We do things no one can see?

Not how/what you do but the way that you do it? If I'm right in thinking that's the simple gist of what you're saying, I think you're incredibly spot on. I'd write more, but it's 00:15 am and I'm rather tired. Look forward to reading more on this.

- Sean

I found all your posts to be so helpful for my magic, so Thank you.
And by the way I got lots out of your "blabbing" .

cheers
Tobelli

Great post, definately helpful. Thank you.

Regards.

Hi, I'm currently working on my cascade control so that was a perfectly timed post!

Slightly off topic now… Although I've been doing magic many years, I've only just come across this blog. I'm really enjoying going through the archives of it, and noticed a while ago you'd done a video tutorial/thoughts on the double pushoff. However you removed it due to lack of credits and said you'd repost it. I was just wondering if this was still available or reposted anywhere as I'd be really interesting in seeing your take on it.

Thanks
N

P.S I just happened to stumble across a video that is a *perfect* example of your point…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONlKa2KkvDU&fe...

It's incredible, it's almost as if he's actively trying to do everything you warn against.

thanks for that example. I think the main point is that many magicians just don't think like what is stated above. They read a move and learn it and think that's how it is done. In his mind, he is doing a move. What is he integrating it to? Nothing. People can say that he hasn't practiced enough or that the technique he is using is flawed, but then why does he still learn it wrongly? Doesn't looking in the mirror tell him that it just isn't that good? That's the illusion, why do magicians not see how horrible the construction of the move is when its starring them in the face?

I feel that some moves stand out as moves because they don't fit with your regular card handling no matter how casual it is. I honestly have a problem with the cascade control because in performance I don't do cascades regularly, the use of it can telegraph the fact that you did something, I mean if the only time I cascade the cards is after you picked one, wouldn't that seem a little weird. I feel that If you want to use moves that mimic a fair action you have to make the real action part of your handling style. I feel that your moves should be cleverly selected.

I actually think this is particularly prevalent in coin magic.

Coin magicians tend to throw in a ton of aquitments, trying to prove that their hands are empty, but instead, they just tip off the spectators that they are transferring unseen things from hand to hand. Even if you don't flash, spectators aren't stupid and they can see the awkward movements of the hands and guess what is going on.

Here's another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-lT3Uv0IM&fm...
The technique is not "bad" per se, they are actually executed with decent proficiency. But he seems to think that just because the techniques keep the spectator from seeing extra coins, it also keeps the spectators from understanding that other coins exist and how they are switched. And that is just not true.

I don't ever understand when magicians say that. What is normal for a magician? should we handle cards like a laymen dropping it everywhere? What normal is is what you make of it. I don't think a layman will think… man he does a great thumb-fan… but why did he cascade the cards… seems so out of place.

It's only out of place if your body language makes it out of place. Just like anything, you can learn it to make it apart of you.

I agree about cascading without reason. When I do it I say "So your card is somewhere in here…. yeah?" and they say "yes". you got them convinced that their card is still lost, and the cascading is to tell them it could be in here.. anywhere. When you do the move like you are trying to be fair… no breaks or anything, and your body language is like that, then they don't suspect a thing.

Hell… why the hell would you do a double undercut for no reason. That is more out of place I think, and plus they know you are trying to cut to the card.

When is the "internet magic community" going to be done with the cascade control? Seriously, this move was beaten to death months ago.

yeah. sorry about that. I meant to use the double undercut doing the video. my bad.

Surely it is another sign of value and respect towards the great Charlie Miller. I can only see it as a positive thing when we, as magicians, are referring back to classic sleights and mastering them, rather than being concerned with the great "new" sleight sold by E.

that video is a good example. I LOVE Spellbound, but I hate all the routines out there… All the moves screams out switching coins. But what if you could do one that is more… gritty. Like rubbing the coin. Not so showy.

There is nothing bad about talking about the cascade control. Maybe not all of use beat it to death "Months ago". And the post / video is not specifically about the cascade control… did you even read/ watch them? It is about "sleights" and over-prepping or finishing them unnaturally. Tony can use any sleight to accomplish this task in proving a point. Yes, there are NEWER, non "beaten-to-death" sleights he could have chosen, but the cascade control was a pretty good example of what he was trying to discuss.

There is nothing bad about talking about the cascade control. Maybe not all of us beat it to death "Months ago". And the post / video is not specifically about the cascade control… did you even read/ watch them? It is about "sleights" and over-prepping or finishing them unnaturally. Tony can use any sleight to accomplish this task in proving a point. Yes, there are NEWER, non "beaten-to-death" sleights he could have chosen, but the cascade control was a pretty good example of what he was trying to discuss.

What do you mean this move was beaten to death? Does it not work in front of laymen anymore? Just because 100% of the magic community is obsessed with a move or a concept at any given time doesn't mean the same proportion of the lay public is aware of it.

This is one of the reasons I love your blog so damn much. Your thoughts always provide some great insight to improve, and help others improve.

But bleh, your control is to damn smooth.

Wouldn't your justification for the double undercut be that you're cutting the card into the center?

However, different controls are for different people – the more you do the waterfall just while talking or flourishing, the more convincing your cascade control becomes. The same goes for the cherry control- if people have seen you fanning the cards before, they have no reason to suspect why this fan controlled their card to the top, especially when your patter is "the card was lost somewhere here, right?" as you point to the center of the fan.

I would understand that… but are you really convincing the spectator that you are doing that? If i was a laymen and i put the card back in the MIDDLE and without anything being said, he just cuts the deck. Obviously i am thinking you are trying to control the card. Hate to break the illusion… people know you can stick your little finger into the deck and keep place of the card.

It isn't about the sleight itself. Magicians are so caught up about the revelation of the card that they forgot to make the trick seem impossible by loosing their card.

The whole debate of if a Fan or cascade looks "natural" is a stupid one. The way you spread the cards, the way you perform a double lift is way different than any laymen. Do they suspect that you are doing something weird? Hope not. Why? Because it has become you. That's what a SKILLED person with cards does.

I absolutely agree with Tony. Like some people are very quick to offer a reach around to other magi at, say a magic convention, or even when hanging out. What they never think of, though, is how to get into and out of it, so it's not that awkward, especially when there's a less than explosive finish.

Godd job, keep em coming

Mr. Chang, my apologies for arriving so late to this party. My invitation arrived just now.

First off, allow me to address the idea of normal handling. You are a magician, and as such people expect a proficiency in what you do. I strongly disagree with anyone that purposely tries to make their handling of cards clumsy. You do not see Yo-Yo Ma treat his cello disgracefully, nor Bobby Fischer (R.I.P.) knock over chess pieces. It is only right of you to have a graceful handling of the cards. What this means to you may be different from another magician. Dai Vernon does not flourish the same way that Dave Buck does. However, no matter how flashy or bright a move is, so long as it is done comfortably and expertly, you take it as normal. It simply is how that person handles the cards. Do not judge yourself by how others handle their tools. Rather, allow your preferences and tendencies to express themselves in your flourishing–and your sleights. Otherwise, you are simply a second hand performer copying the mould set by others before you. Your flourishes, your sleights, and every part of your performance is an extension of you–whether it is the part that you have copied or the part that is yours.

Very recently I had the experience of seeing a magician as a spectator. Not only that, as a spectator watching a sub par parade of tricks and patter. Instead of presenting himself, this magician relied on the brilliance of the trick creators to carry him through. I can hold the magician guilty for nothing, perhaps other than the fault of ignorance–but you do not scream at a child that knows no better. For one, I hid my knowledge of magic as best as my ego would dare. And secondly, I was in a magic store, and he was undoubtedly trying to entice me to make several purchases. Regardless, I am thankful to him for showing me what my audience sees when I am not performing well; when I perform to the audience, not for the audience, or even worse, masturbate under limelight while forcing people to watch–and expect them to enjoy it. Perhaps in another discipline, but not this.

Specifically, though I wasn't aware exactly of what sleights he used or what methods accomplished his means, I knew something had gone on. Instead of being directed to believe the presentation, I found myself in my head analysing where he was telling the truth and where he had lied. There was no effective theatrical suspension of disbelief. It was like watching "The Haunting of Molly Hartley" all over again, though I didn't consciously know it at the time. Incidentally, I recommend that movie if you for whatever reason decide to waste two precious hours of your life. I could sense where something had gone on. And though my senses were deceived, my intellect knew that something was wrong.

Our magic relies very much on how well our audience trusts us. This is something that Tony has brought up before, actually, that we should not be performing against our spectators. It's not magician versus spectator. Or at the very least, that's not where you want the performance to end with. Instead of battling the spectators about whether or not something can be done, and whether or not I was doing a move here or using patter there, I think magic is both you and your audience walking together to Wonderland. I may be wrong, and that may be yet another far fetched and underdeveloped analogy, but this is how I view my magic. I want me and the audience to be witnesses to the magical phenomenon—not gladiators showing off our knowledge and skills against each other. If anyone has any thoughts on this, to the contrary or in accord, please speak up.

Initially, of course, your audience will be apprehensive. The statements, “Who is this guy?; What does he want?; Is that a playing card tie?; And get your mouse mat off of our dinner table you rude and obnoxious fat man!” come to mind. This is where you may or may not choose to battle your spectators. Either approach can work, depending on the performer. The goal, however, is to gain your audiences rapport, trust, interest, and attention. It is not to show off to the audience, or to let them in on the secret. Those are the extremes of battling and of walking together, and neither leads to magic. A different experience, which may be what you are going for, but definitely not magic. Instead you want to be the guide, and for that you have to remain somewhat aloof while still having their confidence. Ender Wiggin would not have won the Formic War without the trust of his commanders, but with their friendship he would have lost it. A guide, a mentor, and a magician needs to be personally distant from his audience, though presentationally intimate. You're not buddies, when you are doing magic, but you're not rivals either. You are the guide, and they follow you.

This is important to the topic in hand because far too many people—and yes, I use the term people here indicating not the magician aspect of their personality but their human aspect—negate the magical effect by making the performance too intimate or too combative. You become either a friend and storyteller or a fiend and show-off. I've repeated myself many times now because I want to hammer in the distinction. A magician is a guide. You lead the way to your world of magic. Got it?

To do that, not only do we have to posses a thoughtful grasp of what we believe to be that world of magic in order to know where we want to go, but also to have a competent handling of our tools and materials in order to get their safely. First we have to know where we want to go—this is your personal theory of magic—then we have to know how to get there—this is your handling of your cards, coins, spongeballs, tablesaw, mirrors, fans, rabbits, and whatever else you use. You don't want to lose any of your spectators along the way. And any unskillful handling will definitely lose spectators.

As human beings, our natural environment is other human beings. Think about that for a second. We can live anywhere in this world, from an island built on magma, to a desert of scorching heat, to an arctic wilderness, to a mysterious forest, to a modern city. The location is not the environment. It's those other human beings around us. The ones that keep us alive; the ones that are our greatest natural resource, and as such our greatest natural predator. We can't survive alone for too long—the mind goes awry, and even if we were able to survive on a deserted island as a single organism, we would still be an evolutionary dead end without a reproductive partner.

As such, human beings have innate mechanisms tuned in to other human beings. We know when someone is happy, someone is sad, someone is angry, someone is ecstatic, someone is to be comforted, someone is to be left alone. And most importantly, we have evolved the ability to know when someone is to be trusted and when someone is to be distrusted. We had to—otherwise we would get killed by someone planning to backstab us. Our ability to distinguish whether or not to someone is genuine or manipulative is a precise and unique ability. As such, we always, ALWAYS, intuitively know whether or not someone is lying. We sometimes disregard that intuition based on emotions, presented information, or past experiences, bu hat intuition should not be so easily discarded. We also have a system designed to bypass that mechanism of intuition. It's called self-deception. When you belief what you are doing with absolute certainty, well, that intuition believes it also. This is where your critical thinking and rational mind needs to analyse the presented information and make a decision based on given facts. No matter how right someone feels about the existence of God, regardless of your beliefs you have to examine their belief and why you should belief them based on evidence and why they belief it.

…

Whoo.

Why the lecture on that?

Quite simply, because as magicians our audiences know when we are lying. They may not know it consciously, or worse they know it consciously and do not voice it to you, but they know it. And unless you really did lose their card (even if you forgot it only for a second), or you really did not know where it could be (because you forgot if it was before or after the key card), they'll know that you really don't NOT KNOW what it is. They know that you know. Unless you REALLY DON'T know.

The very first thing I performed for strangers was a card divination. I used the presentation of Hellstromism, and used a card stack to accomplish the effect—Three Kings I started with, then made my own. But because in those first days I was still not fully comfortable with the stack, I had to think hard and remember the arrangement. And as I held my spectator by the wrist, and shut silent in order to focus on their card, they really thought I was feeling their body. They really thought I could know their card by their pulse. Because I REALLY WAS focusing on what their card could be. In a way that was different from what they believed, but focusing in the way they expected nonetheless. And that made me believable. It made me seem genuine and honest.

I miss those days of blissful ignorance. Now, when I became proficient in the stack I would know what their card was immediately and it wouldn't be believable anymore, but at the time it worked well. In fact, the times when I genuinely panicked and didn't know the expected outcomes were the most believable. I'm not saying to be underprepared and incompetent, but to forget the outcome. When you expect what's coming next and focus on that, so do your spectators. And that way you both miss out on what's happening now in the current action. And that loses a lot the build-up and ideas needed for the climax of an effect.

There is an idea in theatre of forgetting your lines. This doesn't mean to not learn them, or to learn them and then forget them. Rather, it means to not anticipate your lines, to let it come naturally because you know the motivation behind them. You do not focus on the outcome, or the words that you know need to be said. That makes it mechanical and unpleasant. You instead let what the other actors genuinely affect you and then react. You don't wait for the cue to trigger your lines; you let their words and the meaning behind those words sink in and affect you. Then and only then do you react—and that way it is true, honest, genuine, and believable.

So how about it?

Self-deception.

Bless,
–Badger