It’s always a nice thing when someone mentions this blog. (Even the creative ways it’s been described are deeply appreciated.)

Steve Pellegrino’s Magic Rants was first to point people here. Tommy Gunn’s Gunnsight recently said kind things about this blog. I also got a very kind plug from Andrew W. in a post he made over at Conjure Nation.

And this week the latest Talk About Magic by Jim Sisti, over at Richard Robinson’s mega-magic Magic Show site featured Escamoteurettes, and specifically my post regarding context in magic. I have enjoyed Jim’s weekly installments for a very long time, but I will admit I enjoyed this week’s just a bit more than usual. Thanks Jim.

And thanks Steve, Tommy and Andrew.

This is about Essays. (No, not mine.)

If you’ve read through everything I’ve written in the relatively short period of time this blog has been up — and you really should, if only to keep in context these occasional, later outbursts — you’ll note I have a great deal of regard for Richard Osterlind. A little background might be helpful.

My first elbow brush with Richard was via his book, “Surrounded Slow-Motion Center Tear” (which was, unfortunately, published by an individual now believed far and wide to be deranged and frothing-at-the-mouth in a way that would even frighten Cujo.) I will admit this goes back to the beginning of the 90s and I was not mentally prepared for what was in that book. I learned it, worked with it, and used it a bit. The response frightened me in much the same way I was frightened the first time I floored the accellerator on a ‘67 Chevy SS Camaro. (If you’ve never had the privilege, it’s nearly impossible to explain.) But, unlike the Camaro, I left it alone.

I left it alone, mostly because I wasn’t comfortable with mentalism as a whole. Either I’d take Jamy Ian Swiss’s advice and thought I should overtly state “It’s a trick!” — which I wasn’t prepared to do — or I had to deal with audiences who were pushed into the corner labeled, “True Believers Only.” I just didn’t feel comfortable at either end of that rainbow, and I wasn’t wise enough at the time to know there was an alternate route.

(As an aside, I’ll again thank the very generous and kind TA Waters for taking time out of his life to spar with me and bring me over to the Dark Side of mentalism, which has really turned out for me to be the Bright Side of mystery entertainment.)

Six or seven years later, I happened upon a set of lecture notes by Osterlind. They contained the sorts of things that would ordinarily make up a really great book on magic and mentalism. I was reminded about the book I’d already read, so off the shelf it came.

Fast-forward to about a year ago and the release by L&L Publishing of Osterlind’s, “Mind Mysteries“ DVD set. Whoa. Among the many things in that set, Richard taught the act he performed for corporate, paying audiences.

It would be good to spend a few moments pondering what that actually means.

One of the earliest lessons we learned in magic is not to just do a string of tricks. (I’d say most everyone in magic has read that at one point in their lives, all evidence to the contrary.) We learn to build a show, a cohesive presentation much as you build a play — an act.

As Al Goshman observed:

A professional does the same tricks for different audiences. An amateur does different tricks for the same audiences.

A professional’s stock in trade is his act; it is the “merchandise” he offers to buyers. In the world of entertainment, unique merchandise commands higher prices on the market than the common stuff.

Richard’s act was unique and served him exceptionally well. And he performed it and then explained it in the DVD set. He not only explained the tricks, but went on to explain the thinking that went into the tricks. Richard gave to purchasers his act and, thereby, the benefit one can usually only gain from doing the thing for twenty-five years.

Of course, there are four DVDs in the set and his act was just one of the DVDs. The entire set is worthy of purchase and study.

But even before the DVDs were released — in late 2002, as a matter of fact — Richard teamed up with long-time friend Jim Sisti to produce and/or bring back to life some of Richard’s work. The first book, “The Very Modern Mindreader“, in Sisti’s words:

…takes Annemann and Hewitt’s classic routine into the 21st Century. With practical touches developed over thirty years and never before released, Osterlind gives you the power to divine information sealed in envelopes by audience members with no gimmicks whatsoever – in fact, all of the elements may be left with the audience. “The Very Modern Mindreader” is reputation-making material suitable for all audiences from close-up to platform.

It remains one of my favorite books on mentalism. It’s still available, too.

In the middle of 2003, Osterlind released the first of his Trilogy of ebooks. This was titled, “Making Magic Real.” At the beginning of 2004, the second ebook in the series, “Making Real Magic“ hit the digital streets. These two books covered an amazing amount of territory which spoke directly to what it means to be a magician and to do magic.

Of “Making Real Magic” I wrote:

“Making Real Magic” helps you define (or redefine) what it is you are doing in your act to make it — and you — relevant to your audience. It helps you focus on audience expectations and how to meet or exceed them in a magical way. To me, that’s where real magic lies. Practicing “The Golden Rule” when performing magic is a sure-fire way to fail with an audience. Focusing on what they want from our performances seems obvious, but evidently most performers don’t give it consideration.

So, as you can imagine, it was a very fine day a couple of weeks ago when I got a note from my friend Jim Sisti that the third of the Trilogy was ready. It’s titled, “Essays“ and I can find only one fault with it (which I’ll explain later.)

In the preface of Essays, Richard states:

These essays will conclude the work begun in Making Magic Real and continued in Making Real Magic. Like those, the material here is accumulated from notes and ideas developed over the last 20 years. My opinions were often changed and refined over that time and I humbly offer to the magic fratermity what I consider to be my current thoughts on the subjects expressed.

What subjects were those?

Love and Magic
Appearance
What Are You Trying to Accomplish as a Mentalist?
What Are You Trying to Accomplish as a Magician?
The Right Magic
Wheat the Goose
Magic and Music
Magic and Comedy
Audience Management
Osterlind Design Duplication System (ODDS)

These chapters are both thought provoking and informative. From the opening chapter dealing with the love of magic, through the importance of your appearance before an audience, through choosing magic and applying established theatrical rules and audience management to it you are handed the benefit of decades of real experience before real audiences. In a way, it’s like Richard handing over the more important aspect of his paying act.

As Tony Robbins has repeated: If you want to be successful, find someone who has achieved the results you want and copy what they do and you’ll achieve the same results. (The more astute among you will note the irony.)

Now, if your goal in life is to just be on the periphery of the world of performing mystery entertainment for real, paying audiences; maintaining and having supported by others a false sense of security about your own abilities as a performer; and being part of a “mob mentality” that denigrates and ridicules the truly successful performers (like Richard Osterlind), then please, by all means, join one of the Raccoon Hatters Societies. Pay your fees, subscribe yourself to one of their organizations, go through the hazing process, and you, too, can learn how to act like a jealous, anti-social misfit from some of the very best duffers in the world of mentalism.

On the other hand, if it’s your goal to achieve the admirable and high level of success that Osterlind has; to participate in and and give back to the art you love, a good place to start would be to read and listen to what Richard has to say about the performance of magic and mentalism. Essays is certainly a part of that — and an absolute bargain of an ebook.

Oh, about that one fault I found: since a trilogy is defined as “a group of three dramatic or literary works related in subject or theme” and Essays is number three in a group, my only complaint is that this is the end of the Trilogy.

Teaching. Lovely word, that. The definition includes, “to impart knowledge or skill; to cause to learn by example or experience.” It invokes the admired and cherished two-way teacher/student relationship. The student seeks a teacher, who…well, teaches.

Exposure. Dastardly word. Clearly The Dark Side material. The definition includes, “an act of subjecting or an instance of being subjected to an action or an influence.” Subjecting. SUBJECTING I said! It invokes shoving unwanted, unsought after knowledge into the eyeballs and between the innocent synapses of those otherwise unwilling, unexpecting, and inculpable. I’d put this in the same category as the first plate of cooked cauliflower my mother put before me. (For all I know, that plate of…stuff…is still molding away somewhere because I know I didn’t eat it.)

So. When a teacher creates a lesson and students quite literally stand in line to learn — all of voluntary accord, mind you — you’d think some serious teaching is going on.

Well, that would be correct if you are dealing with reasonable, rational adult human beings. (Actually, I think even third graders would get this concept any odd Monday morning long before the lunchbell rings.) In the normal world — which is that outside the tiny, bizarre world of magic and mentalism — that is, indeed, so.

On the other hand, unreasonable, irrational human beings would call that exposure. Holy cow, Katy bar the door. Shocking, I know, but when you think about it, that definition fits when you consider these “adults” are acting like second graders anyway.

While reasonable people say “teaching” why do some others call it “exposure”? Good question.

Agenda? Jealousy? Elitism? All three?

Well, consider one definition proposed: sacrificing the secrets of our art for personal publicity and remuneration. So, selling books and videos to fellow performers who wish to learn is teaching, I suppose, if it is done without a desire for publicity and remuneration. (Note, the definition doesn’t actually preclude publicity and remuneration, just if the intent is to gain it.)

I recall the story of the alchemist who sold bars of lead to be placed under the bed of the mark. The mark was instructed that, should they think about the gold, they would wake up the next morning still possessing a bar of lead. So, you should desire the reward enough to pursue it — but if you actually do pursue it, you’re an exposer.

Well, the alchemist couldn’t turn lead into gold, and those poor souls can’t turn teaching into exposure, either.

Yet, the same oaf who presented the above definition, in the same breath, goes on to state that exposure is telling lay audiences how things are done.

I don’t know. Convenient definitions applied to inconvenient situations gives me a headache to think about it. So, allow me, please, to put on my Zen glasses. Please, pull up a grass mat, Grasshopper. I have a story to tell you.

Do you know the story of the Fox and the Scorpion?

Ahhhhhhh.

One day, a scorpion came to a wide river he wanted to cross. But scorpions cannot swim. So the scorpion asked the fox if he would carry him across the river because the fox can swim.

The fox said, “No! If I carry you, when we’re in the middle of the river you’ll sting me and I’ll die!”

The scorpion laughed and said, “Of course I would not sting you! If I did so, we’d both drown!”

So the fox agreed. The scorpion climbed on the back of the fox, and they both started across the river.

When they got halfway across, the scorpion stung the fox.

As they both began to sink into the river, the fox cried out, “Why did you sting me! Now we’ll both drown!”

The scorpion replied, “I know. But I’m a scorpion. It’s my nature.”

The dust storm currently being held aloft by all the hot air issued from the mouths of some of the stuffed (golf) shirts over Richard Osterlind’s impending release of his Easy to Master Mental Miracles is an interesting and deeply amusing thing to behold. I have this mental image of a room full of aged men rending their lapels and throwing soot and ashes on their balding heads, all the while shouting suspected Pig Latin epithets containing the name (or names) of the diety (or dieties) of their choosing.

All that’s left to complete the image is fitting themselves with topits and changebags made of sackcloth.

You know, it occurs to me that, as a potential purchaser of these DVDs, you have to ask yourself just how valuable these things are if so many of these self-appointed Grand Poobahs of Mentalism are willing to pop a blood vessel in or about the temporal lobe and risk a life of adult diapers and constant drooling (which, I know, may be hard to discern from their present condition) over the release date of the Osterlind DVDs.

I mean, you’d think this was The Big One, ‘Lizabeth.

While the Raccoon Hatters are foaming at the mouth as a direct result of drinking the exposure-flavored Kool-Aid served up by their leaders, they may want to turn their collective attention towards their own. I’d put forth the very real possibility that the “performances” of the many duffers, John Edwards-wannabes, and pudgy huffing weekend warriors in their midst results in far more exposure than a reincarnated Marilyn Monroe standing on the wrong end of a revving jet engine.

I mean, how many gray elephants can there be in Denmark, for pity’s sake? (“That’s funny… this can’t be right… there ARE no gray elephants in Denmark!”)

So why do they continue to engage in grade-school polemics?

Well, it’s their nature.

Yesterday Steve Pellegrino wrote in his blog about a folder full of stuff he found, which prompted him to start a new category at Magic Rants about the history of magic. To get things rolling, he’s scanned a tent card for “An Evening of Magic” with Harry Blackstone and Lance Burton. He’s posted the scan as a PDF; please go have a look.

His post reminded me of a black and white 8×10 publicity photo I’ve been holding onto for many, many years. This photo ties in nicely with Steve’s post as it is a photo of Blackstone’s dad, Harry Blackstone, Sr. applying his makeup before a mirror. I love this picture and though you might like to take a peek at it.

There’s no question the Blackstone name is indelibly marked in the history books of magic. Here’s a nice site where you can learn more about father and son from someone who should know; Gay Blackstone.

It’s not enough that the world of mentalism is so much smaller than that of magic. No, some of those who are ostensibly in the higher echelons of its practitioners — to hear them describe themselves, anyway — are of smaller minds, too.

I’ve already mentioned the upcoming, highly anticipated set of DVDs by Richard Osterlind. “Easy to Master Mental Miracles” — which you can pre-order here — has managed to cause fits of purple apoplexy in the secret dins of the Super-Secret Raccoon Hat Fraternity of the World’s Self-Appointed Greatest Mentalists Organization of Dentists, Doctors, Lawyers, and At Least One Several-Times-Arrested-But-Subsequently-Acquitted Assaulter. (Numerous duffers, too, but they won’t admit it.)

In a word, these poor darlings are just not happy.

Richard Osterlind, himself, has finally had enough of answering the same — as he calls it — red herring questions over and over again presented by members of these Raccoon Hatters. (In this thread on The Magic Cafe you can read the latest sad stanzas, along with Richard’s coda.)

At the heart of this tempest in a teapot is the fact that some, not all, members of certain psychic entertainers organizations — some who claim boldly, “Protecting our Trade Secrets is our TOP PRIORITY” and then proceed to name their web site domains things like www.nailwriter.com — are in a huff. It seems that now that they’ve acquired the cherished secrets of mentalism, they are the Special Ones and should guard their secrets from the Great Unwashed Ones who wish to enter by the gate. (Or something equally idiotic.)

This might be mildly amusing were it not true. Instead, it is very true and, therefore, hilarious.

Given that these folks lay claim to being the Insidest of the Inner Circle of Head Mucky-Mucks in Mentalism, it should make you realize how valuable are these new Osterlind DVDs and why you should obtain them yourself. Yes, apparently, they are that good.

Since the topic of this post is juvenile behavior, it seems only fitting that I provide a quote from a juvenile book. Ted Geisel is the perfect author of the perfect book for this admittedly imperfect post. As the beloved Dr. Seuss, he wrote, among many, the classic “The Sneeches and Other Stories.”

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches
Had none upon thars.

Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

But because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And whenever they met some when they were out walking
They’d hike right on past them without even talking.

Those of you familiar with the story know one classic line is, “No. You can’t teach a Sneech.”

That Dr. Seuss. What a mindreader he turned out to be.

Shameful. Just shameful.

In a conversation with a close friend not so long ago, I found out he isn’t a James Bond fan. (For the more reasonable among you, I’ll give you a moment to settle down and recover from the expected, and perfectly understandable hyperventilating.)

Now, to be clear, it’s not that he’s specifically not a fan of the prissy Roger Moore James Bond; the regrettably forgettable George Lazenby James Bond; the wildly popular — if not un-Flemingesque — Sean Connery James Bond; the dead-on, this-is-who-I-believe-God-Himself-would-have-picked-to-play-James Bond Timothy Dalton James Bond; or the Roger Moore-extra Pierce Brosnan James Bond. I could even overlook the overlooked reference to the Barry Nelson James Bond.

But he doesn’t like James Bond in toto. (Not that I have any strong opinions on the movies and the individual actors, you understand.)

Naturally, I still consider him a friend. I believe there’s still time to save his soul.

To my point: while several actors and producers have contributed, collectively we have a character, created by Ian Fleming, named James Bond. That character is clearly identifiable and, in the world of entertainment, carries a great degree of stature, substance and marketability.

This is not to say there haven’t been spoofs of the character. The second treatment of Casino Royale — the comedy film version — featured a performance by the brilliant Peter Sellers. The Austin Powers series is another example, though clearly aimed at the Dumb and Dumber crowd. But these can be considered legitimate entities.

I won’t go into naming them, but there have been versions of the James Bond character — overt copies — that are just shameful to watch. Relatively speaking, there aren’t many Ian Flemings — or Tom Clanceys or Patricia Cornwells or Sue Graftons or Jonathan Kellermans and other fiction writers — in this world to create the James Bonds or Kay Scarpettas or Kinsey Millhones or Alex Delawares and other memorable, engaging fictional characters. So, those who cannot create, appropriate and, as a result, can — at best — only present a shell of a character without the substance.

In a recent thread on The Magic Cafe, there was discussion of one of Ted Lesley’s offerings. The primary issue got sidetracked as a direct result of a Cafe member posting a link to his personal web site. I clicked the link and the word “shameful” tumbled out of my mouth. The more I clicked, the more I shook my head in amazement — and not the kind we, as mystery performers, hope to engender in our audiences. (At least, not deliberately. I hope.)

To take you along with me, let us first visit the web site of well-known Max Maven:

http://www.maxmaven.com

That is a distinct, unique look — a character — deliberately created and built over many, many years and thousands of performances. Both in and out of our little world of magic and mentalism, it carries a great degree of stature, substance and marketability.

Now, let us visit the web site of lesser known Deddy Corbuzier:

http://www.deddy-corbuzier.com/

This isn’t Peter Sellers territory. This isn’t even Austin Powers territory. This is in a category all to itself, although — sadly — not a small, sparsely inhabited one. This falls into the category of intellectual property theft and gross disrespect.

And it’s not, as young Corbuzier suggests, coincidence. When I viewed the video of his “Jakarta Blindfold Drive 2004” I see a person who not only appropriated a look clearly identified with Max Maven (the widow’s peak and eye makeup, to start with) but I see attempts at the same clothing, the same gestures, the same overall performing persona. Corbuzier even sports a long, braided ponytail, for pity’s sake. It’s embarrasingly shameful behavior.

His reason for stealing Max’s image? Does it really matter?

Corbuzier considers himself a professional, a self-given appellation he’s only too quick to remind you of. But would a true professional behave in such a manner?

The only thing that might be more appropriate than Corbuzier ceasing to use the word professional would be for him to stop using Max Maven’s look and channeling Max’s performing persona. That would be a good start.

With quite a bit of hard work and effort, there might even be something left worth watching.

EDITED 11/1/2004: I changed “Roger Moore-lite” to “Roger Moore-extra” because of something Andrew W. mentioned in his comment. I think he’s right, I was a bit harsh. Brosnan is, well, manlier than Moore, but still not Dalton. Noted and corrected.

I love obvious contrasts. The greater the difference between two things, the easier it becomes to embrace one over another. Given the choice between two items that are nearly identical, wouldn’t you choose the less expensive one? Given the choice between two methods of completing two tasks, isn’t it human nature to choose the easier method?

These concepts can be found in the world of magic design, manufacturing and sales, too. For some people, creating a new trick is a long, laborious process. A lot of work can go into a simple trick that truly entertains and amazes a lay audience. It’s hard work, the evidence of which is how long it is between truly original new magic tricks.

On the other hand, some people don’t put in the hard work it takes to develop a new trick. They, instead, acquire the work someone else has already created, change the name, and manufacture a duplicate. (Sometimes they don’t bother to even change the name.)

And then there are the retailers. For some, given the choice between a version authorized by an inventor, or a cheaper knock off version, they choose the cheaper knock off. Not all do this, but many do.

Years ago, my friend Tom Ladshaw of New Orleans released a new trick called “The Sleeping Pill.” Imagine a huge, two inch long capsule that stood up and laid down in your hand — as if by magic. At the end of the trick, you could hand the pill out to be examined. The routine was clever, very funny and filled with the sort of puns Tom is well known for.

He brought several dozens of this new trick with him to a magic convention hoping to sell some. It was a brand new trick, unknown, and garnered a modest amount of interest. That is, until Karrell Fox bought one and showed it to anyone who’d stand still long enough to see it. Tom sold out. He went on to sell thousands of these things. It was, and still is, a great close-up trick.

Tom has been on the hunt for a replacement supplier of the capsule, hoping to bring his delightful trick back on the market. A few months ago, a “new” trick hit the market. Imagine a huge, two inch long capsule…

Well, you get the idea.

This version is called “Vitamin M” and the packing suspiciously masks the manufacturer who supplies the retail stores. Tom isn’t dead, and he’s easy to find, so it’s curious why whoever it is who is manufacturing these things didn’t bother to contact Tom about this. It was easier to just knock off Tom’s great trick.

I’ve dealt with this theme already. I bring it up because of the contrast between “the hard way” and “the easy way”.

Here’s another example of contrasts. These are the 48 laws presented in the book, “The 48 Laws of Power”, an attractively designed and wildly successful bestseller:

1 Never outshine the master
2 Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies
3 Conceal your intentions
4 Always say less than necessary
5 So much depends on reputation — guard it with your life
6 Court attention at all cost
7 Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit
8 Make other people come to you—use bait if necessary
9 Win through your actions, never through argument
10 Infection: Avoid the unhappy and unlucky
11 Learn to keep people dependent on you
12 Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim
13 When asking for help, appeal to people’s self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude
14 Pose as a friend, work as a spy
15 Crush your enemy totally
16 Use absence to increase respect and honor
17 Keep others in suspended terror: Cultivate an air of unpredictability
18 Do not build fortresses to protect yourself—isolation is dangerous
19 Know who you’re dealing with — do not offend the wrong person
20 Do not commit to anyone
21 Play a sucker to catch a sucker – seem dumber than your mark
22 Use the surrender tactic: Transform weakness into power
23 Concentrate your forces
24 Play the perfect courtier
25 Re-create yourself
26 Keep your hands clean
27 Play on people’s need to believe to create a cultlike following
28 Enter action with boldness
29 Plan all the way to the end
30 Make your accomplishments seem effortless
31 Control the options: Get others to play with the cards you deal
32 Play to people’s fantasies
33 Discover each man’s thumbscrew
34 Be royal in your own fashion: Act like a king to be treated like one
35 Master the art of timing
36 Disdain things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best revenge
37 Create compelling spectacles
38 Think as you like but behave like others
39 Stir up waters to catch fish
40 Despise the free lunch
41 Avoid stepping into a great man’s shoes
42 Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter
43 Work on the hearts and minds of others
44 Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect
45 Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once
46 Never appear too perfect
47 Do not go past the mark you aimed for; in victory, learn when to stop
48 Assume formlessness

Now, here’s my list. It’s shorter, which makes it easier to share. It’s easier to remember which also makes it easier to know when I’m breaking one of the rules:

1. Live a life of integrity.
2. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

I would suggest that, in the long run, it is more difficult to live in this world following those last two laws than it is following the first forty-eight laws above. The forty-eight laws above are part and parcel of today’s “accepted business life” — for the most part, you won’t be castigated, ridiculed, or made to look foolish if you follow those laws, despite the fact you might step on some of the “little people” on your way up.

In stark contrast, often these days standing up for what’s right — doing the right thing — gets you loads of ridicule and ribbing. It’s a sad thing to see occur, and worse to see it so often in an area of life I love, magic.

By the way, the book I referenced is put out by Penguin Books. No, not the same company you might be thinking of. I just thought it was an interesting coincidence, though.

I got my start in the world of advertising and marketing when I was fourteen years old. This was before the Internet. It was before MTV. In fact, it was before desktop computers. I was a runner for an ad agency which immediately led to a part time gig at the local radio station. My primary interest was writing ad copy and producing commercials for radio and television, something I still do although these days I do it in my own studio.

Within a couple of years, a remarkably short span of time, I worked my way up through the ranks to production manager — the guy responsible for commercials being done well and on time — largely a result of the fact no sane human being wanted the job. In other words, as a high school graduate I fit the job description and, in fine Peter Principled manner, I ended up with the position.

One of the very first lessons I learned, virtually from day one and a lesson I take with me to this day, is the value in speaking clearly and properly. The first part is a lot easier to “fix” when broken than the second, which can only be “fixed” by effective education and disciplined learning.

Unless you’re performing a silent act, from the moment you open your mouth to speak, the success of your act depends on what comes out. If your opening sentence is mumbled, you have lost your audience in fine, if not unfamiliar form. It’s a whole lot easier to keep them in the first place than to regain them.

Speaking clearly is one of the fundamentals dealt with in Ken Weber’s seminal book, “MAXIMUM ENTERTAINMENT”. (If you don’t already own this book, I have to assume you did not know it was available. You absolutely have to own a copy of this book and read it several times. I told Ken, when I met him in Las Vegas, that I considered it and “Greater Magic” my “stranded on a desert island” books; the former to keep me occupied, and the latter to help me be successful should I ever be rescued.)

Ken writes:

“Yes … luck plays a considerable role in the success of a performer. For just one example, where your Mum happened to pop you out and grow you up makes a difference, because you will sound like your neighbors. That may be fortuitous, or it may be unfortunate. Some of us have naturally pleasing voices, some don’t.

An off-putting accent, a whiny voice, a too-slow or too-fast speech pattern: all present obstacles that must first be recognized and then modified. Careful analysis of your videotaped presentation is, again, the first step.”

(Chapters 8 and 9 deal specifically with this post. They are worth reviewing if you have this book in your library.)

Ken and I are both True Believers in video taping your performance for review and critique. Cutting your foot off with an old, dull, rusty knife is probably only slightly less painful than the first time you sit down and watch a video tape of your performance. (It does — or at least should — get less painful with each subsequent review but I suggest you keep handy a copy of your first tape for those times when you think you’re an excellent, preeminent performer. Nothing keeps you humble like watching your first tape.)

Pay particular attention to how fast you speak. Many issues dealing with clarity can be fixed immediately simply by s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n. All evidence to the contrary, the brain thinks faster than the mouth performs. This causes many people to speak faster than they can clearly mouth words. While what you intend to say may make perfect sense between your own ears, something gets lost in the translation for your audience when you speak too quickly. SLOW. DOWN.

The other, primary fix is in how you physically get the words out of you. Speak this sentence out loud. Now do it again, and notice from where the words come: your throat or your belly. If you take in a deep breath and start your words in your belly, they’ll come out louder and clearer than if you pinch them through your throat.

How can you train yourself to speak better? Record your voice, then listen to it. Repeat.

In the late eighties, a company called Achievement Dynamics began running radio commercials for an audio book product called, “Verbal Advantage”. The ad copy read, “People judge you by the words you use…” — and do they ever.

Speaking colloquially is perfectly acceptable in the appropriate situations. It may be in private or group conversation. It may even be because your character requires a speech pattern that is colloquial in nature. But for everyone else, using proper English before an English-speaking audience is of paramount importance.

Mentalism, to a greater degree than magic, requires its practitioners to gain immediate respect of the audience. After all, the subtext that runs through people’s minds — which is human nature — is, “If you’re one of us, how can you be special?” (Or, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”) And this is especially important for younger performers, and far more so for younger mentalism performers.

A command of the language is an overt message to your audience that you are a serious professional. (Yes, I know, we shouldn’t judge people that way, but you can either go with how we should do it or how people really do it.)

Does that mean you should pretend you are Stentor somehow propelled through time onto a stage channeling Sir John Gielgud doing “Henry V“? (I hope you didn’t actually ask that.) No, what you should do, however, is consider the character you’ve created for your act and decide if it’s best for him to speak properly — and then make sure he does.

Actually, I don’t think mentalism sucks at all. I happen to love mentalism with the same degree of feeling I do close-up magic. Mentalism appeals to a higher order of entertainment, to be sure, and it’s in that stratosphere that sometimes bad things happen. Like magic, some presentations of mentalism reek. Generally speaking, that’s not mentalism’s — or magic’s — fault. That’s the performer’s fault.

The principles underlying mentalism are closer to the mechanisms that make magic magical; the gray matter between our ears that expects a certain thing to occur along that familiar “cause and effect” road and, when it doesn’t, it’s like falling out of a tall tree, but without that sudden deceleration that can become so problematic for most of us.

Those underlying principles are most often tied directly to the names “Annemann” and “Corinda” and rightly so because so much of what we can call classic mentalism finds the seeds of its birth in those names.

Richard Osterlind has a new set of DVDs coming out very, very soon now that deals precisely and brilliantly with this very subject. This DVD set, called “Easy to Master Mental Miracles” — which you can order now here — along with copies of Annemann and Corinda make up a college course in the fundamentals of phenominal mentalism. (The graduate course is called “actually performing this stuff for real people” — and not everyone choses to attend classes.)

There’s nothing wrong with mentalism, per se. The problem is found in some of its practitioners.

Some people simply are not cut out for magic and mentalism. I’m not being ugly about this, it’s just so. Their personality — that is the anti-social, condescending method of human interaction that brings so many of these social misfits into our art form to begin with — is simply at bitter odds with what normal people would call “entertainment.”

So, when one of these poor fellows finds himself in the midst of diminishing or non-existent audiences, who do they entertain? Why, fellow practitioners, of course. (There’s an indelicately worded phrase for that, which I’ll get to later.)

If there’s one thing that can make a poor performer even worse, it’s unfounded, unearned praise — which is generally presented by one ill-equipped performer to another. (Normal people would call this behavior “lying through your teeth” or “the blind leading the blind.”)

Given the choice between constructive criticism and destructive praise, give me the criticism any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I can’t fix what others convince me isn’t broken.

As a follow up to my post yesterday about Jamy Ian Swiss’s book, “Shattering Illusions,” I thought that since I’m already late to the party getting my copy, it’d be okay to dwell on the book a little more.

The second chapter is called, “Mentalism Grows Up.” And, while it’s not my intention to quote my way through the book — something I could easily do, since the whole thing is quotable — here’s a great section from chapter two:

In Mentalism & Its Presentation by Bob Nelson & Syd Bergson (1959), Nelson insists that the mentalist must “convince his audience that he is ACTUALLY reading minds and predicting future outcomes,” and repeats such claims throughout his work. “The object of the mentalist is not to just entertain…but to so [sic] entrance his spectators into believing that he is actually doing true MENTAL MIRACLES” (All emphasis per original.)

The problem with this approach, however, is that while a certain percentage of the potential audience will be attracted to the delusion of special abilities, much of the audience — those with functioning bullshit detectors—will recognize the practitioners as the pathetic losers they are and run in the opposite direction. Little wonder that mentalism was rarely perceived as sophisticated, grown-up entertainment outside the hands of a very few. Mentalism at magic conventions seemed to make bad card tricks look good. How many times can you watch some pudgy myopic nimrod puff out his chest and prattle on for twenty minutes on the basis of two words read off a center tear, as if anyone but himself (and his Psychic Entertainer buddies) cares?

So. I guess a good question to ask is, who are you really fooling?

I’m not sure where is the best place to begin this quotation, so this is as good as any to begin:

But lacking some larger substantive goal, the audience is left watching trick after trick after trick, each time receiving this most dreary of messages loud and clear: See, I fooled you. See, I fooled you. See, I fooled you again.

And this is why most magic sucks. I accept that as a given, an a priori assumption that colors all of my thinking about magic. It is a caveat that will hover above and lurk between the lines of these pages in the year to come.

And so I love what magic occasionally is more than what it most often is presented as.

And I hate every self-styled conjuror who misinforms the public about what magic can be. I hate every neurotic social misfit who ever bought a sponge Ding-Dong or mangled a Double Lift in an act of magic aversion therapy.

What should we do to remedy the situation? Should we spend our lives as mimics, mindlessly recycling old saws and standard tricks without a moment’s examination? Should we live awash in covetousness, as vicious thieves robbing the most precious creative fruits of those artists we envy? Should we devote ourselves to the containment of the paltry secrets of our art, as if the mechanics of a centuries-old card sleight were the moral equivalent of a state secret? Should we institutionalize mediocrity by way of our associations, avoiding honest evaluation and the pressure to achieve greatness, all in the name of good fellowship? Should we embroil ourselves in petty disputes, busily hacking at trees without a moment’s glance toward the forest? Should we use our special skills as a bludgeon with which to beat down our victims, in order to compensate for our own personal inadequacies?

If the present state of affairs is any clue, then the answer is yes.

But I say — no.

And I will continue to say no in the following pages.

After a too-long hiatus from writing for the magazine, Jamy Ian Swiss began his new Genii Magazine column, Shattering Illusions, in 1993 with an essay from which the above quotation is taken. That essay was the opening salvo to a terrific column which, as all great columns do, ended too soon.

Those sixteen essays, along with a few more, were reworked and then compiled into book form. “Shattering Illusions“ was published by Stephen Minch’s Hermetic Press.

I mention this for three primary reasons. First, I’d recently ordered a copy of the book directly from Jamy and it arrived this morning. The book had been on my “wish list” for quite a while and I only recently thought to order it. Maybe it’s on your list, too. If so, order a copy. If it isn’t on your list, order a copy anyway. (Just substitute it for the next trick you were going to buy and probably will never perform anyway; you’ll be far better off for it. Trust me.)

Second, quotation touches on a number of things I’ve already given time to here in this blog.

Finally, it’s inclusion represents a theme I’d planned for this blog from the beginning; to discuss or at least mention books that deal with the more important aspects of magic and mentalism — which is to say, books not about tricks, but books that deal with the why and not the how of magic. If there are two things most of us don’t need it would be another hole in our head and another book on how to do a magic trick.

Another book high on my current list is Richard Osterlind’s new e-book, “Essays,”which I will review in detail soon. In the mean time, you can immediately purchase and download a copy here now.