After reading Luck be a lady I thought it would be appropriate to make some comments on the dierence between Mental Magic and Mentalism. There really is a dierence. A magician who does mentalism, in my opinion, has no notion of convincing his audience that he has any special powers. When book-ended by a card to pocket routine and perhaps the Misers dream, the mentalism eect becomes another trick. This is not to say that it is a bad trick. But think about this for a moment. The audience knows you are using sleight of hand when youre doing a card trick and many magicians make an eort not to down play this by acrobatic cuts and shues. In the back of the mind there is the idea or solution: hes fast with his hands. The card or coin eect, for example, can be very powerful nonetheless but I believe it to be hindered by what the spectator is thinking. It is as simple as the human mind back-tracking a French Drop they saw the coin last in the other hand and their minds tell them to look their. But if the mentalist avoids these ashy cuts and hands the deck to a spectator to shue and then tells them the
name of the card just thought
of there is no apparent solution. For example, watch Derrick Dingle or Michael Ammar do the Rollover Aces. Then watch David Berglas fan a deck of cards, a card is merely thought of, and he tells the spectator what the card is. Both are great eects, but one is more powerful than the other. I learned this in performance. Barry Richardsons new book, Curtain Call, has an eect named All Gone. Essentially a divination eect with the revealing of a thought of name. Now, when you reveal a card it is a fairly impersonal thing. The 4 of Hearts does not provoke an emotional response. But after eliminating the 4 extra business cards in the eect above I revealed the thought of name of a close friend that I couldnt possibly (!) know. The impact was physically staggering to the spectator. There is no framework of personal experience around the name of a card that was selected. But there most denitely is with the revelation of a personal name. All of the inertia of the personal relationship is behind that name and when it is revealed that inertia is immediately brought to the fore-
front and adds itself to the
impact of the trick itself. And there is no visible possible solution to the eect. This highlights another dierence between mental magic and mentalism. The impact of mental magic does not mess with the belief system of the spectator. Adding numbers together, using apparatus that is shiny and other props lend itself to the world of magic equipment. The spectator might even think, if I had that special wallet or box I could do the trick as well. But when Berglas does his card at any number there is the natural attribution of an ability far beyond the normal senses of a human being. Im not advocating trying to impress your audience with the idea that you have special powers. But the impact of the eect should leave the spectator with not only the art of astonishment but with the lingering experience of the eect far beyond the moment of presentation. Here is an example of what I mean. The magician shows a spectator a business card and asks them to write a time down. Then another spectator randomly sets the watch to a time only he knows. They match. This not only is very
Page 16
The Battle Mental Magic vs. Mentalism continued
impersonal but leaves the impression in the mind of the spectator that the watch is the method, whatever that means. Now the mentalist he asks the female spectator to think of a time that was important in her past the birth of a child, the time she got married, or the moment she said yes to a proposal. Then her husband is asked to set a watch time hoping to tune in on his mates thoughts (note he is not instructed to guess the time on the card). All the emphasis is upon the people and not the procedure or props. The watch matches the time the spectator thought of. What Im really advocating is an intrinsic part of story telling. The key element of story telling, other than the careful use of words, is the personal investment of the hearer in the characters of the story. Stephen King is a master at this. In his horror novel, It, for example, the reader is introduced to a small group of adolescent mists children who for one reason or another are outcasts who come together, bonded with each other because of their backgrounds. Each of us can relate because our past experiences hook us into the experiences of the
characters a boy who lost a
brother to death, a geeky kid who likes to bird watch, a little girl abused by her father, an asthmatic, undersized and over-mothered child and the class bully who takes it out on all of them. The bridge between the reader and the characters is the identication of experience. This is what is terribly lacking in mental magic. Im not advocating, as do some, that every eect be a tear-jerker, heart-rendering trek to ones past experience. Nor am I advocating that every eect has to have some emotional story framing it. But I am advocating placing the spectator as the central prop (I know that sounds bad) in the small play let). Heres another example. There is now a standard plot in mentalism where three items are secretly hid in the spectators pocket. The magician tells them where they placed them. The emphasis is all upon the method, or so it seems to me. But my presentation of this, See Saw, changes it all (Wayne Dobson markets a version of this and Alakazam markets their Stealth Assassin Wallet with the eect Cash Cabaret). Instead of three bills being hidden, a 20.00 bill, a credit card, and a
business card are merely
touched to the spectators head, heart, and soul (sole of their shoe) away from the magicians sight. They are then placed on the table and mixed up. The presentation focuses upon the spectators emotions concerning each one of these items; i.e., the 20.00 is easily spendable, the credit card has to have a number that is known and the business card is relatively worthless nancially. It is not terribly emotionally heavy at all, but draws upon our common experience with these three items. One is a puzzle. The other is puzzling because the implication is the mentalist has to tune into something other than a prop that enables him to know which has gone where. One excellent example of what Ive been saying is Barry Richardson. Either watching his L&L videos or in his books you discover the personal stories that frame his presentations and are drawn into the eects such as Angels Flight - a cards across routine of all things. Heres to better mentalism and mental magic.