Thoughts on Repetition and Inner Structure
In this post I want to touch on two separate concepts: repetition and inner structure.
On the first concept, we need to look into Ascanio's theory of conditioned naturalness. The idea is that you can condition your audience to see as natural certain actions that, in isolation, could be considered contrived or awkward. My view that an audience will need to see an action at least three times to see as something ānaturalā. The first time they see it they will probably ask themselves āwhy is he doing that?ā.Ā The second time they will probably question the action āis that what I saw earlier? Will the action produce the same result?ā. Finally, the third time they will consolidate their belief. So, if the deck is on your left hand and to palm a card you need to briefly put your right hand over the deck, it will be advisable to have done that same action at least two times (and not necessarily immediately before the palm).
This same idea could be applied effectively to help you to disguise a double lift (i.e. show at least two single lifts before you perform a double).
Here is the challenge. Review all your effects to make sure that you have conditioned your audience to the action that hides the secret move. Remember also that magicians fool themselves when they assume that certain action will look natural to their audiences.
The idea of the inner structure of a magic trick came to me while reading Joseph Campbell's The Heroe with a Thousand Faces. According to Campbell, world mythologies share the same fundamental structure, at that there is an archetypal hero. Campbell summarizes these ideas in what he calls the monomyth, where he includes the stories of Buddha, Jesus, Moses, etc. George Lucas admitted that the some characters in the Star Wars saga were based on Campbell's findings.
Magic effects can be said to share the same premise, you tell your audience that you will create the illusion of impossibility and then you create such illusion. For this reason, it is important that the inner structure of magic creates something more than a mere demonstration of skill or supernatural powers that bores the spectators to tears. It has been said that to captivate people's hearts magic needs to create drama (see amongts others Fitzkee, Showmanship for Magicians; Devant/Maskelyne, Our Magic: The Art and Theory of Magic; and Darwin Ortiz, Strong Magic).
One of the most effective but also overused ways to create drama is by means of the āmagician in troubleā plot. E.g. A card is selected and lost in the pack, the magician then fails to find the right card and looks at the audience disappointed and we says: āSo is this not your card? Are you sure? Ok, let me try this. I will waive my hand over the card and... The card has transformed into your card!!ā.
The āmagician in troubleā plot is also one of the best ways to open a session. If your spectators have not seen magic before, they will most likely expect a (fake?) demonstration of superpowers. They will be trying to figure out what you are about, and you are trying to figure out what type of audience you have. In other words, they will expect you to find their card the first time and they will be intrigued by the initial failure to achieve what you were supposed to do. I guess that this plot also works well because most magicians are introverted individuals that easily relate to the ābeing in troubleā side of things.
When you look at repetition and inner structure together, you realise that to condition your audience is a double-edge sword. The first lesson to learn is that you should not overplay the "magician in trouble" plot. I would not recommend To perform more than two tricks that are based on this plot in a row, or your audience will be āconditionedā to expect it. Actually, by employing a different structure you will surprise them with the unexpected.
Several gambling demonstrations effects in the magic literature are based on what I call the āirrelevant concessionā plot (the other one is probably the āsimulation moveā plot, where you claim you are doing something very difficult but then you do secretly something completely different to achieve the same result). You start by explaining one of the secret moves performed by gamblers (this is your concession), and when you perform it for the audience you show your audience that you have managed to do much more than what you explain to them (you fooled them somehow). There are some Darwin Ortizās effects are based on this structure such as From the Cellar, Beat the Dealer such as The Cross. so, for the reasons previously mentioned, it would be counter-productive to create a gambling demo containing more of two of these effects.
