks,

-Sam H

 

[Dylan P.]

Interesting. I am actually working on an ebook prototype about this exact concept. And surprisingly you and I are almost on the exact same train of thought. My ebook is called: "You Have a Reason For Everything, Don't You?" and I may or may not release it.

 

[ThrallMind]

Interesting. I am actually working on an ebook prototype about this exact concept. And surprisingly you and I are almost on the exact same train of thought. My ebook is called: "You Have a Reason For Everything, Don't You?" and I may or may not release it.

Really? Have you actually been writing an e-book, or did you just start after reading this thread...

If you are going to write it and not release it...then what purpose does it serve?

Remember, a reason for everything. ;P

-ThrallMind

 

[Sam Hardy]

Dylan, I PM'ed you.

-Sam H

 

[RDChopper]

Hey guys,

I was thinking about developing patter for a small card routine the other day, and a thought hit me. And it's this thought that I want to share and discuss with you.

As I began to develop this patter, I decided to take on the mindset of a layperson. I videoed my performance of this piece, and then sat and thought; "What kind of dialogue would make this convincing?".

And I found that as I did each 'move', I didn't want myself to talk about how much more special the Aces are than other cards. This isn't justifying why I'm covering the deck from view (for example).

Gradually, the idea came to me that the moves you do in your magic must be justified. Don't jump to any conclusions just yet, let me explain in a little more detail.

Picture it yourself. A magician comes up to you, and after the small talk, he begins an Ambitious Card Routine. He says;

"Now, it's interesting you picked the Six of hearts..." He takes the card, and inserts it into the deck. "I'll take it, and put it into the deck". As he finishes his sentence, his palms shoot upwards as he executes a pass. "And now, watch... I click my fingers - and it's back at the top of the deck!"
This'll probably generate mediocre reactions.

If we take the same small routine, and really justify the sleights and actions you're doing, we get a much more powerful piece of magic. Let me explain again with an example of what the modified script would look like.

"Now, watch closely. This is your card, yes? Which you chose completely freely from the deck? Well, I asked you to do that for a reason, and it's because I want to show you something interesting I discovered not long ago. Let me explain. If I take your card, like this, and I bury it into the pack - about half way down - it's now clear it's physically impossible for the top card to be yours. Now, watch, if I wave my hands a bit like this... your card travels - inconceivably - through not just one, but twenty six cards, melting through them until it reaches the top of the deck. A miracle, it seems."

This is just a small example. By giving reasons for what you are doing, it eliminates that doubt in your spectator's mind that your actions are suspicious.

However, this type of convincing will only work well if you're confident. You really have to make the spectator believe your lie, and when you do, it really pays off.

I soon intend to film two separate videos with separate spectators, one using basic patter and another using what I've just mentioned, as a more visual demonstration. They should both be up by the end of the week - I just feel that text on its own makes it difficult to explain something like this.

I'm interested on your thoughts on this, please, don't hesitate to reply.

Thanks,

-Sam H

Very nice sir! aaron fisher actually talks about this in his book "the paper engine" if you are into this kind of thoughts, then I suggest you to read it, awesome stuff regarding when to perfrom sleights and how to make them as strong as posible.

 

[Dylan P.]

Really? Have you actually been writing an e-book, or did you just start after reading this thread...

If you are going to write it and not release it...then what purpose does it serve?

Remember, a reason for everything. ;P

-ThrallMind

No. I have been writing it for about 1 month but only have one and a half little chapters done. The reason I say it might no be released is because I have a TON of things going on right now and that ebook is not my top priority. But if I do wind up completeing it then I will release it.

 

[SimSiggaard]

I understand what you are thinking, but I believe something is wrong with this kind of thinking.

I think the problem of making patter like this, is that we stop showing magic, but instead showing the audience incredible sleights. If that is what we want, well, I guess that's the patter to go.

I say it's a problem, but I don't actually know whether or not that's the case. You are basicly just saying to the laymen, that what you are doing, is no longer magic, but pure sleights. My fear is, that this won't play big with "mere" card tricks. Cards, I think, have to be magical in some sense, whereas mentalism could well carry all this, "This isn't really magic, its just something I say or do"-attitude, because the classic mentalism plot is much less tangible than the plot of a card trick.

I think this is a subject that could be discussed for a long time. Often, I've asked myself, "would it make my audience's experience better if I just "came clean" and said, that this is something I can do, just because I've put in a lot of time, blood and sweat into my tenchnique, performance, etc. and appeal to their intelligent, rational side, OR should I try to appeal to their creative, naive and childish side, by claiming some sort of magical ability, or at least ignoring the fact, that I indeed have no magical talent whatsoever."

I haven't found the answer yet...

Nice post!

 

[Sam Hardy]

I understand what you are thinking, but I believe something is wrong with this kind of thinking.

I think the problem of making patter like this, is that we stop showing magic, but instead showing the audience incredible sleights. If that is what we want, well, I guess that's the patter to go.

I say it's a problem, but I don't actually know whether or not that's the case. You are basicly just saying to the laymen, that what you are doing, is no longer magic, but pure sleights. My fear is, that this won't play big with "mere" card tricks. Cards, I think, have to be magical in some sense, whereas mentalism could well carry all this, "This isn't really magic, its just something I say or do"-attitude, because the classic mentalism plot is much less tangible than the plot of a card trick.

I think this is a subject that could be discussed for a long time. Often, I've asked myself, "would it make my audience's experience better if I just "came clean" and said, that this is something I can do, just because I've put in a lot of time, blood and sweat into my tenchnique, performance, etc. and appeal to their intelligent, rational side, OR should I try to appeal to their creative, naive and childish side, by claiming some sort of magical ability, or at least ignoring the fact, that I indeed have no magical talent whatsoever."

I haven't found the answer yet...

Nice post!

Hey Sim,

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't believe this is the case. When I say "giving reasons", I don't mean explaining to your spectators that it's sleight of hand, but when you do (for example) take their card back and leave it in the deck, you should explain why. Because; it makes it impossible for it to rise to the top of the deck, or, it makes it completely indistinguishable from other cards, etc, etc.

Thanks for your responses so far,

-Sam H

 

[praetoritevong]

Hmm. Along the same lines - As long as there is justification though, there's no particular reason why it has to be verbal either. I do believe in clean actions, no spare motion.

 

[MagicShadow9]

I believe Darwin Ortiz discusses something along these line in Strong Magic. I completely agree and i have considered this my self a while ago so now i look more carefully at my tricks. If there's a move that seems out of place, then i remove it. It if seems out of place but it's necessary, i change my patter to make a place for the move.

I really like your ACR patter, i should start using stuff like that.

 

[Blaireau]

Freeze and Justify.

If we took a video of a live performance you did, and paused the video at an exact spot, would there be a justification for: 1)where your hands are at that point, 2)how your body is positioned, 3)where your eyes are, 4)where the focus of attention is, and 5)how your hair looks? There's a lot of sub-standard performances out there that leave no justification for anything and deem their spectators to be deaf, dumb, blind, mute, and a vegetable.

Every move we do needs to have a justification. Are your hands coming together just for that pass and then moving away? Why do you show a card on top, then turn it back down, then put it in the center, only to show it back on top again? Why deal the cards facedown? Faceup? Facebook? Bookspace? Spacemy? And above all, why in the world does the card jump to your mouth?

And don't tell me because it's magic. Because that is an answer that I would not have taken even when I was 7.

Your spectators aren't stupid. And even if they were, would you be proud to be a magician that relies on a spectator's stupidity for the success of his magic?

Every move needs to fit into the context of the trick. There is a reason for everything, and your spectators are hungry to know. You've shown them something impossible, now they have to understand why it happens. You don't need to tell them how, but they need to make sense of it's existence. Why does the card jump to the top? Why do all the cards separate into red and black? Why is my chosen card now sandwiched between the aces?

All of this CANNOT be stated outright. NO. You come up with a "the card, you see this, it's signed by you and because like you, it's ambitious...it jumps to the top" and I will find you, take your left shoe, and beat your right ear off. Because I knew a guy with a crippled left foot and Peter took off the guy's right ear.

To say something like that would be patronizing and heavy handed on the cheesy nachostupidpatter.

The context is the subtext, spoken in the unwritten communication of what you are and what you do. It's not communicated mainly by words, but by actions. It's done in hints and subtleties.

And that, is the true mark of the master.


Bless,
--Badger

 

[The Tumbleweed]

Hmmm, John Carney mentioned the exact same thing at a lecture. He believes there should be a reason for every motion. And I mean EVERY motion, apparently The Professor was very strong on the subject, the only problem he had was trying to explain the motions of turning over a face up double lift to take the card off. The closest he came was wiping the table in front of him.

 

[Randy]

I don't think we need justification for what we do. Because then you end up just explaining what you are doing and it looks silly. As Darwin Ortiz would, Actions Speak louder than words. The Professor was very strong on the subject because that his persona, He was The professor. So he had to have some sort reason for why he did everything.

 

[LuseifHo]

I have thought about this before
but I kinda find it pointless.
No one has ever caught onto anything I have done before. and no one has ever asked. I find that proper presentation can beat suspicion.
PS. a pass isnt rly meant to be like a visible move.

 

[The Tumbleweed]

I don't think we need justification for what we do. Because then you end up just explaining what you are doing and it looks silly.

That is completely true, if you're justifying with words.
How do you justify the position your hand is in when a coin is palmed? Don't say you broke it, just put something in your hand to hold, like another coin, or a wand if you're old fashioned.

Just a small example.

 

[Toby]

That is completely true, if you're justifying with words.
How do you justify the position your hand is in when a coin is palmed? Don't say you broke it, just put something in your hand to hold, like another coin, or a wand if you're old fashioned.

Just a small example.

Or practice until your hand can look flat and natural without holding something...

 

[Randy]

Well unless you're really bad at palming coins your hand shouldn't look like anything besides a relaxed hand at your side. Garret Thomas talked about this on Live at the Jailhouse. You false transfer or palm a coin, the hand with the coin automatically drops to your side while you look at the other hand and vanish the coin. It's a logic thing. You take something from one hand, it's going to obviously be loose and drop to your side.

 

[The Tumbleweed]

I don't admit on being an expert on the subject, quite the opposite actually, just passing on what I heard.
However, this example was based off an entire routine in which both hands are always moving or holding something, so it makes sense that they don't just drop to your side all the time.
You've stated that your hand drops to the side during a simple vanish. That's great! But not much about a single vanish needs to be justified.

 

[mini magician]

Hmmm, John Carney mentioned the exact same thing at a lecture. He believes there should be a reason for every motion. And I mean EVERY motion, apparently The Professor was very strong on the subject, the only problem he had was trying to explain the motions of turning over a face up double lift to take the card off. The closest he came was wiping the table in front of him.

Ahh those were the good old days lol John told us about justifying the move whilst he taught us leipzigs Opener. and During his lecture and again during the Dai Vernon Stories

 

[The Tumbleweed]

Ahh those were the good old days lol John told us about justifying the move whilst he taught us leipzigs Opener. and During his lecture and again during the Dai Vernon Stories

About time you showed up!!
Yeah, at the end I wished he'd shut up about it all