I love quotations. Given enough time and enough effort and enough research, one can tell a story or make a point through quotations.

So, let us begin with a quote:

It was back in June 1935 when Theo. Annemann first unveiled the effect known as “PSEUODO-PSYCHOMETRY” in issue #9 of The Jinx. Since then the principle has been used in many ways by both working mentalists and magicians. When properly handled this can be one of the greatest mind-blowers to the laymen….when improperly handled it can become a ‘bomb’.

By the way, the use of the word bomb at the end of that quote denotes a state of stinkiness in the noses of spectators; in effect casting a pall over the room in much the same way, say, Paris Hilton lecturing a nunnery. Or Madonna walking into a temple.

That quote was pulled from the 1980 booklet, “Raven on Psychometry” which was actually a nicely bound set of lecture notes by Frater Anthony Raven. It speaks to effect.

Another quote:

It’s all right to lie when doing magic. We are in the only business in the world where lying is accepted. Everything is a lie. We don’t do real magic; we lie about it. When we tell the lie well out magic will look real.

That’s my dearly departed friend Mike Rogers from his lecture notes, “Opinions: A Lecture on the Art of Magic.”

Surprise: this, not from lecture notes, but from the Summer 1997 Stevens Magic Magalog. It was an interview with T.A. Waters and, while not a lecture per se…well read for yourself, as he answers a question about how being an actor has altered his magic:

It has made me look at performance material from a theatrical standpoint — in other words, is there something to play here? Is there some reason for doing this? Is this going to reach the audience, touch or affect them in some way? Novelty and surprise are fine, but they won’t alone sustain a theatrical piece. Unfortunately, a lot of magic has little going for it except novelty and surprise.

This next quote is by Bascom Jones from the introduction to the book, “MindFields” — a book published by the Psychic Entertainers Association in 1991:

Some eighteen years ago, shortly after I began publishing MAGICK, as a twice-a-month publication for the world’s mentalists, someone asked me to define the difference between mentalism and mental magic. The answer, I pointed out, was simple. The difference existed in the mind of the spectator.

If the spectator is left with the impression that he has witnessed a trick, no matter how clever the trick, no matter how entertaining, then that is mental magic.

Mentalism, on the other hand, leads the spectator to willingly suspend his disbelief, or, at the very least, argue that what he has witnessed might be the result of little-known or little-understood powers.

Contrary to what many contend, it is not the type of trick that separates the two categories; it is the nature of the presentation, the spin imparted to the effect by the performer, that causes the line to be drawn in the minds of audiences. Wishful thinking doesn’t count. Be honest with yourself, and you will know which of your effects, and presentations, fall into which category.

This is from the introduction to the incredible book, “Red Hot Cold Reading” by Thomas Saville and Herb Dewey:

Few people realize the impact that a casual remark may have on the life of a person with whom we are dealing! Research has demonstrated that even when prefaced with a very direct disclaimer, the need or tendency to believe may be over-riding. College students have indicated a greater belief in a description based on their birth data than when that same description is based on a personality test. Other college students have seen presentations given by a magician, who was introduced as such, and who explicitly stated that what he was going to do was all based on deception, and at the end of the performance many students still believed that he was doing psychic miracles.

Here are words written by Ted Annemann over half a century ago:

Audiences today ‘go for’ the mental type of trickery more than ever. It is more of a ‘grown up’ phase of magic and mystery, and there seems to be a greater element of wonder when the performer can reveal unknown knowledge or something personal about the members of his audience.

I’m not in any way slighting magic as a whole when I say this, but I’ve found it to be true so far as my own work is concerned.

While his set of books is considered requisite canon for study in the world of magic, it’s been my experience that the opening chapter of Harlan Tarbell’s Course in Magic is often glossed over. And that’s a terrible thing because it provides a basis and history for magic, and several admonishments that, although over 75 years old, make perfect sense today:

As entertainers we use the illusionary side of magic to entertain audiences — but we do so with the right spirit. Down the ages the man with a sense of humor has made entertainment from both truth and illusion, from comedy and from tragedy.

But our background has been fine — and that is why I wanted to stress at this time the importance of the Magi as well as a rough sketch of their teachings.

Audiences automatically look at the magician as being possessed of some unusual power and being on just a plane ahead. To lower an audience’s opinion of us is to court disaster.

Pat Marquis gained fame as a result of a Life magazine article which was published in 1937. Marquis was a thirteen year old boy from California who convinced his doctor that he could see, though his eyes were tapes shut. In the chapter dealing with the exhibitions of Pat Marquis in the book, “The Mental Mysteries and Other Writings of William W. Larsen, Sr.” Larsen makes note of the following — which I doubt has changed much since these words were written:

In preparing my illustrated talk I took great caution. I kept the following points in mind at all times: 1. I wanted neither to admit nor deny any psychic, or extra sensory, powers claimed by, or ascribed to, Pat. After all, this was a commercial proposition to me and it is well known that out of every ten people, nine would like to believe that there may be something in “the supernatural”. For every person who will pay a dollar to see a medium exposed, there are nine people who would prefer to pay that same medium a dollar for a reading. It is the sum and total of the natural human desire to have something happen.

Edwin Sachs’ classic text, “Sleight of Hand” was described as “the standard textbook on how to become a magician.” In it we find the following:

It is as pleasant to be cheated as to cheat” is a maxim that must have been framed expressly for conjuring, for the more completely one is deceived by its medium (and, it may be added, by its medium alone) the better one is pleased.

This final quotation stands in contrast from those above for two primary reasons. First, it is not from a book or other written source; it’s from the final section of Jamy Ian Swiss‘ lecture DVD “Live in London“. It was brought to my attention prior to my obtaining the DVD because of the manner in which Jamy makes his point. This section is called, “Goals” and discusses Jamy’s goals, previously as an amateur and — at the time of the taping of this lecture — his goal as a professional performer:

But let me talk to you about a second goal. And I don’t presume to press this goal on you; this one is more idiosyncratic, more personal to me. I share it with you in hopes you might find it of interest.

What is my goal as a professional performer, a professional entertainer, who uses close-up magic? Well, I’ll tell you what I don’t want to be. I don’t want to be an amusing diversion — a light amusement.

After giving a vignette in which he illustrates that point, he states (rather emphatically):

I want to destroy my audience! I want to induce inoperable brain tumors! I want them to remember me, not the magic, but me! And not for today, or tomorrow, or next week, but for the rest of their damn lives and tell their grandchildren about me!

Navel-gazing is a valid, useful endeavor. Where do you suppose the above compares with your own goals as a mystery entertainer?