Farewell...?

Sorry that there haven't been many updates lately. Truth be told, it almost feels like I've run out of things that are worth talking about. I think that between the Yin/Yang model for appreciating magic, the essays on exposure, and the 12 performing archetypes, I've pretty much tapped out whatever well of theory I had going on in the Ol' Gulliver.

I've been performing lately. I don't want to give away too many details yet -- either this will work out and it'll be worthwhile putting into a book, or it won't work out and it'll be worthwhile keeping it to myself. Suffice to say it's been fun and I'm learning a lot, although it's probably less about learning anything new, and more about getting insight on the stuff we've all been taught.

I joined the Vancouver Magic Circle earlier this year, and it's an interesting time every month. I remember thinking that one of the reasons I wanted to join a society was just to win a contest or something so that I could put "Award Winning" somewhere on my website, but unfortunately it might not be as easy as just showing up... the caliber of guys who perform stuff is actually not bad.

Been doing some editing -- mostly Tyler Erickson's lecture notes for his seminars (some great stuff in there if he ever decides to get off his ass and publish it), and I might be helping out another magician who's writing up his own book.

But I've felt almost no motivation to blog. I almost wonder what the point of blogging for our community is these days. I think part of the problem is a lack of proper dialogue that can occur on blogs, as opposed to the forums. I remember wanting to start a thread over on the Cafe asking people what they wanted to get out of the magic blogging community, and I realized that most of the answers that would be provided would either be things that the forums were already well-suited to provide (and probably better able to, given the size of the community), or else contentious, controversial things that I admit I find fun reading myself, but don't actually have the will to propagate. Can blogs generate new ideas? Maybe, although like I said, I think I've personally run out of those. Even if I had some, I can't help but wonder if in this new age of Twitter people don't want to read more than 30 words at a time -- an immense challenge for my verbal diarrhea condition. Can blogs foster debate? Maybe they can try kick-starting debates off, but I think the dictatorial nature of blog management makes it difficult for the really fun stuff to get off the ground. I think, for the most part, magic blogs are probably going to go the way of most co-opted media... push product, push celebrity status, push brand. Already, recent perusals of The Devil's Picturebook magic blog monitor feel like nothing more than scanning through commercials.

I don't want to be one of those douchebags who's going to make a big deal about future plans of posting. There's nothing sillier than reading a post from some blogger vowing to put more effort into updating their blog regularly, only to see that post dated "2007" or some such, and it's at the top of the main page because there's been nothing since.

I guess I just wanted to share with anybody who's read the blog with any sort of regularity that energy and enthusiasm is low, and there's not likely going to be any more coming for a long time, unless something earth-shattering happens. Don't know when that might happen, or even if it might happen. In all honesty, if I could imagine what might bring that about, I'd be writing about it right now.

So... uh... Farewell...?

UPDATE: A more recent post outlining some recent silly internet fights has been moved back deeper into the blog. If that's your bag, you may read it here. Upon reflection, I just figured it'd be best to have this "Farewell" post mark the blog's finale.

More On The Interrelationship Between Yin and Yang

One thing that's important to note is that while there are instances in which Yin and Yang mesh well together, it is possible for there to be conflict between the two. For instance, there are two points in the "Strengthening Your Magic 'Yin'" which I believe to be fundamentally true, and those are these... All other considerations being equal, I believe that visual magic is stronger in Yin than implied magic, and vanishes and productions of larger objects are also stronger in Yin. Here's a key thing -- I'm not saying they're better magic effects, necessarily, only that they're stronger in Yin.

The distinction between "strong in Yin" and "better magic effect" is important, because sometimes making an alteration in Yin has drawbacks in Yang. Say, for instance, you have the chance to either vanish and reproduce an elephant, or vanish and reproduce a coin. If Yin is the only factor, the elephant wins out. However, Yin is not the only factor, and methods will complicate matters somewhat. We have multiple ways of vanishing and reproducing a coin, so that allows us to build conviction in the effect, giving credibility to the Yin. However, there are only so many ways that we can vanish and reproduce an elephant, and the concessions required (distance, inordinate amount of cover, etc.) have a drastic impact on Yang, which can influence the overall effect.

Which brings us to the concept of visual magic. Again, very strong in Yin, since they get to see the effect and the moment the effect takes place, and there's no misdirection from it. However, so much of the visual magic that we do requires us to do a bad move at a time close to the effect, and the juxtaposition of the two weakens Yang, which has a negative overall effect on Yin. This is one of the great benefits of get-readies and half-moves, in that sometimes the get-ready itself can be covered, leading us into a position whereby when we want to demonstrate an effect (or else pull off the illusion of an innocent action). Then, after we punctuate with a pause or some such, when it becomes time to do the action that has an external reality to it, it's smoother and looks closer to the way it should as if we were using no method.

(At some point I'm going to need to re-write this, and reincorporate it into the previous notes)

Lucifer's Lawyer: On the interrelationship between Yin and Yang

If this whole Yin Yang theory has any merit, then it explains a hell of a lot.

Go to the Cafe or any other forum, and ask people what they think magic is all about, or what magic should be about, and you'll get interesting answers. Observe these answers and you'll see that they frequently fall into two camps based around Yin and Yang. There are performers who believe it's all about entertainment, about making sure people have a good time, about making the magic beautiful-looking, etc. These are Yin thinkers. Then, you'll get performers who aim for conviction and want the impossibility to register. These are Yang thinkers. I personally subscribe (as you might be able to tell from the fact that I've quoted it three times earlier) to the following view, that Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin. I believe that if you place too much stock in Yang, your magic risks being empty, and if you place too much stock in Yin, your magic risks being weak and unconvincing. Obviously there is some leeway, and one can lean one way or the other, perhaps even switching back and forth over the course of a show. Still, I think an overall unwavering discrepancy of one over the other can create a feeling of predictability at best, and monotony at worst. What's more, I think that if people were to acknowledge these two forces and see how they strengthen each other, rather than combat against each other, you'd see a lot of dumb magic theory arguments go away.

On the adage "Don't run when you're not being chased" I think this is indicative of a situation in which the performer wants to inject Yang when he should be content to stick with the Yin. The audience is perfectly content with the presentation as it unfolds, and the performer, out of guilt, wants to resolidify Yang where it's not needed. This can lead to a distraction and a tipping off of the presence of method unnecessarily. One thing that's worth noting, though, is that an effect can change over time, starting with Yin and moving into Yang simply by virtue of repetition. Also, some performers have even stated a preference of wanting to elicit spectators into chasing. The Scientist archetype, for instance, would consider it a failure if he didn't convince somebody of an effect under the highest scrutiny.

Billy McComb had an intriguing idea that you can really only kill an audience once per show. I'm curious about whether or not this can fall into the Yin Yang model. My first impression is that, if he'd been given this model as a way to rephrase the idea, that the final performance would be slightly heavier on the Yang. The reason why I think this is that so many of the blatantly Yin-favoured effects -- such as Paper Balls Over The Head, or else Tommy Wonderish failureffects, or else Penn & Teller exposure-based effects -- could not end a show. It would simply be too much of a deflation. People are drawn to a bold claim, and one thing a bold claim does is after tickling the Yin, bringing about interest in the Yang -- Can he come through on this claim? Is the evidence going to say that he really did it? What's more, a bold claim also relinquishes the element of surprise, which puts them on alert and demands better proofs in order to gain conviction.

Many archetypes quite obviously lean towards one or the other, and I think this is natural. However, I don't know where the Gambling Demonstrator lies in this duality. On the one hand, being able to cheat at cards is a feat heavy in meaning and significance, but on the other, conviction is frequently a part of the equation, as he's constantly reinforcing his claim to power as being legitimate. So, right now, dunno.

If there is a weakness in this model, it's that the Yin embodies many things that are present in other forms of theater, and as such strong Yin is insufficient to show what we feel is magic. Harry Potter movies, for instance, are full of Yin, but have absolutely no Yang because the question of whether or not anything people see is real is dismissed outright as irrelevant. I suppose one could turn around and say there that having all Yang and no Yin means that either you're showing a feat with no theatrical context, which would lean towards Charlatanry if we're talking about impossible-seeming feats. Or, alternately, there's not even art in it, since one can attain complete conviction in something that has nothing to do with art or magic -- isn't this what is done in courtroom trials all the time, the presentation of evidence to support a theory?

More later as I think of them...

Lucifer's Lawyer: Improving your magic "Yang"

This is building on the Yin Yang model for a presented magic effect -- it is an attempt to create axioms that will show how to improve the Yang in the model. A quick review: A magic effect, when performed, will have two aspects at work, first the nature of the effect (Yin), and second, the conviction in the execution of the effect (Yang).

Here are some proposed ideas in order to improve magic "Yang". It is not meant to be an all-inclusive list -- meaning, the aim should not be to pack every single Yang enhancer into the effect. There's only room for so much.

* Whatever your method is, it is proof that you didn't meet a claim of magic (or mindreading, or whatever). Therefore, your method is your trick's greatest obstacle to conviction. It sucks, and therefore must be annihilated from the spectator's consciousness. That is your first priority.

* Even if you can successfully annihilate the actual method, a spectator might believe that you did something else non-magical to make the feat occur. Therefore, after you successfully annihilate the actual method, you must annihilate all other methods.

* To annihilate the suspicion of sleight-of-hand, you must not use sleight-of-hand. If you have to use sleight-of-hand, you should eliminate moves, shows of skill, and feelings that the spectator might have missed an action. You will also benefit by making it seem that you're incapable of sleight-of-hand, either in general or specific to the trick.

* To annihilate the suspicion of gimmicked props, you must not use gimmicked props. If you have to use gimmicked props, you should make them innocent-looking, borrowed (ie: plant the prop), or easily switchable (borrowed and then switched). What's more you must eliminate feelings that you either rely on gimmicked props or else could have used one or switched one in somewhere in the construction. You will also benefit by making it seem like you couldn't have used a gimmicked prop, or wouldn't resort to using such a base method.

* To annihilate the suspicion of self-workingness, you must not use a self-working method. If you have to use a self-working method, you should make the process feel as fair as possible. You will also benefit by making it seem like the process isn't a process at all.

* To annihilate the suspicion of stooges or hidden assistants, you must not use a stooge or a hidden assistant. If you have to use a stooge or hidden assistant, then make sure that they are not memorable and do not draw attention to themselves. They should feel like an entity divorced from the performer. A stooge should feel like any other spectator, and if possible they should effectively camouflage themselves amongst other spectators. You will also benefit by making it seem like all credit should go to you, rather than to any other entity.

* To annihilate the suspicion of misdirection, you must not use misdirection. If you have to use misdirection, the audience should not feel that they were looking away from anything. The best way to make them feel like they didn't miss anything is to ensure they are looking at something important to the effect, if not the effect itself. You will also benefit by continually returning focus to your hands.

* To annihilate the suspicion of a system of outs, you must not use a system of outs. If you have to use a system of outs, make sure (a) each out unfolds identically to other outs for the same trick, or (b) it looks like you're doing a completely different trick.

* If you are using sleight-of-hand, the fewer moves, the better.

* If you are using tricky apparatus, the more examinable the apparatus, the better.

* If you are using a self-working trick, the smaller the process, the better.

* If you are using a stooge, the more innocent the stooge, the better.

* If you are using a system of outs, the more consistent the presentation, the better.

* Sleight-of-hand betrays itself through many movements. As such, it follows that the most convincing sleight-of-hand will feel like no move happened.

* Apparatus betrays itself through introduction by the magician, rather than a spectator. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of apparatus will be one which the spectator supplies itself.

* Self-workingness betrays itself by having a long-drawn out process dictated by the magician. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of self-workingness will be a shorter, clearer process where everything feels controlled by the spectator.

* Stooges and hidden assistants betray themselves by being visible and interactive with the magician in a familiar way. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of stooges or hidden assistants is to make sure they are either psychologically invisible or truly invisible (ie: covered).

* Misdirection betrays itself by the shifting between more than one point of focus. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of misdirection will be one in which there is no apparent shifting of focus.

* Outs betray themselves through inconsistency of presentation. It follows that the external reality of the trick should be consistent each and every time.

* Every method should be analyzed to figure out how it betrays itself. Every method has something damning that has to be concealed -- if it has nothing, then it is not a non-magical method, it's the real deal.

* To annihilate the suspicion of any method that undermines your claim, you must not use a method that undermines your claim. If you have to use a method that undermines your claim, then the ideal situation is for the spectator to be told the method, and for them to reject that explanation outright by virtue of the evidence that they were given during the effect.

* From the standpoint of conviction, the highest level of conviction occurs when they will swear that you did not use, or could not have used, the method that you used. The second highest level is when they do not remember that you could have used the method you used. The third highest level is when they cannot see the method that you used.

* It is normal for a spectator to be suspicious. You are making a false claim. Spectators who guess methods are being absolutely reasonable.

* For moments of magic, the closer it is to your method, the more the two run the risk of being identified as related in a causative way. For sleight-of-hand, punctuation serves as a separating agent between method and effect. This is a corollary to the Yin axiom that visual magic is the best, since visual magic frequently betrays the moment that a method is taking place.

* According to Darwin Ortiz, the critical interval is the time between when a spectator believes the trick has begun and when the spectator believes it has finished. Every action during the critical interval represents a moment when the magician could have done something sneaky. Therefore, the higher the percentage of fair actions, the better.

* According to Wesley James, there are two aspects of illusion when it comes to a move. One if the positive illusion -- you really look like you're doing action A. One is the negative illusion -- you really look like you're not doing mutually exclusive action B. Despite the use of the terms "positive" and "negative", both of these are good illusions to have, and ideally, you can have elements of both. Even though the positive illusion seems to give great credence to Yin, it's possible that a very strong negative illusion can give even greater credence to Yang. Case in point: Paul Gertner's Cups and Balls using steel ball bearings. If he's manipulating the props by hand (ie: using sleight of hand) then it would make sense that the ball bearings would clang against the cups as the props were shuffled around. The lack of this evidence makes a good case for a negative illusion -- it must be magic, because if it were sleight of hand, we'd hear noise.

* According to Al Schneider, there are actions that a spectator will take for granted, and actions that a spectator will evaluate. If this is true, then the more you can conceal the method amongst actions the spectator will take for granted, the better.

* According to Whit Haydn, it is important to elicit agreement about the fairness of a state. It follows then that if you are able to gain agreement about the fairness of a state when the state is unfair, you are in the best position to show the effect (in essence, show proof about the new state).

* According to Dai Vernon, it is important to seek naturalness. The best way to do this is to examine what is unnatural in a context and eliminate it. If it is natural to do 18 Z-flourish cuts, then doing 18 Z-flourish cuts is good. If it is unnatural to turn a card face-down, then turning a card face-down is bad.

* It is possible to use different methods to show the same effect. According to Juan Tamariz, it is important to use methods that allow you to cancel the weaknesses of other methods. If you take this approach, then all evidence should point to every phase being identical, or barring that, as identical as possible.

* Juan Tamariz also spoke about using patter to cancel suspicions. It is important to understand what the most common suspicions are in order to make a given effect work, what the intuitive suspicions are, and to annihilate them.

* It is easier to cancel a method that you're not using than a method that you're using, since you can eliminate all evidence of every possible method except for the method you actually use. Then, the best you can do is conceal.

* Keep in mind that every cancelled suspicion will put other possible explanations under heightened scrutiny. As such, it makes sense that you should cancel your actual method earlier on, pushing them towards a false method that is gaining all of their scrutiny, before finally cancelling that.

* If you want to go beyond effects and build conviction in the cause of the magic, then it would help to be able to portray the same power using a number of methods that cancel each other. Say, for instance, that you're going to show that you can predict the future. It would be weak in Yang to employ a sleight-based force three times. It would be stronger in Yang to perform a sleight-based force once, a gimmicked-based force once, and then use a system of outs afterwards.

* To manipulate and undermine suspicions a spectator might have, you MUST understand what those suspicions are about any effect you do. Research and eliminate.

* This is a fundamental axiom: Your method sucks. You must not cling to it just because it's worked before. Instead, you must constantly evaluate your audience to see if the method will work.

* If you perform for an audience that knows method X, then it is riskier to use method X than it is to use a different method. If you perform for an audience that doesn't know method X, and method X is the most expedient method, use method X.

* The closer they are, the more they can control the prop and the proceedings, the more they can see everything, the greater the conviction in the effect. The further away they are, the less they can control the prop and the proceedings, and the less they are able to take visual account of everything, the weaker the conviction in the effect.

* Conviction wavers over time, unless new proofs are offered during that time. Then, conviction builds over time with each proof.

* Nothing done in the performer's hands will ever be as fair as something done by the spectator themselves. The best false shuffle done by a magician might be good enough to persuade an audience that the deck is shuffled, but it will never be as good as a spectator shuffling the deck themselves.

* Nothing done with a prop that the magician supplies will ever be as fair as something done by a prop supplied by a spectator. A magician-supplied prop might be more aesthetic, more clear, or more expedient, but it will never be as fair.

* Nothing done with a self-working process will ever be as fair as a process truly dictated by a spectator. A magician-directed process might be entertaining, but so long as he maintains control, it is never fair.

* If you claim magic, then your claim is prop-neutral. If your claim is prop-specific, then you are not showing magic, you are showing skill with that prop. The best way to reinforce a claim is to repeat it. However, remember that our method is the key weakness is our effect execution. The best way to let an audience figure out a method that initially fooled them is to repeat that exact same method.

* If you do not tell them what you're about to do, they won't be as ready to know what to be suspicious of. However, while this allows you to fool them, the highest level of conviction will occur when they feel mentally prepared to see the effect, they see it, and then they're baffled anyway.

* It is possible to take advantage of strong Yin to serve as misdirection (in an abstract sense) away from the method. The more they are paying attention to the wand as a source of magic power, the less they are conceiving of the wand as a suspicious method-enabling object. The more they look forward to that moment of apparent mind-reading, the less they are paying attention to the way you handle a billet.

* Yin also provides opportunities to change points of focus, and degree of intensity of focus. A joke can create a release of tension. Intense focus on your part can provoke intensity of focus on their part.

* Yin also creates different problems for conviction. Even if you can convincingly change $1 into $100, then you have an issue where spectators can ask "Well, if he can do that, why is hoping for a tip after the performance?" In general, the lower the claim, the easier it is to gain conviction. The higher the claim, the more evidence is needed to gain conviction. It is also possible to have a claim so high that no amount of evidence will support it.

* Also, if the Yin is weak, it will dilute interest in the Yang. Remember, Yin and Yang are not mutually exclusive: Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin.

* Resources that are good studies for Yang... Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles, pretty much anything by Whit Haydn, Juan Tamariz's The Magic Way, Gary Kurtz's Leading With Your Head (to understand misdirection), (more to come later?)...

Note: This is a first draft, and liable to change.

Lucifer's Lawyer: Improving your magic "Yin"

This is building on the Yin Yang model for a presented magic effect -- it is an attempt to create axioms that will show how to improve the Yin in the model. A quick review: A magic effect, when performed, will have two aspects at work, first the nature of the effect (Yin), and second, the conviction in the execution of the effect (Yang).

Here are some proposed ideas in order to improve magic "Yin". It is not meant to be an all-inclusive list -- meaning, the aim should not be to pack every single Yin enhancer into the effect. There's only room for so much.

* The effect is clear and unambiguous. Refer to Dai Vernon's ideas of a good effect: "I put my foot on the card, and then it changed." vs. "Well, he took four Jacks... or were they Queens? No, they were Jacks, and then he put them in the deck and shuffled, or maybe I shuffled? Can't remember. And then he started dealing some cards and they... oh well, it was very clever, whatever it was he did!"

* The effect is inherently meaningful, or made meaningful in an appropriate way. For instance, the meaning in doing a pickpocket routine where you steal a card from a sealed card case, will not be as strong as actually pickpocketing possessions from somebody.

* The execution is of an entertaining style. In other words, there are aspects of humour, sex appeal, aesthetic beauty, lyrical beauty, metaphorical depth, etc.

* The audience is educated by matters that are interesting to them. For instance, if an audience goes to see how gambling cheats operate, then all things being equal, they will enjoy the experience more if they are given more information. First corollary: By with-holding, you can stimulate their imagination. While this can also be entertaining, if their aim was to learn (or, at least, their aim to learn outstrips their desire to be entertained), they will leave frustrated.

* The atmosphere is appropriate to the setting, the character, and the effect. Relevant and authentic details are added to build upon the atmosphere, and irrelevant and inauthentic details are discarded. The Yin will be strong with a clown doing spongeballs. The Yin will be weak with Criss Angel doing spongeballs (This is also a function of style). This can also be aided if the atmosphere borrows from schemata as it figures into the real world, so long as it is appropriate to the effect.

* Props are chosen so as to highlight important points of effect. For instance, if you want to make two things switch places, it works best if the two things are not identical-looking. Switching a coin and a poker chip is better. Switching a crumpled-up dollar bill with a sugar-packet is better still. (Switching a man with an apple, better still?) This incongruency can also work with numbers (eg: Four Aces switching places with Two Jokers).

* The props are easily-recognized, or else easily-introduced to the audience. The audience should not be unduly distracted by props that feel foreign to the proceedings.

* Movements are kept to a minimum. Punctuation is used to create start-stop gaps that isolate sleight-of-hand movement from the revelation of the effect. While there can be actions, they must point towards the effect (or the apparent cause of the effect), and not towards the actual method. Things should stay within frame.

* For changes, the location of the effect is kept static. If a coin vanishes from within the same space we just saw it (ie: Fickle Nickle), the Yin is stronger than if it vanishes from a different hand where we saw it last.

* For teleportations and/or transpositions, barriers and/or distance are used to make the transposition obvious. Corollary: If the distance is so great that we have feelings of the Too Perfect Theory coming into play, then the problem is not one of Yin, but of Yang. Also, the points of vanish and reappearance should be fixed. (see previous)

* Also, for changes, we get to see the change as it happens. Barring that, we get to see the change in stages. Barring that, we get to see the change instantly. Barring that, we get to see the change as quickly as possible. If the change is a natural-occuring one (eg: a growing plant), then speed instead is highlighted. This might also apply to vanishes and/or productions.

* For productions, given equal level of convictions, bigger is better, and if you can produce something from a container that is too small to carry it, even better.

* Texture is added to ensure the potential for breaks in monotony. We do not do fifteen pick-a-card tricks in a row. However...

* Theme and consistency are both present. We do not do 17 arbitrarily different tricks that are all completely unrelated to each other.

* There is a strong (apparent) causative agent, and the agent is well-dramatized and fleshed out. A performer who simply names what somebody is thinking of is employing weaker Yin than a performer who strains a bit and can get key details, but not always a perfect match. Paradoxically, failures can create strong Yin. Furthermore, the effects chosen should illustrate the cause as explicitly as possible. For instance, "I can change cards magically" will be better illustrated if the cards can change without any excessive handling, or better yet, with the cards in the control of the spectator. An example of Yin-weakening could be the following -- the performer makes the claim that he can read minds, and then does so by using a book test with a long and complicated page-choice procedure involving lots of math.

* Further to the above... If this strong causative agent is in play and under the control of the magician, then there is a magic moment. If the causative agent is NOT under the control of the magician, then the magic moment is a surprise to everybody, including the magician.

* The causative agent is inherently meaningful. This can be helpful in making the effects meaningful.

* There is situational meaning in the effect. For instance, there is conflict that has been brought about between opposing forces, or (and?) jeopardy if the performer fails. For instance, having a performer timed to unlock a lock is weaker in Yin than having that same performer trying to unlock a lock that's keeping him chained to the ground right below a massive car that's suspended by ropes that are on fire.

* The audience does not have their status lowered from a given mean. (Sorry if that sounds unnecessarily abstract) It's worth noting that a performer could establish himself and raise his own status over and above that mean, and thereby create a large status gap between himself and the audience. However, the audience (or representatives from the audience) are not made to feel like fools, are not put in danger, do not have their possessions destroyed, are not insulted, etc.

* A corollary to the above: If the environment is one of comedy, that rule may become blurry. Malicious hecklers can have their status lowered, or else a borrowed bill may end up soaked in lemon juice. These things can have positive effects on Yin.

* Through a contract between spectators and magician, all normal matters of Yin are set aside, so that the audience is knowingly focusing on Yang. Paradoxically, this can be made strong in Yin because the audience is aware of why there are none of the usual dressings-up of Yin. They do not feel the lack, and understand that any normal matters of Yin would be an unwelcome distraction.

* Also, if the Yang is terribly weak, this will dilute Yin. It will keep the audience from being able to accept any claim made by the performer, since the implied cause will be transparent and rendered false. Remember, Yin and Yang are not mutually exclusive: Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin.

* Resources that are good studies for Yin... Darwin Ortiz's Strong Magic, anything by Robert Neale and Eugene Burger, Pete McCabe's Scripting Magic, Henning Nelms's Magic and Showmanship, (more to come later?)...

Note: This is a first draft, and is liable to change.

The Yin Yang concept in magic

I'm test-driving this theoretical model for magic. This is based upon a discussion in which somebody talked at the Cafe about the importance of strengthening conditions, at which point people immediately responded of the potential dangers for doing so.

Quoth from the Cafe...

There's give and take. The fact of the matter is, not everybody in the audience comes to a show with the same mindset. Magic operates in a sort of Yin Yang duality. The Yin of it is all about the effects, the spectacular things that can happen, being able to see amazing feats and knowing what the world might be like if magic were real. This is how magic applies to imagination. The Yang of it is all about the conviction in the effects, the elimination of non-magical explanations for the feats. This is how magic applies to our rationality. Some performers can operate in both worlds perfectly. Others tend to lean one way or the other in terms of their strengths.

Our audiences are also a mixed bag. Even with sophisticated, logical audiences, there will be a difference between changing $1 into $100, than changing a white piece of paper into a green one, even if the surrounding conditions are identical. The Yin element here is undeniable. That said, many tricks that one might think are lousy can be improved simply by strengthening the conditions. Take the 21 card trick, and change it so that the spectator can shuffle the cards themselves, peek at any card they want, shuffle them again, lay them out in rows themselves, and at this point, when the magician asks what row it's in, they only have to think the answer, rather than say it out loud. If the performer can still find the card, we've got a really good trick on our hands. Here, the Yang element is undeniable.

The key is to remember that the Yin and Yang operate in a balance. Yin gives meaning to Yang, whereas Yang gives credibility to Yin. If we keep in mind Eugene Burger's ideas of texture, and make sure that our effects are able to appeal to multiple different mentalities, we can have a richer show as a result. People who come looking for fun revelations will be happy, people who come looking to be bamboozled will be happy, and people who come looking for both will be very happy.

One might say that routines with such rigid test conditions might appeal to a limited audience. I don't necessarily agree. Magicians are people too, and they can be entertained by a magic show as much as anybody. The difference for them is that experience in dealing with magic and methods has rendered them cynical about the Yin. However, tricks with strong Yang-focused effect can still appeal to them. But magicians aren't the only ones who are jaded. One reason why I hate the term "layman" is that it casts a random spectator into a generic mentality, which experience has told me is a false projection. Do three of your best tricks, different tricks that you feel are of about equal entertainment value, for a hundred different "laymen", and then ask them what their favourites are, and I don't think you'll get a hundred identical responses. Different tricks will appeal to different spectators for different reasons, and while the strengthening of conditions might seem like a boring process to apply to a trick, there will be those who appreciate it if it's done well, and will like it over another trick which is richer in Yin and weaker in Yang.

By the way, I'd been meaning to try to marry this concept with the Erland Elephant Archetypes for a while. Tyler Erickson mentioned that he thought a visual model of some kind would help make the differences between the Archetypes clearer, and the best I could come up with was a sort of Yin Yang symbol, with some archetypes on the Yin side (Mentalist, Reader, Superman, Clown, Charlatan, Manipulator, Allegorist, Bizarrist), some on the Yang side (Jester, Scientist, Magus), one straddling the middle (Mechanic), and one outside the circle (Gambling Demonstrator). At this point I'm not sure it's the right visual model (I'm not married to the locations of the various archetypes on the Yin Yang symbol), but I think it's starting to go in the right direction.

Open Offer to Other Magic Blogs

Just thought I'd make this announcement to other magic blogs out there. If your blog has got a newsfeed (such as RSS) and you'd like it listed on Ye Olde Magick Blogge's sidebar, let me know and perhaps we can come to some sort of reciprocal arrangement.