Grey Matters: Presentation

Superhero Theory

2011-12-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

Magicians refer to what most would call “tricks” as “effects”. Anytime you have an effect, however, people are going to look for a cause.

The search for the cause naturally takes the audience from the effect itself to the performer themselves. In analyzing how to guide an audience's perceptions of cause and effect, superheroes often prove to be useful as an analytical tool.

In past times, ancient myths might have served the same purpose, as discussed in Joseph Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces. Indeed, summaries of his works can be found here (archived) and here (PDF). A fuller examination of this approach can be found in the Power of Myth 6-hour miniseries.

In an age where more people are familiar with Batman and Superman, as opposed to, say, Orpheus or Daedalus, superhero examples com much more readily to mind.

I was first made aware of this approach in Jon Armstrong's article “Superhero Theory”, published in the December 2004 issue of Genii. Sadly, there is no reprint of the exact article online, but it can be largely summed up with 4 major points:

• Superheroes are defined by their powers, to the extent that they're often named after them (e.g., Spiderman, the Flash).

• Audiences are familiar with what a particular superhero is capable of, so the heroes have certain expectations (without being made predictable), and they're made more memorable.

• Superheroes are limited by their powers (e.g., Batman doesn't have X-ray vision, Spiderman can't talk to sea creatures), creating focus, as well as opportunities for challenge.

• Speaking of limitations, many superheroes also have a weakness. How they deal with this weakness can be as engaging as how they use their superpowers.

Jon himself talks more about the possibilities of examining magic in this way in the 107th Magic Newswire podcast, which is well worth a listen.

Since then, others have picked up the superhero theory concept and expanded upon it. Most notably, Andrew Musgrave's article “The Superhero Character Model for Magicians” (originally published here) is an excellent read, and probably the closest essay online to Jon Armstrong's original essay.

Andrew Musgrave returned to the superhero idea other times as well, including his posts “So you want to be a creature of power...” and “The Superhero Theory”. If you enjoy these articles, you might want to check out his other magic theory and archetype posts.

If today's post seems shorter than usual, it's probably because the links above include so much more food for thought. If you do magic, or even any kind of performing, these resources are well worth reading AND pondering.

Questions for Better Magic

2010-10-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

The following outline is a series of questions, based on the book “Strong Magic” and the 8-part column “Stronger Magic” in MAGIC magazine, both by Darwin Ortiz. I highly recommend reading this book, as it will clarify many of the questions. The questions are intended to help the magician think about ideas that he or she may not otherwise think about.

If you have Javascript turned off, the outline of questions will appear as just an outline. However, if you have Javascript turned on, the various sections of the outline will expand and collapse simply by clicking any blue text with an arrow next to it. Collapsing any section will also collapse all subsections within it.

Posted with permission from Darwin Ortiz and Richard Kaufman.

“Strong Magic” is © Copyright 1994, 1995 by Darwin Ortiz. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission.

Clarity
1. How should the audience interpret the effect?
2. Details:
  1. Which details should be emphasized?
  2. What details should be eliminated?
3. Easing audience's burden:
  1. Could fewer props be used without diminishing the scope of the effect?
  2. What “memory hooks” could you give to the audience?
  3. How could the props be visually clarified?
  4. How could the layout be visually clarified?
  5. Could making a hidden element visible help the effect?
  6. What time lags could be eliminated?
  7. What interruptions could be eliminated?
  8. How could the procedure be made more direct?
  9. How can I eliminate magic jargon from my act?
Conviction
1. Conditions:
  1. If I were a layman, how would I think the effect was accomplished?
  2. What could I do to eliminate the possibility of those methods?
  3. Must-Believe Test:
    1. What must the audience believe if they are to view it as a miracle?
    2. Are there any conditions that are true, but hard to believe?
    3. If the above is true, how can you emphasize this condition's reality?
  4. Would the effect be maximized if two elements had no contact whatsoever?
  5. How could I dramatize the effect's major condition by . . .
    1. . . . taking a certain action?
    2. . . . having the audience participate?
    3. . . . evoking a mental image?
2. Convincers:
  1. What “accidents” could make the effect more convincing?
  2. Could weak conditions be incidentally “proven” while demonstrating a stronger condition?
Suggestion
1. Prestige:
  1. How can I build prestige before the show begins?
  2. What comments can I make during the show that would increase prestige?
  3. Does each effect in my show steadily increase my prestige?
2. Atmosphere:
  1. What kind of atmosphere will best seduce my audience?
  2. What props would be employed in this atmosphere?
  3. What language would be employed in this atmosphere?
  4. What themes could be used to promote this atmosphere?
  5. What physical or mental setting would be conducive to this atmosphere?
3. Reinforcement:
  1. Which spectator(s) will create reinforcement through emotional display?
  2. How can I get spectators to reinforce the routine to each other?
4. Desire:
  1. How can my effect appeal to people's desires? (Jump to Substantive Meaning section)
  2. How can I avoid working against people's desires?
5. Planting Suggestions:
  1. What expectations should the audience be given?
  2. How can I convincingly exaggerate these expectations?
6. Negative Suggestions:
  1. How can I avoid destroying the suggestion I've built in people's minds?
Substantive Meaning
1. How can I exploit people's inherent wishes and desires about . . .
  1. . . . gambling?
  2. . . . grifting (con games)?
  3. . . . ESP?
  4. . . . the occult?
  5. . . . magic “culture”?
  6. . . . money?
  7. . . . sex?
  8. . . . themselves?
    1. Would character readings make the effect more meaningful?
    2. Could I employ their name and/or signature to improve the effect?
    3. What other ways could the effect be made to be about the spectator?
  9. . . . universal experiences?
    1. What bizarre explanations could I demonstrate for these experiences?
    2. What bizarre solutions could I demonstrate for these experiences?
  10. . . . surrealism?
    1. How might I meaningfully interchange a symbol with reality?
    2. How might I meaningfully prove reality is malleable?
2. How could I develop sufficient background knowledge about these fields?
3. Subtext:
  1. How can I create or strengthen the underlying meaning of the effect?
  2. How can I eliminate negative connotations of the underlying meaning?
4. Inherent Meaningfulness of Magic:
  1. Is the effect truly impossible, not just unlikely or puzzling?
  2. If so, how could you exploit the impossibility's meaning?
5. Credibility:
  1. Is the theme congruent to the audience's perception of the real world?
  2. Is the effect consistent with it's own thematic rules?
Situational Meaning
1. How could I create a conflict . . .
  1. . . . against a spectator, without antagonizing them?
  2. . . . against a machine?
  3. . . . against an imaginary character?
  4. . . . against an inanimate object?
  5. . . . against fate?
  6. . . . using an imaginary protagonist?
  7. . . . against the hero's own nature?
  8. . . . between two spectators?
    1. Could a weak role be switched with a strong one?
2. How could I employ . . .
  1. . . . my own apparent financial or physical risk?
  2. . . . spectator's apparent risk?
  3. . . . failure as an aid to setting up a more impressive resolution?
  4. . . . the spectator as the subject of the magic?
    1. Can the magic happen in their hand?
    2. Could the spectator be mentally or physically “invaded” by magic?
    3. Could the spectator do the magic themselves?
    4. Could a spectator's emotionally-charged possession be the subject?
3. In my story, how can I develop . . .
  1. . . . the protagonist (hero)?
    1. How can I make the protagonist sympathetic to the audience?
    2. How can I define the characteristics of the protagonist?
    3. Can I cast myself as the protagonist?
  2. . . . the antagonist (villain)?
    1. How can I make the antagonist unsympathetic?
    2. How can I define the characteristics of the antagonist?
    3. How can I make the antagonist enough of a challenge for the hero?
      1. What unpopular authority figure could be used (a la' Walter Mitty)?
    4. How can I avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes in my antagonists?
  3. . . . the conflict?
    1. How can I get the hero up the tree?
    2. How can I throw rocks at him?
  4. . . . the resolution?
    1. How can the story be set up so that the hero wins?
    2. How can the hero be gotten “down from the tree”?
4. Could I include other elements in my story, such as . . .
  1. . . . complications?
  2. . . . setting?
5. How can I avoid the common pitfalls of story magic?
  1. Is the trick interesting enough that the spectator just listen and watch?
  2. Could audience members be given roles in the story?
  3. Could there be “failure” that doesn't follow the storyline?
  4. Could a story be used as background information, rather than as a tale itself?
  5. Is the story overshadowing the magic?
  6. Is the magic overshadowing the story?
Dramatic Structure
1. Interest Catchers:
  1. What intriguing statement could I make?
    1. Could I introduce the effect's meaning in this statement?
    2. Could I suggest the possibility of failure?
    3. Could I intrigue them with statements about the effect's progress?
  2. What intriguing questions could I ask?
    1. How can I phrase those questions so they don't have simple answers?
    2. How can I make the questions provocative?
    3. How can I be more aware of the spectator's reply?
  3. What effects could I use to reply to regularly-asked spectator questions?
  4. What regularly-asked spectator questions could I bring up myself?
  5. How could I use intriguing props to catch their interest?
    1. Does the intriguing prop serve a useful purpose?
    2. Which mundane props could be made more interesting?
2. Progression:
  1. Does the effect (single OR multi-phasbuild steadily towards the ending?
  2. What intrinsic progressions could I employ?
    1. How can I strengthen conditions from phase to phase?
    2. How can I expand the scope from phase to phase?
  3. What artificial progressions could I employ?
    1. How can I employ initial conservation of conditions?
    2. How can I increase the stakes from phase to phase?
    3. Could making the effect faster or slower each time improve the effect?
  4. How can I make the progression logical?
    1. Does it keep the rules intrinsic in the effect?
    2. Is it logical from the spectator's viewpoint?
3. Surprise and Suspense:
  1. Surprise:
    1. Would a twist ending be effective?
      1. Is there an expected climax?
      2. How could I finish with the effect reversing 180 degrees?
      3. How could I finish with the props reversing roles 180 degrees?
      4. Is the twist ending stronger than the expected ending?
      5. Is the unexpected ending logical, even inevitable?
    2. Would a kicker ending be effective?
      1. Is there an expected climax?
      2. Is the kicker climax stronger than the basic climax?
      3. Is the kicker climax thematically related to the basic effect?
      4. Could I make a statement that secretly foreshadows the climax?
      5. Can I produce the kicker before applause for the basic climax?
    3. How much surprise is appropriate?
      1. Which effects would really benefit from a surprise ending?
      2. How can I limit overuse of surprise endings?
  2. Suspense:
    1. How can I make them care, then make them wait?
      1. How can I use mystery to evoke curiosity?
        Can I explain the mystery with an even greater mystery?
        Can I introduce a prop while keeping a feature hidden?
        How could I frequently refer to the hidden feature?
        Could I perform the effect under a cover?
        What suggestions could I plant due to the cover?
        What strange behavior could be exploited for mystery?
        What other questions can I place in their minds?
        Could I react to exclusive knowledge?
        Could precautions be taken to protect the mystery?
      2. How can I use conflict to exploit uncertainty?
        How could I exploit apparently great odds?
        How can I communicate . . .
        . . . the object of the challenge?
        . . . the difficulty involved?
        How could failure be used to demonstrate great odds?
        How can I convincingly present the “failure”?
        How can I convincingly resolve the “failure”?
      3. How can I use tension to evoke anticipation?
        What can I say is going to happen, then put off?
        How can I make the delay unavoidable?
        How can I telegraph the climax?
        What natural dramatic pauses can be added?
      4. How can I milk the suspense?
        Where can I build time to help add to the suspense?
        How can I make this delay a natural part of the effect?
      5. How can I combine suspense elements?
        How can I string one suspense element after another?
4. The Climax:
  1. How quickly can I wrap up the effect after the climax?
  2. Do I resolve all suspicions before the climax?
    1. Do spectators ask to see anything after the effect is over?
    2. How can I eliminate this suspicion BEFORE the climax?
  3. How can I handle extended climaxes?
    1. Can I eliminate all interruptions during the extended climax?
    2. Can I employ some type of suspense during the revelation?
  4. How can I prevent anti-climaxes?
    1. Is the post-climax event trivial in comparison to the climax?
    2. Am I adding other events just to “clean up” the props?
    3. Am I adding other events just to prevent “wasting” something?
    4. Am I not revealing the events in weak-to-strong order?
  5. Should I keep or separate simultaneous climaxes?
    1. Are the two climaxes conceptually related?
    2. How demanding is it for the audience to absorb each climax?
    3. Could two separate climaxes become one, following the rules above?
  6. When should I undersell the climax?
    1. Is the effect too weak for a big buildup?
    2. Is there any incidental magic that happen in the course of the effect?
    3. Is there a “sucker” element to the effect?
    4. How can I undersell the effect in any of these situations?

Character

The Functions of Character
1. How can I use my magic to sell myself?
2. How can I put the focus of the show on me and how people react to me?
3. Because of my character, what expectations are created?
4. How can I get them to care about me, so that they'll be interested in my show?
Creating the Character
1. What do the effects I perform suggest about my role?
2. How is my role affected by . . .
  1. . . . my gender?
  2. . . . my body type?
  3. . . . my facial appearance?
  4. . . . my speech pattern?
  5. . . . my personality traits?
  6. . . . my interests?
  7. . . . assets of me that positively affect other people?
3. How can I use the audience to determine my character's effectiveness?
  1. What do their off-hand comments say about their perceptions?
  2. What type of humor plays best for me?
  3. What type of effects play best for me?
4. What are my character's . . .
  1. . . . personality and character traits?
  2. . . . relevant anecdotes?
  3. . . . personal history?
5. What considerations do I have to make if I don't perform magic for a living?
  1. Is my performing character reasonably congruent to my real personality?
Conveying the Character
1. What clothing would best communicate my character?
2. What verbal communication would best communicate my character?
  1. What scripted patter would best communicate my persona?
  2. What terminology would my character use?
  3. What anecdotes would my character have?
  4. What lines would help reveal my persona?
  5. What would my character, performing or not, say around a spectator?
3. What actions would best communicate my character?
  1. What themes would best communicate my character?
  2. In what tone (consistent attitude about my magiwould my character work?
  3. What effects would best communicate my character?
4. What props would best communicate my character?
  1. Instead of the standard prop(s) for an effect, what would my persona use?
  2. How would my character dress the props?
Style
1. What is the cumulative effect of even the smallest elements on my character?
2. What is my character's philosophy about magic?
3. How can I make the all the elements consistent with my philosophy?
  1. How many “crossroads” (key points) can I break an effect down into?
  2. What action would my character's philosophy dictate at this crossroad?
    1. If multiple actions seem equal, how could I refine my philosophy?
  3. How can I keep my methods from getting in the way of my philosophy?
4. What words or actions get in the way of conveying my style?
5. How can I eliminate needless words or action that get in the way of my style?
6. How can I develop naturalness of motion in my style?
  1. What presentational motivation exists for this move?
  2. How can I minimize the apparent energy needed for this move?

The Act

Structure
1. How can I create an effective opener?
  1. How can I structure my opener to win over the audience?
  2. How can I use the opener to set the tone for the rest of the act?
  3. How quickly can I get to the first instance of magic?
2. How can I create an effective builder?
  1. What effect can I use that's stronger than my opener?
3. How can I create an effective closer?
  1. What effect can I use that's stronger than my opener AND my builder?
    1. How can I include a strong suspense buildup in this effect?
    2. How can I employ a multiple-climax effect at this point?
  2. How can I alert my audience that this is the last trick?
Unity
1. How can I use my character to unify my act?
2. What single prop could my character build an act around?
3. What unifying theme would suit my character?
  1. What effects should be bypassed to help unify the theme?
  2. How can my character credibly communicate the theme?
4. What motifs could my character employ?
Variety
1. What variations of the theme could my character employ?
2. What different props could my character employ?
3. How can I employ variety in dramatic structure?
  1. What tricks of various lengths could I combine?
  2. How can I mix tricks that employ surprise with those that employ suspense?
  3. How else could variety be brought to my act?
The Informal Performance
1. How should I structure the informal act?
  1. Which one of my openers should I use?
  2. Which one of my closers should I use?
  3. Once I know my opener and closer, which builders should I do?
  4. Do I have one perpetually ready set of three effects to perform?
2. How do I handle requests to continue after I've performed my closer?
  1. What effect could I perform that's at least as strong as my closer?
  2. Which effect is sufficiently different from (but at least as strong as) my closer?
  3. Which effects could be set aside as encores?

The Audience

Audience Testing
1. How can I avoid advice from fellow magicians about laypeople's responses?
2. How can I further develop my commercial sense?
  1. What response am I getting from my audience?
  2. Why did they respond in that particular manner?
  3. How can I more effectively review my show immediately afterwards?
3. How can I get performing experience in front of laypeople?
The Time Element
1. Timing:
  1. What is the proper time relationship between two events?
    1. What's the proper timing between the hands in the sleight?
    2. What's the proper timing between the real and misdirective actions?
      1. What's the proper timing when a spectator must “misdirect”?
      2. How can I employ staggered motion? (Jump to Misdirection section)
    3. What's the proper timing between a patter line and . . .
      1. . . . an accompanying action?
        How can I make patter / action connections for audience?
      2. . . . the following patter line?
        Has the audience fully absorbed line A before line B?
        Would a pause be beneficial or detrimental?
        Has the laugh passed it's peak, but not been completed?
  2. How can I get more experience with, and understanding of, timing?
2. Pacing:
  1. How can I get the audience to perceive that time is passing quickly?
    1. How can I maintain interest at every point in the effect?
  2. How can I increase the pacing of my patter?
    1. What patter lines can I reduce or eliminate?
    2. How can I minimize the background and still keep the trick effective?
    3. How can I give the audience constant verbal and visual focus points?
  3. How can I increase the pacing of the business?
    1. If I eliminate the business, how would conviction be affected?
    2. How could the business be shortened?
      1. Could the business be split among more than one person?
    3. How can I make the business more interesting?
      1. What gags or other business might be employed here?
      2. How can I create suspense out of the necessary business?
      3. How can I communicate the importance of the business?
  4. How can I balance pacing with audience participation?
    1. How would lack of audience participation affect conviction?
    2. How can control the speed of the spectator's actions?
  5. How effectively can I balance pacing with the other presentational elements?
3. Tempo:
  1. How could I improve the effect by altering the speed at which it's performed?
Immediacy
1. Where can I create induced responses?
  1. What circumstances would be coercive enough to induce a response?
  2. What should I do if the spectator doesn't take the bait?
  3. How can I encourage a “happy accident” to recur in each show?
2. How could I make some effects seem more special?
  1. What effects could be used as encores?
  2. What effects could I present as a trick for “the chosen few”?
  3. How could I present an effect as one I'm working on?
  4. How can I present the effect as the most difficult one I do?
3. How can I adlib more effectively?
  1. What questions or jokes do I repeatedly hear during the show?
  2. What humorous responses could I give to these questions?
  3. How could I employ a funny line I heard from the audience?
  4. Is my act prepared enough so that it's not a burden in performance?
4. How can I use situational meaning to generate planned spontaneity? (Jump to Situational Meaning section)
  1. What effects could use “failure” effectively?
  2. How can I communicate the apparent risk?
Attention Control
1. What information should the audience be taking in at each step of the effect?
2. How can I eliminate steps that don't convey information?
3. To make the center of interest coincide with the source of information, how can I . . .
  1. . . . use my own interest to direct attention?
  2. . . . point to the source of information?
  3. . . . verbally tell them where to look?
  4. . . . employ movement to direct their attention?
  5. . . . employ sound to direct attention?
  6. . . . contrast an element with it's surroundings?
  7. . . . focus their attention on something new?
  8. . . . use suspense to create inherent interest?
4. How can I make my misdirection more effective?
  1. What can I direct their attention TOWARD?
  2. When using suspense as misdirection, when is interest at it's peak?
  3. What action should be taken first, so that the eye will naturally follow it?
5. How can I control the intensity of the misdirection?
  1. How could I use humor to relax the audience's guard?
  2. Where should I relax, so as to induce the audience to relax also?
  3. How can I use the audience's belief about when an effect begins or ends?
6. How can I perform simulation moves more effectively?
  1. How closely does the simulation move mimic the real action?
  2. How can I avoid misdirecting attention during the simulation move?
7. How can I minimize distractions?
  1. What conscious reason do I have for making the slightest motion in my act?
  2. How does a given move help focus and direct audience attention?
Audiences
1. What factors are affecting may audience's attention span?
  1. How can I maximize the audience's ability to see and hear me?
  2. How should I alter my act for the audience's level of alcohol consumption?
  3. How should I alter my act due to the audience's possible physical discomfort?
2. How should I alter my act for larger audiences?
  1. Most importantly, how can I get more people to hear the show?
  2. How can I improve the visible aspect of my show?
  3. How can I make even the most distant spectator feel they're part of the show?
  4. How can I theatrically exaggerate the show for a larger audience?
3. How should working for magicians affect my show?
  1. How can I minimize or eliminate performing for magicians?
  2. What effects are magicians too familiar with to perform for them?
  3. Why should I change my act when performing for magicians?
Assistants
1. What are the most important qualities in selecting an assistant?
  1. Will they be cooperative?
  2. Will the be expressive?
2. In a formal close-up show, why would two spectators be better?
  1. Will just one spectator feel inhibited?
  2. Would two provide more amusing interaction?
  3. Do you have a backup if one spectator is troublesome?
3. How can I best select an assistant?
  1. Am I forfeiting my right to choose my assistant?
  2. Why are women usually better assistants than men?
    1. Am I minimizing my chances for a competitive attitude?
    2. Will my assistant be more likely to express admiration for my magic?
    3. Is my assistant likely to express their feelings spontaneously?
    4. Will my assistant not feel singled out among their peers?
  3. Are there any attractive, but not vain, women present at the show?
  4. Are there any women who seem to look forward to the show?
  5. Are there any women who have returned from previous performances?
    1. Have they been a cooperative and expressive assistant before?
  6. Am I effectively avoiding drunks, bores, talkers or over-eager people?
4. Once I've found a prospective assistant, how can I bring them up effectively?
  1. If I ask them up, and they initially refuse, shouldn't I continue encouragement?
  2. Once I have one or two good assistants, shouldn't I keep them up there?
Hecklers
1. How can I best handle hecklers in general?
  1. Shouldn't I ignore the heckler in order to minimize the attention received?
  2. If the heckler persists, what can I do then?
    1. If audience hostility is sufficiently built up, what line could I use?
      1. Is the line directed at the audience, not the heckler?
      2. Does the line allow the audience to relive their hostility?
    2. Is it worth it to continue performing?
2. How can I best handle “theorizers”?
  1. How can I best handle people who theorize DURING the effect?
    1. Shouldn't I just proceed with the effect, to disprove his theory?
  2. How can I best handle people who theorize AFTER the effect?
    1. Shouldn't I limit my response to one, and only one theory?
    2. If the audience finds the explanation(s) plausible, how can I improve?
3. How can I best handle “challengers”?
  1. Shouldn't I avoid meeting the challenge, to retain control of the show?
  2. If it's a reasonable challenge, how can I improve the effect's construction?
4. How can I best handle “grabbers”?
  1. How can I minimize grabbing?
  2. How can I handle grabbing in progress?
    1. Shouldn't I simply retrieve the prop(s)?
    2. How can I address the grabber politely, yet firmly?
5. How can I handle people who have a challenge attitude?
  1. How can I alter my performance to minimize challenges?
  2. Which of the previous heckler techniques would be appropriate?
6. How can I handle interruptions?
  1. Shouldn't I respond with a funny or pleasant adlib?
  2. How can I minimize my responses to interruptions?
7. What can I do if I get nailed, especially during a key move?
  1. How can I improve the performance to prevent or avoid getting nailed?
The Unexpected
1. How can I practice effectively?
  1. How can I practice the sleight with and without the mirror?
  2. How can I employ analysis and creativity in addition to the repetition?
  3. How can I practice the timing of the patter in conjunction with the move?
2. How can I rehearse effectively?
  1. Am I able to rehearse the entire act without stopping?
  2. How can I rehearse “dead time”?
  3. How can I rehearse spectator participation?
  4. How could continued practice and rehearsal benefit my performance?
3. How can I handle screw-ups?
  1. How can I make the audience feel better, rather than myself?
  2. Have I rehearsed an appropriate “out” for this situation?
  3. If “outs” don't save the effect, shouldn't I just admit the mistake and move on?
  4. If I'm on my last effect, what others could take it's place?
  5. If I've screwed up two effects in a row, how could I practice more effectively?
  6. How can I avoid ending on a screw-up?
4. How can I debrief effectively?
  1. What errors, problems or difficulties can I routine out of the effect?
  2. How can I minimize what I leave to chance?
5. How can I handle unforeseen distractions?
  1. If it's an ignorable distraction, shouldn't I just ignore it?
  2. If it's disruptive, how can I minimally acknowledge it before continuing?
  3. How can I remain in control of the situation?

How To Become a World-Famous Magician*

2010-10-25T22:37:00.000-07:00

Introduction

I think almost everyone in magic (and even many a layperson!) has fantasized about touring the world, being on TV specials, and being recognized as one of the world's top magicians. Wouldn't it be nice to actually learn how to achieve such a thing? To do this, we'd have to not only find a magician who has risen from obscurity and achieved success, but also one who understands the principles behind his success and is willing to share them!

Fortunately for us, Rudy Coby is just such a person! Starting from the obscurity of Dan Garrett's basement in 1986, he has risen to be recognized as one of the most original magicians in the business!

Since about 1997, “Labman” has been giving a lecture entitled...

HOW TO BECOME A WORLD-FAMOUS MAGICIAN*

(*or...just look like one!)

...as well as selling lecture notes of the same name.

Although Rudy Coby is still selling these notes (see final section for information on how to get your own set of these WONDERFUL notes), he has very generously allowed me to make the first two chapters freely accessible on this website (Thanks again, Rudy!).

Excerpts from:

HOW TO BECOME A WORLD-FAMOUS MAGICIAN*

by Rudy Coby

(*or...just look like one!)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LABMAN!

It's hard to believe, but Labman is ten years old.

A decade ago, a four-legged crazy scientist wearing sunglasses and an attitude was unleashed on an unsuspecting public. The occasion was the Comedy Magic Challenge at the Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas — a magic contest sponsored by Joe Stevens' Desert Magic Seminar. To say that I was a complete unknown is an understatement...nobody knew that I was even on the planet.

The fact that I was entered in the contest was complete luck. At the time, I was living at Dan and Carol Garrett's house in Atlanta because of a business deal gone bad. They graciously took me into their home and helped me at a time when I needed it most. I was supporting myself by picking up various shows from Dan's excess bookings. It was a difficult, yet wonderful time. I had put myself through college by doing close-up in Atlantic City casinos and stand-up magic in comedy clubs. I told Dan my future plans about Labman, but at the time it must have seemed like a delusional fantasy. Imagine some kid living in your spare room telling you about his crazy dreams for a stage character who grew four legs, chopped them off with a flying chainsaw, and then stretched his body to over ten feet tall without boxes, assistants, etc. Then imagine he tells you it will allow him to travel the world playing the greatest nightspots and even spawn its own television series, comic book, theater show and, eventually, a feature motion picture. You'd think that kid was insane, right?!?

Dan Garrett didn't. That's what friends are for.

I saw an ad in Genii magazine advertising the Comedy Magic Challenge, which was taking place in just a few weeks. I mentioned to Dan that one day I was going to enter one of those contests just to showcase Labman. He asked what was holding me back. I replied that I couldn't afford the thousands of dollars it would cost to fly from Atlanta to Vegas. Dan replied that I could get an economy ticket for a few hundred bucks. I was flabbergasted! Believe it or not, I had never bought a plane ticket before that. I thought air travel was much more expensive. Now, I had no excuse.

We called Joe Stevens. He told us that the contest entry was closed — they already had their twelve contestants. Dan pressed. Joe replied that the seminar organizers were meeting in a few days for the final decisions and if I could Fed-Ex a tape to his home, he would try to get them to look at it. We promised to get a tape in the mail the next day.

The only problem was I didn't have a tape.

Dan called around Atlanta to see if there was somewhere in town I could do my act so that he could videotape it. While he did this, I made a table for my act out of a Kitty Litter box and a stolen waiter's stand. Truth is stranger than fiction.

That night, I did my act at the Punchline Comedy Club in the middle of a Joan Rivers-lookalike contest. Great reaction, but you couldn't see my feet because of the bad sightlines; (and seeing the feet in a “four-legged man” act is pretty important.) The next day, I found myself doing my act in the center ring of the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Baily Circus at a clown college audition just to get another tape. It worked. I sent the two other performances — (one showing the act clearly in the deserted circus ring and the other showing the audience reaction in a full club) — off to Joe's house in Wichita.

The next day, I got the call. I was in.

(The story I heard was that the Seminar organizers weren't even going to look at my tape. They had their contestants, but the Fed-Ex arrived just before they were going to break off the meeting. Jay Marshall popped in the tape and then called everyone back in excitedly. Pete Biro and the rest of the guys decided to bump someone else and put me in. Thank you, Wichita!)

Joe Stevens told me I could come under one condition: I could only do the three minutes that was actually on the video. They already had an overlong show....take it or leave it. I took it. It was the best advice anyone's ever given me. At the time, I was worried. I was competing against all the best comedy magic stars who were doing their full sets. With three minutes, I couldn't possibly win. But, you know the saying...beggars can't be choosers.

I arrived in Las Vegas without a room reservation. I slept in the Frontier Hotel lobby the first night and on someone's floor the rest of the weekend. My friends from New York were laughing at me, watching me put my Kitty Litter table together with gaffer tape. I was very nervous backstage getting ready to go on. I was opening the second half of the show and the first part had been an unadulterated disaster. It went on for hours and the audience was very unhappy. I peeked out during intermission and saw a veritable Who's Who of Magic in the front row, including Siegfried and Roy, Lance Burton, and my personal hero Dai Vernon. I had always dreamed of meeting them and here I was in Las Vegas....but, they looked PISSED. The MC was introducing my name. I strapped on my extra legs, took a deep breath, and walked on the stage expecting the worst.

Three minutes later, my life had changed.

Moments like these only happen once in a lifetime. I can only tell you that from behind my sunglasses, it was real magic. The audience's faces went from scowling to smiles by the time I reached center stage and I knew I was home free. The laughs were as loud as thunder — this was the first time the act had been performed in a big room. At the end of the three minutes, I received a standing ovation.

I walked offstage a different four-legged man indeed. Labman
was born.

Why did I tell you about this in such detail? Because I'm going to let you in on an incredible secret on the next page. Just because you read this far.

Excerpts from:

HOW TO BECOME A WORLD-FAMOUS MAGICIAN*

by Rudy Coby

(*or...just look like one!)

3:00

Do you dream of being a World Famous Magician?

Do you want to travel the globe, seeing the most beautiful cities and meeting the most beautiful women and get treated like a millionaire?

Do you fantasize about being on the hottest television shows around the world and having people know your name?

Ten years ago, I was in the same boat. Dreaming about all of these crazy goals, but not knowing in your heart if it's really possible. When you're in a little town and you have big dreams, you can find a million people to tell you why it's not possible. Whether you want to be a magician or an astronaut, all dreams seem like they're so far away from where you are at the time. As a young magician, it seems impossible to compete with the best of the best....most just give up.

I'm here to tell you it's not impossible. You're not even that far off from achieving any of those goals I've just listed. Believe it or not, I can tell you EXACTLY how far away you are down to the second....no matter what level of performer you are.

You're three minutes away.

It's an incredible fact that I only discovered through hard experience. To keep on track and not get overwhelmed by it all, remember this — if you have a strong, original act that lasts three minutes, you can travel the world tomorrow.

If you're serious about being a world-class magician, this simple statement will be the most important thing you'll ever read in a magic book. Don't underestimate it. Put a piece of paper that says 3:00 on your practice mirror right now.

The Three Minute Rule allows you to focus on what's really important. If you understand it, you won't waste your time trying to learn every new trick that gets published — you'll realize that that time could be better spent working on the material for your three minutes. You'll stop wasting time gossiping about other magicians and trading videos of their confrontations, realizing that it only hurts one person in the end....you. And, you'll stop buying the latest trendy trick at the magic shop, realizing that your money could be much better spent.

It's time to get serious.

I'm not only talking to those dreamers who want to travel the globe. I'm talking to anyone who wants to make themselves a better magician. Whether you want to have your own TV special or just want to be a better performer, the steps are exactly the same. Realizing that you don't have to be able to perform every new trick or know the latest gossip allows you to step into a very exclusive group that takes the art of Magic very seriously. The rewards are there if you just stop wasting your time farting around and work on what's important.

There are some professional magicians that will tell you I'm dead wrong. For example, most pros will tell you that you need a good eight to twelve minute act to work in the real world. They'll say any less and you won't get hired. They're wrong. My first real world big booking after the Vegas contest was headlining the revue show at the Casino de Monte Carlo. Every other act did the standard eight to twelve minutes. I did three. The girls had to change a little faster, but the Casino was happy to have such a different, strong act. I've been back a dozen times.

The more original you are, the less time you have to do.

When they are hiring a standard magic act, they expect them to do a standard amount of time. When they're hiring a unique act, all bets are off. Because you're the only game in town doing what you do, you can dictate your conditions a bit more. The fact is that when an act is really strong and original, the viewer loses track of time. After the show, I would often ask spectators how long they thought my act was. They would never know. They would say the length seemed “just right”.

(And, here's a secret I shouldn't repeat: whenever a TV booker or theatrical agent would ask how long my act was, I would ask them how long they needed. If they said anywhere from two to six minutes, I would reply, “Yeah, that's about what it is!” This may seem unprofessional, but in the decade of performing the Four Legs number, I've never heard one complaint. I wouldn't suggest this tactic if you have a standard act, however. If your act doesn't knock people out, they are much more likely to be looking at their watch. But, if they're looking at their watches, you have bigger things to worry about.)

The Three Minute Rule is fascinating.

You've probably guessed the obvious: anything under those one hundred and eighty seconds is too short. I have I've had good friends of mine who were really frustrated by this fact. For example, years ago I tried to get Christopher Hart on a big TV show in Paris with his brilliant Torn and Restored Music Sheet routine. I was worried because the routine was only about two minutes long. To help sell it, I even met the star and the producer of the show in my agent's office in Paris to try to convince them. They watched the video. They loved the routine. Then, the verdict: “too short”. The rest of Chris' act was pretty standard, so they were only interested in the one effect. “But, it's for television....it's a great routine!”, I said. They thought it over, then repeated: “trop court”. Too short. (By the way, this story has a happy ending. A few years later, Christopher Hart came up with his incredible Zombie Glove act and these same producers booked him on the show. Can you guess how long that act is?)

Anything less than three minutes doesn't allow the performer enough time to establish their character and situation in a strong way. This is why most music videos adhere to the three minute rule. Any less and something feels rushed or incomplete. Any more and it's too much of a good thing.

I create all of my routines with this rule in mind. It works.

Want to learn more? Check out the offer on the next page!

Offer

Besides the previous excerpts, "How to Become a World-Famous Magician* (*or...just look like one)" includes (but is not limited to) chapters on:

* Originality 101 - How Rudy, along with Tommy Wonder, got to be treated like millionaires, and how their magic got them there!

* Character - Here's the secret to developing a character that suits only you! This advice will set you apart from 99% of the magicians in the world!!

* Material - The REAL source of your own original material is right here!

Rudy even throws in two bonuses - his controversial review of David Blaine's first show, along with the reaction it generated, and the full, original script of the "Magic Dave" parody, plus the inspiration for it, that appeared on his second special, "Rudy Coby: Ridiculously Dangerous".

The advice is these notes is literally worth thousands of dollars for the performer who truly wants to find the most effective, direct way to become known for their magic! And yet, all Rudy is asking for these notes is just $20.

To order your own copy of these lecture notes, contact Rudy Coby at rudycoby@hotmail.com. Also, don't forget to check out his webpage!

Understanding Magic (Essay)

2010-10-25T22:08:00.000-07:00

Starting Points

Let's start at the top. What is magic? Oops, way over the top. I'll try again. What is the ART of magic? I'm looking for a dictionary definition that's broad and all-inclusive, but not so broad that it includes anything which clearly isn't performance magic. We're not concerned here with the various styles, performers, designers and the differing tastes therein, but the field itself.

In his recent book set “The Art of Astonishment”, Paul Harris refers to magicians as “guides to astonishment”. Rewording this to apply to magic itself, we write the definition as “a performance of guided astonishment”. Hmm, this could apply to faith healers and even some con artists too. Their goal, however, is more the money that they can get out of such acts. Including this in the definition as “a performance in which the spectators are guided to a state of astonishment as a goal in and of itself”.

Magic is usually done as entertainment, so this should probably be included. What about magic that is done to teach concepts or to highlight a point? Instructional magic strays from our original point of magic as art, so it will not be included here. So what do we have now? “an entertaining performance in which the spectators are guided to a state of astonishment as a goal in and of itself”

Juggling is entertaining, often include moments of astonishment, and that's often the goal itself, so how does magic differ? Juggling, while difficult, doesn't progress into the realm of the impossible. So, the definition we have now is “an entertaining performance in which the magician portrays achievements that are perceived by spectators as having no possible explanation so that the magician may guide them to a state of astonishment as a goal in and of itself”.

Some may bring up the idea of performing difficult, but not impossible acts, such as dealing ideal bridge or poker hands to include in our definition. I believe that most audiences perceive such difficult or unlikely acts to be done by skill. For purposes of this discussion, I'll stick strictly to the ideal of the impossible. Having said this, I think we can consider our definition complete. OK, it sounds overly-scholastic, and for our purposes, “guided astonishment” will probably suffice most of the time, but at least we can now start from common ground.

Speaking of starting points, what is the “starting point”, the origin, of the art of magic itself? To answer that question, we'll have to go back even before magic was perceived art. Since magic is often jokingly called “the second-oldest profession”, this will go back quite far.

Obviously, any origin which predates recorded history, as magic's origin does, will ultimately be only theory. I'll simply have to go with modern theories where facts are not verifiable. The most popular theory today is that as soon as man realized he could deceptively perform the impossible, he began to do so in order to gain power and status over his fellow men. This theory, however, is less accepted today.

Eugene Burger, a Chicago magician, has pointed out several flaws in this theory. The two most astute observations are:

1) At this point in history, humans were still nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers, whose very survival depended on acting as part of a group. Individual status had no function in this lifestyle.

2) If deception was done to gain status, why were so many early practitioners (at least those that we have records of) kept apart , or even outright ostracized, from the group?

What theory is slowly gaining acceptance in it's place? A shamanism origin has been proposed. Shamans had a better understanding than the other of the phases of the moon, the effect of the sun on the seasons, medicinal herbs, and so on. Notice that all the knowledge is, from a hunter-gatherer's point of view, wholly practical. Because there was an understanding of these areas, yet little or no physical control of them, the shaman's specialized applications of their knowledge tended to be ritualistic.

This theory claims that magic itself was not so much a healing tool as evidence of the shaman's qualifications. The magic was not only to assure the sick (and their loved ones) they were in good hands, but also apparently offered as a unique diversion for observers. Even the early hunter-gatherers couldn't spend all their time on the basic survival and reproductive instincts! It's these curious observers of the shaman whom I truly believe were the first witnesses to magic as an art.

Although many believe that magic at this point was simply hallucinogenic visions, magic historians think it's more likely that early sleight-of-hand or other physical magic was used. Visions were originally theorized because of the close and varying, natural conditions in which magic was performed. Any modern close-up magician can tell you that this is not a limiting factor.

When the agricultural era came, and the first civilizations appeared, magic is believed to have made the full split. The ritualistic healing itself became the province of priests and spiritualists, and the performance aspect became a separate art. Many ancient civilizations have records of “Cups & Balls”. The fact that so many cultures had records of this effect suggests that it's a holdover from the shamanistic/nomadic days. It also suggests that shamans would exchange ideas when they'd run into the occasional friendly tribes. Wow! Prehistoric magic conventions! (The closing act of choice? Jay Marshall & “Lefty” )

Surprisingly, even at this early stage, the word “magic” hadn't come into being yet. Impossible feats were simply described as the performer's “practices”: Descriptions included “shamanistic practices”, “acetabularii” (figuratively translated: practitioners of Cups & Balls), and so on. The word itself came in the 6th century B.C.. A group of priests from Iran arrived in Greece. The ancient Greeks referred to these priests as “magoi” (singular - magos). This word came into Latin, and eventually into English as magi (singular - magus). The priests were interpreters of omens and dreams. The Greeks saw this as evidence of unusual powers, and called their strange acts “magic”.

Throughout most of the agricultural era (talk about a looong history!), magic was mainly used by the priests and spiritualists. From these civilizations up through the 19th century, little actually changed. Most magicians up through the 18th century still wore the long, flowing robes of ancient civilizations. Shortly after the dark ages, Italians (Jonas, Androletti, Carlotti) seemed to be finest exponents of the art of magic. In 1584, the first English magic book, “The Discoverie of Witchcraft”, was published revealing many of the conjuring tricks of the day (as well as these days).

A German physicist named Dobler, in 1840, devised what was to become modern sleight-of-hand. It was also around this time that Alexander Hermann, Bautier de Kolta and Robert-Houdin brought the art of magic into it's modern incarnation.

As we continue into the 20th century, most of the major historical points are a matter of public knowledge (thanks to the development of mass media). In the early 20th / late 19th century, magicians performed mainly in vaudeville. Houdini captured the public's imagination with his escapes and showmanship. While there were many great magicians from the '20s to the '60s, the art as a whole seemed to go into hiding, except from the odd theater/TV/movie performance.

Fortunately, Mark Wilson brought it back into the forefront of the public's mind with his regular show, “The Magic Land of Alakazam”, and his later “Magic Circus” specials. In the '70s, a decade later, Doug Henning amazed audiences. Starting in the late '70s, David Copperfield brought his spectacular brand of magic to live and TV audiences around the world.

My intention here was to give you a general overview of the history of magic, so please forgive me for my brief descriptions and large historical leaps. I've also left out something more. You'll note the earlier definition I proposed:

“An entertaining performance in which the magician portrays impossible achievements that are perceived by spectators as real so that the magician may guide them to a state of astonishment as a goal in and of itself”

This definition says nothing about performance styles, performing conditions, the particular artists or so on. This is because the history of the art of magic is still being written. Newer magicians will come along, and change the way we think. As you read this, David Blaine (remember his specials “Street Magic” and “Magic Man”?) may or may not be doing just that. Constant revolution and improvement are probably just what magic needs right now (and forever!).

Mumbo-Jumbo (or: The Vocabulary of Magic)

What do you think of, when I mention the word “magic”? Many people come up with the image of David Copperfield/Siegfried & Roy or a birthday party magician. While these are the most commonly seen forms of magic, there's actually much more to the world of magic.

Before we delve into the various branches of magic, I should mention something about magic in general. Magicians don't like the term “trick”, which is so often applied to what they do. “Trick” suggests a win/lose mentality that professional magicians abhor. Magicians who really believe the goal stated in part 1 of this essay, that of a guiding spectators to astonishment, have adopted the term “effect”. This term suggests that the magician is truly trying to give the spectator a special experience.

The most common way to divide up the various styles of magic is by performing situation. The three major branches of magic are “stage”, “parlor” and “close-up”. I'll describe each of these and their sub-divisions in the following paragraphs.

Stage magic, simply defined, is any magic that can be viewed when performed on a stage. Effects such as the “Chinese Linking Rings” or “Sawing a Woman in Half” are classic stage tricks. The “Sawing a Woman in Half” is a special type of stage magic called “grand illusion”. Grand illusion encompasses any stage magic that involves a human being or anything larger as the object of the magic. It's grand illusion that David Copperfield, Siegfried & Roy and Lance Burton perform. In the other, smaller extreme, there's also “stand-up” magic. This is performed on smaller stages, like those in comedy clubs. If you've ever seen the Amazing Jonathan or Paul Kozak perform, you've been witness to stand-up magic.

Parlor magic is performed right on the same floor level as the audience, as opposed to a raised stage. The two most common forms seen today are birthday-party and gospel magicians. Gospel is a special type of parlor magic that is used to demonstrate religious (mostly Christian) concepts. With the replacement of intimate nightclubs by super-mega-nightclubs and comedy clubs, classic parlor magic is rarely seen today. Most of the classic parlor effects have been adapted to stage or stand-up performances.

A very unique branch of magic has developed relatively recently, called “close-up”. While the effects themselves, which are performed in close proximity to the spectators, have been around as long as many stage or parlor effects, they were traditionally done informally as simple amusements for friends and family. Only since the early '60s (about the same time parlor started to diminish), has it become more common for close-up magicians to find formal work at restaurants and dinner parties.

Close-up, like the other styles of magic, has developed it's own individual genres. Currently, the term “close-up” is also used more specifically to describe a show in which spectators gather around a table which is specifically set as the scene of the magic show. Other types of close-up magic are “table-hopping” , “walk-around” and “street magic”. In table-hopping, the magician is employed by a restaurant (or a party host) to perform at diner's tables while they're waiting for dinner. Walk-around is performed at parties without the aid of a table. All the magic happens in the magician's and/or spectator's hands. In large cities, such as New York, L.A. and San Francisco, there are organized places for street performers to weave their magic. Due to the limited locations it's found in, street magic has retained the same sort of “mythos” about it that surely surrounded the early shamans and charlatans.

Cards, coins and other common objects are often the tools for close-up. This form of magic has become increasingly popular due to it's intimate nature. People who have been exposed (or over-exposed) to stage magic believe that almost anything could happen if they're far enough away. Once they've had an impossible act happen right under their nose, or even in their own hands, they experience a new type of astonishment.

While descriptions such as “close-up”, “stage” or “parlor” do much to describe the genre of magic performed, they do little to describe the performing style of individual magicians. If we're to describe the style in which someone communicates anything, it's best to understand WHY someone is communicating their message. Surprisingly, there's only three basic motivations:

NATURAL: The natural motivation drives the artist to recreate real-world phenomena. Details become very important. In magic, this is not only limited to simulating that which is known to exist, but that which has even been suggested to exist. Mentalism, for example, is an attempt to duplicate the “natural” psychic powers of the mind. Giant memory demonstrations, sometimes presented as magic, are another example.

MEANING: In an attempt to convey meaning through art, components of the work are simplified. This is done in order to amplify the importance of the meaning of the work itself. The Broadway show “Ricky Jay and his 52 assistants” was filled with meaning, that of the richness of magic itself (Hey, good topic!). The props involved were, naturally, very simple: Cards, cups, balls and plastic toys.

AESTHETIC: In this type of motivation, no attempt is made to cling to meaning or naturalness. People often ask about this type of art, “What does it mean?” It doesn't mean anything, it is what it is. European magician Steve Sheraton has a good aesthetic act. At various points in his act, he sneezes, causing a 10 foot pole to come out of his nose, sticks his hand through his chest, and gets his jacket to sing.

Few, if any, artistic works stick strictly to anyone of these motivations. Most works are a combination. With these concepts in mind, we can actually use the following chart to graph styles of magic:

(A = Aesthetic, N=Natural, M=Meaning)

Artists whose work comes near the “N” vertex tend to be affected by the beauty of nature. Those near the “M” vertex are affected by the beauty of ideas. “A” vertex works are inspired by the beauty of art itself.

Some artists, like Rudy Coby, stay pretty consistently in one area:

Because Rudy Coby's act is based on comic-book ideas, he rarely attempts to seem natural. While his acts have some meaning, the meaning to him is more like a tool to help justify the comic book world.

Other magicians, like David Copperfield, work in a large area:

Copperfield is charted in such a large area due to his range from meaningful, romantic effects to his more natural/supernatural spectacular effects.

Note that neither approach is wrong. Homing in on a specific area allows you to explore that area in great detail, while performing in a larger area allows you a wider range. Both where you are on the chart, and how wide or narrow an area you commit to working in, is an expression of yourself.

Having discussed the many ways to perform magic, and the various motivations for performing magic, it seems only logical to discuss the various types of “magics”. It's admittedly unusual to hear the word “magic” in plural form, but this modification best suits what I'm about to describe. Magician Robert E. Neale has developed a breakdown of all the types of magics that exist, which offers a unique way of looking at magic. In a book he co-authored with Eugene Burger, entitled “Magic and Meaning” (available through your favorite magic dealer!), there is a fuller explanation of these divisions. So as not to discourage further research, I only briefly describe each type.

First and foremost, there is THE “primary magic” the imagination! Whatever else magic may be, it's a portrayal of something that began in someone's imagination. Hope is both a by-product and a tool of the imagination, which is what makes it so magical. Hope is almost “alchemic” in that it can increase or even create itself with just a little creativity.

The “secondary magics” are those in which the magic is drawn outward from the imagination, into the tangible world. The two types are “ritual” magic and “stage” magic. Ritual is the magic in which the goal is to maintain or improve some aspect of life. This can be anything from an Indian shaman performing a rain dance around a campfire to a Las Vegas gambler blowing on the dice and yelling “baby needs a new pair of shoes!” I am not for a minute suggesting that ritual magic is real or not real. The label merely refers to magic that believes itself to be more than a theatrical presentation.

Stage magic is of the type we discussed earlier in this chapter. Any magic which is performed with the audience aware of the use of deception would fall into this category. The context of this magic is ultimately understood as a diversion. Unlike ritual magic, stage magic is used to portray the imagination, rather than rely on it as a tool.

Mr. Neale make the rather interesting observance that both secondary magics are not as respected as they could be because they've grown too far apart. He suggests that ritual magic could take itself less seriously, and stage magic could take itself more seriously.

The next category is called the reduced magics. This category includes the type of magic which has all the basic elements, but doesn't reach it's full potential for one reason or another. “Detached” magic is a type of ritual magic in which the symbols used have no direct meaning to the person invoking the magic. Going back to earlier gambling example, the gambler more than likely has neither a baby nor need for new baby shoes. As you can see, superstition fits in this category. “Deceptive” magic is a branch of stage magic which is performed only to deceive. This sounds OK, but is done only to fool people, with no premises. We'll discuss the disadvantages of this later, in chapter 4. The final type of reduced magic is “Distractive”. Distractive magic is that which is done only to distract the observers from the day-to-day humdrum world. Deception may not even have to take place! Personally, I consider this to be the noblest of reduced magics, because sometimes a diversion may be just what's needed or desired by the audience in question. If you've ever seen The Amazing Jonathan or Sylvester the Jester perform, you've seen excellent examples of distractive magic.

“Restored” magics are closer to our experiences and views of the world. They use common beliefs and ideals to enhance the magic. Robert Neale suggests that the three basic human needs are survival, meaning and pleasure. This gives rise to the two types of restored magics: Humanistic - for the concerns of survival and pleasure, and Existential - for the concerns of meaning.

Existential magic is quite common (unusually common! <G>) today, such as Copperfield's romantic performances. Humanistic magic, that dealing with our direct experiences, is hard to find. Think about it, where are the magical equivalents of Picasso's “Guernica”? This isn't to say it doesn't exist today. Jeff McBride, a stage magician from New York, performs a great deal of this type of magic, and is leading the way to reintroducing it to magical artists.

The final magic is reflexive or “trickster” magic. This is magic that focus on deception itself. This is not to be confused with the reduced, deceptive magic referred to earlier. The difference here is that the focus is on reminding and informing audiences of the deceptive nature of the performance and (apparent) methods of deception. Gambling displays and “sucker tricks” fall into this category. The ultimate goal of this type of magic could be said to be appreciation of the workings of the imagination itself.

Examining the motivations, the performance styles and the various magics themselves are by no means the only ways to look at magic and magicians. I have, however, found these to be the most useful and thought-provoking methods of magical examination. It can be used t better define other magicians, as well as yourself (assuming you do magic). This brings up an interesting question - what magic of these types appeal to you? What can you contribute to the art of magic? How can you get there? Like any good methods of examination, this exploration has caused us to raise more questions than we answered.

Blood on the Bridge

I can vaguely recall the first trick I ever saw. It was called “Peek-A-Boo”. You know it. A parent holds up their hands or a cloth in front of their face and says “Peek-A-Boo”, and then brings the cloth down and shows their face. What's so magical about that? Think about it from the baby's point of view. Except for it's parents, the baby doesn't recognize or understand much about the world. The only thing the baby really “knows” (and they understand this only instinctually) is that it's senses bring it a complete picture of the world. This is, of course, false, but what if you believed it? If your mom hid behind a towel, your senses would tell you that mom was no longer around. Suddenly, you hear mom's voice say “Peek-A-Boo”, yet your other senses tell you she's not there! Mom puts the towel down, and your senses tell you she's back. Slowly, through repetition of this “effect” (or rather, “game”), you begin to understand that there's more to the world than your senses are telling you. (This is also why you never repeat an effect)

Personally, I've never been to Brazil. My senses have never experienced Brazil itself. Yet, I'm very sure that Brazil exists. I feel very sure that those images of Brazil on TV, billboards, etc., aren't just nice pictures dreamed up by a creative cameraman. In other words, while we experience the world through our senses, they can only give us an incomplete picture of our world at best.

Once we get over that philosophical hurdle in our lives, we have to find a way to compensate for this lack of perception. We tend to do this by labeling things and situations. In other words, we take a set of familiar stimuli and give this a name. Magic becomes possible when we take advantage of the bridge of unconscious assumptions that develop to join people's perceptions of a situation with their labeling of the situation.

If astonishment is the “blood” of magic, then these hidden assumptions are the “veins”. Take Copperfield's “Flying” illusion. For us to take it as flying, he can't have any means of support. Copperfield tackles this assumption on two levels: Visual & Mental. First, he simply flies without visible means of support. Our eyes tell us that he IS flying, and we are astonished. Soon, however, our minds tell us that there MUST be some support, and we just don't see it. Fortunately, Copperfield understands this, and routines the effect to fool the mind as well. Assistants pass hoops over him, and Copperfield even floats inside a glass box, cut off from any POSSIBLE means of support. At this point, astonishment should be the only reaction.

Of course, people's experiences and ways of thinking vary, so some may be astonished and others may not be. That's simply one of the constant challenges of magic.

Having discussed the fact that a magician's goal is the audience's astonishment, and the basic idea behind achieving this goal, the question that comes up is “Why 'astonishment?'” Out of all the forms of self-expression, why magic? Paul Harris has an excellent answer to that one. In his essay in his book series, “The Art of Astonishment”, Paul states that astonishment is our natural state of mind. I disagree with this only slightly. I believe that innocence is our natural state of mind, and astonishment is the reaction to the changing of perceptions.

As we start to accept our limitations and label situations, our world becomes increasingly narrower. Magic takes this world view and shatters some portion of it. Even if it's just for a moment, magic makes you think that there's more to the world than you may have previously thought. All art tries to bring you new perceptions, but only magic does this by trying to directly accessing one's natural state of mind.

Of all those who experience astonishment, some people merely take this as a fleeting experience, others may take it as something deeper. Regardless of the level of astonishment, watching someone accept an astonishing experience that you've given them can truly be the most satisfying moments for a magician. Ironically, in order for the magician, the “astonishment guide”, to create this moment, the chance to experience the wonder itself must be sacrificed. This is why I consider great magicians to be the true “givers” in art. In any other art form, the artist can always view either the work itself or a recording of said work and can see the work with perceptions similar to that of the audience. In magic, however, the magician himself can never really experience the astonishment, because he knows exactly what had to be done to achieve that state in the audience. This isn't to say that the magician never again experiences astonishment, just rarely, if ever, at his or her own work. Sometimes, spectators will astonish the magician simply with an unexpected reaction. “Peek-A-Boo”.

Where Art . . .

We've developed a standard definition of magic, explored various styles in the art, and even asked “Why/how this particular art?”. One thing we haven't discussed so far is where the art itself in magic resides. A common response to this question is the oversimplified, “The presentation is the art.” Let's start with that.

Isn't a well-designed and deceptive method enough? Wouldn't that fool the audience? Yes, and, ironically, that's the problem. Despite the old cigarette ads, it's not fun to be fooled. If an experience is created that isn't readily understandable, with no presentational context whatsoever, the audience will feel, at best, challenged to explain the true circumstances. At worst, the audience will feel that they have been insulted. Either way, the magician hasn't even come close to guiding the spectators to a state of astonishment.

This brings us to the first goal of presentation: To minimize an audience's aversion to the experience of being fooled. This sounds difficult, but the experience of professional magicians, and even the careful studies of trained researchers, have given us reliable methods for achieving just this. For his book, “Your Audience Doesn't Really Like Being Fooled”, Dr. William Nagler actually studied psychological and physiological data from over 50 students (audience members) as they watched magic performances.

Dr. Nagler found only four types of presentation that effectively minimized feeling of antagonism by the audience:

Conspiratorial Attitude: Neither the spectator(s) nor the magician understand how the trick works. Rene Lavand uses this type of presentation when doing his color-changing knife routine. He claims he does it to restore his own sense of wonder, since even he isn't sure how it works. NOTE: This is very different from apparently letting the spectator in on how a trick works, and then pulling the rug out from under him at the end. That approach obviously CREATES animosity.

Distancing: A story is woven around the effect. In this way, the effect takes the appearance of being of another time and/or place. In one routine, David Copperfield weaves a great story about the four-ace trick his grandfather taught him, and how the performance of the trick itself is David's fulfillment of a promise.

Non-Magic: In this approach, the magic isn't as important as the “business”. The by-play, the comedy, etc., are the focus here. The Amazing Jonathan exemplifies this approach. In one of his routines, his assistant (apparently having just seen her paycheck) comes in and spray paints all over the Amazing Johnathan's shirt. The Amazing Jonathan then swallows some bleach and water, and lets the chemical mix spill out onto his shirt. The spray paint is gone! Not one of the more mystifying effects, but it sure is fun to watch.

Triumphant: This is the familiar scenario in which the magician has seemingly goofed up the trick, but manages to pull off a stunning and satisfactory completion. This approach usually requires some acting ability to make the failure seem genuine. In his act, close-up magician Bill Malone shuffles a selected card into the deck. He then spreads the deck randomly around the table. He asks someone to pick up any card and put it into his hand. It turns out not to be the selected card. He apologizes for missing the card, and as he turns his hands over, the selected card is found to be on the back of his hand.

Mike Close, in his discussion of this book in Workers 3, adds two additional scenarios that minimize audience animosity:

Audience Anticipation: Alex Elmsley once suggested that if the audience were allowed to anticipate the climax, they would feel a sense of accomplishment, while still being fooled. Mike Close agrees with this approach with one caveat: The technical requirements should be finished by the time the audience anticipates the climax. There's a classic effect called “the sucker torn-and-restored napkin”. In this effect, the magician simply tears and restores a napkin. The magician then offers to teach the effect, and show how the torn napkin is switched for a whole one hidden in the hand. To add a surprise finish to the effect, the torn napkin is actually restored as well! In the hands of most magicians, this effect comes off as a sucker effect. Doug Henning, however, made it a great behind-the-scenes look at magic, and he lets the audience anticipate the final restoration, so they don't feel suckered.

Blow-Off: Mike Close also suggests that the final effect doesn't have t fit into one or more of these categories. By the time the finale' arrives, and the audience should be well on the magician's side. Now is the chance for the magician to break all the rules and expectations that have been built up in the audience. The goal here is being memorable, rather than minimizing audience hostility. This isn't to say that the magician should completely antagonize his audience throughout the last effect, just that the experience of said effect doesn't have to be as “nice” as the rest of the show. You'll note that David Copperfield's classic final effects (Statue of Liberty Vanishing, Floating Over The Grand Canyon, etc.) have almost none of the aforementioned characteristics, yet they are what Copperfield is known for.

Once the deceptive method has been created, and the audience can enjoy the effect, the magician must then proceed to properly fool them. Magicians have the awesome challenge of having to fool BOTH someone's intelligence and their emotions. In magic vernacular, this is referred to as, “hitting them (the lay people) in the head and the gut”. (Sometimes, when a magician is fooled by an effect, you'll hear them say something like, “Ouch! That hurt!” This is a reference to being “hit” STRONGLY in the head and gut.)

To fool somebody's intelligence, the effect must appear completely logical. When I say “logic”, I don't mean the classic Aristotelian study, but the rules accepted by the viewing audience. The two types of logic that occur in magic are procedural and thematical. Procedural logic emphasizes the fairness of the steps taken to achieve the magical result. Thematical logic gives continuity to the effect and/or act. The audience doesn't have to even be conscious of either type of logical inconsistency. If it's even suspected, there is no experience of magic.

Even if the audience is on the magician's side, and they can't intelligently fathom the method, magic ultimately becomes an art when it reaches the emotions. This is done by using dramatization. To make the audience “feel” the magic, the conjuror emphasizes the visible, the tangible and specific, rather than the symbolic or the general. Perhaps you've seen the mattress ad where they talk about how, even if someone on one side of the bed moves, the other side of the bed is completely still. How do they drive the point home? Do they quote charts and studies that prove this is so? No, they set ten bowling pins on one side of the bed, and drop a 20 lb. bowling ball on the other side of the bed. This image has two distinct advantages: 1) It drives the point home in a VERY understandable way, and 2) It makes use of a image that is ridiculous, and will therefore stay in a person's mind.

Modern wizards use dramatization to demonstrate how fair the conditions of the effect are. In one version of the bare-handed cigarette vanish, the magician asks the spectator to hold on to his wrists. All the spectators then realize that it can't go up the magus' sleeves, or into a pocket, or anywhere else, because he's under constant supervision. Even though the means by which the cigarette vanishes may remain the same whether the magician's hands are held or not, the version in which the hands are held will register as a stronger effect, just because of the dramatization. It's interesting to note that many of the presentational touches designed for emotional impact frequently have intellectual impact as well.

There you have it. The three aspects of presentation, the true art of magic. There's no sure fire way for any performer to get the audience on their side, baffle the intellect and finally reach the emotions. Especially while remaining brief and constantly interesting. Maybe that's why magic is called an art, not a science.

Magic and Art

So far, we've dealt with the unique properties of magic itself. Magic didn't simply spring forth as a totally unique experience, however. It does have much in common with every other form of self expression.

If we're going to talk about art as a whole, though, what IS art? Sorry to ask such an overused question, but it does need asking. To answer this broadly, the best definition I've run across is that art is the third of the three human instincts, after survival and reproduction. This human instinct is the one that drives us to express ourselves. The possession of this instinct is also part of what makes us human.

Scott McCloud, who's definition this is, has some of the clearest thoughts on art I've ever seen. While there's no absolute way to divide up a field such as art, Scott's definition at least makes some of the more obscure aspects much clearer and more understandable. What follows is Scott's thoughts on art applied briefly and specifically to magic. I highly recommend his book, “Understanding Comics” (Don't ask why I'm studying comics), for a more complete discussion.

Enough advertising, where were we? Oh yes, art as an instinct . . .

Imagine a man in a bar, trying to pick up a woman (I know it's difficult, but try). He's basically driven by the reproductive instinct. Let's say the woman herself isn't interested in this man and just wants to get away >from him. While her life may not be threatened, she's still driven by the instinct to “survive” in this situation. Maybe she spots another man coming in, claims it's her husband, and walks away (she's survived!). He starts to walk out of the bar depressed. The bartender sends the bouncer out after this guy, because he hasn't paid his tab. When the guy sees he's being pursued by the bouncer, he's now driven forward, literally and figuratively, by the instinct to survive! He just makes it to his car and speeds off, escaping the bouncer. He could now go try and find another date elsewhere (reproduction), or get dinner and head home to sleep (survival), but the first thing he does is stick out his tongue at the bouncer - Art!

Ok, ok, sticking your tongue out may not be anybody's definition of GREAT art, but it does illustrate the definition (remember what I said in the last chapter about ridiculous images staying in people's minds?). If art IS a natural instinct, why would nature provide us with such a pointless instinct as that of expressing ourselves? The first reason is that it lets us break out of the simpler roles that nature cast most other creatures in. Try as we might, we can't simply spend all of our time eating, hunting and procreating. Have you ever noticed that, when almost any pursuit (career, home life, etc.) gets tedious, you try and inject a little creativity?

Self-expression also provides mental and physical exercise for bodies that might not otherwise receive it. Art also helps mental survival by providing a “release” for emotional imbalances. Although probably not one of it's main purposes, the type of random activities that often occur when people attempt to express themselves, can also lead to useful discoveries! The artist, then, is the achiever, creator, explorer and more!

I don't mean to make art sound like a lofty pursuit, as it's often portrayed. Art, by our previous definition, can be something as simple as the flair with which you sign your name. Because art is such a basic instinct, it's very difficult to totally avoid all elements of self-expression. As far as the form of expression itself, it may have no practical value for anyone else. Yet strangely, as we've seen, art is important despite this.

You may be thinking at this point, “What about what we traditionally call ‘Art’? The plays, the paintings in museums, magic performances, etc.?”. In this type of art, the idea is to create an original, creative expression of your personal purpose. This “professional” art, regardless of the form it will ultimately take, goes through the same basic path.This path consists of the following six steps:

1. IDEA/PURPOSE: What are the impulses in question? What are the philosophies, emotions, ideas behind the work?

2. FORM: What form will the work take? Will it be a magic effect, a pot holder, a movie?

3. IDIOM: What genre does the work belong to? Maybe the work creates an entirely new genre! What “school” of art does this belong to?

4. STRUCTURE: How is the work composed? What should be added to the work? What should be left out?

5. CRAFT: How are the skills employed? What practical problems need solving, and what solutions will get the artist nearest to their goal?

6. SURFACE: How can the superficial aspects of the work be fine-tuned? What means of finishing/production values should be employed?

Ideally, the creator of any artwork starts with an idea, and works through the list to the surface details. Remember, I said IDEALLY. In magic, as in other art forms, it rarely works out that way. As a matter of fact, the art is usually pursued in exactly the reverse order.

This is most likely due to the way in which people are attracted to magic, or any art. For example, people of all ages watch magic specials when they come on TV. The great majority of these viewers will simply enjoy the special as it's meant to be enjoyed. Others, however, are more deeply influenced and are attracted to the art of magic as something they want to pursue. So, they make their first visits to a magic store, and start with some of the easier effects.

They learn the basics of magic - keeping secrets, how to keep the methods >from being apparent, and so on. The practice and practice, and keep buying new tricks, but never really delves into the deeper levels of magic. Eventually, for whatever reason, the person gives up any pursuit of magic for other callings in life. This person never goes beyond step 6 - SURFACE - in the art of magic.

Elsewhere, though, there's someone else who wants more out of magic, and studies more advanced techniques: sleight-of-hand, misdirection, subtleties, etc. At the local magic club, they're the hot-shot young kid who can do all the difficult sleights, even the cool ones from the new magic book that just came out. While they may be golly-gee-whiz-bang-great at magic clubs, they may have difficulty getting the reaction they want from a lay audience. They simply perform their favorite tricks in the order they think of them, and simply restate what's going on in their hands (Chicago magician Eugene Burger refers to this phenomenon as “the adventures of the props in the performer's hands”).

This magician's skills can get him work at the local magic shop at this point, but not in any regular performance venue. Still, maybe mastering CRAFT and SURFACE work is enough for this particular magus. Others who have reached this level may not be so satisfied, however.

Imagine a guy whose goal has been to work on a regular basis as a magician. He's learned the basics of magic, and he can handle all the technical requirements, but he's gone beyond this. He works just as hard on presentations and storytelling as he does on any other aspect of magic. He's creating original effects that have a powerful emotional impact. He gets work at say, a restaurant, doing magic for the patrons. He may even be recognized as one of the best in magic. He may even have books, videos or effects available in magic stores.

While he's very happy with his mastery of SURFACE, CRAFT and STRUCTURE, another magician might not be. Let's say there's a stage magicienne who has achieved all this, but worries that she's lost her individual identity, as far as magic is concerned. She breaks out and tries to find new ways to perform magic. She starts discovering her own personal IDIOM in magic, and her work starts to change to suit it. Her new style is noticed by others in magic, and some even start copying this new style, but only on the SURFACE, of course. She may even be starting to get noticed by the general public for her work (which may be good or bad!).

Even magicians who reach this level start to ask themselves: “I've practiced and achieved and am widely respected. Why am I doing all this?” This, as they say, is the $64,000 question. Magicians who ask themselves this question are reaching into who they are as artists. This raises questions which concern aspects of the effects FORM, IDEA and PURPOSE. While there are many possible answers to “Why am I doing this?”, in art there are two basic answers. The magician in question may want to say something about magic itself, or may want to say something about some aspect of life through art. This assumes, of course, that the magician has something to say in the first place.

What if the magicians chooses FORM? This conjurer would be attempting to discover any and all that the art is capable of. The “FORM” artist would be the type who shakes things up, and makes people think about magic (or any other given art) in new ways. Magicians of this type include Rudy Coby, Robert Houdin and Rene Lavand. In other art forms, this category would include Orson Welles (i.e., “Citizen Kane”), Picasso and Stravinsky.

The magi who choose IDEA/PURPOSE as their goal use art as a tool. They deliver their message or tell their story through their art. Invention isn't so important as the message that's to be communicated. Masters of the IDEA/PURPOSE school in magic include David Copperfield, Doug Henning and Robert E. Neale. Other art masters of this school would include Charles Schulz (Yes, of “Peanuts” fame), Charles Dickens and Frank Capra.

Of these schools of thought in art, there is no “best” to ultimately choose. Every work will contain both content and form, it's just a matter of where to place the focus. There doesn't have to be a permanent choice of on or the other, either. The magician, the artist, can change schools of thought as often as he or she changes projects! You'll note that many of the artists listed in the past two paragraphs never stuck strictly to one category or another over their entire careers.

It should be mentioned that this is not a definite path that everyone must take. Different artists will take their art to differing heights. While they may not have to go through all six steps, they will have to achieve the basic steps (i.e. SURFACE, CRAFT) before going any further (on to, say, IDIOM or STRUCTURE). The steps given are intended more as a complete map of the possibilities in art.

However, far an artists chooses to go, their is always one ultimate benefit: Their work inspires a new generation, and the cycle of interest develops again. Performing magic in newer, better, and more effective ways is the best thing that can be done to keep the art alive.

Parting Thoughts

For an essay titled, “Understanding Magic”, I seem to have talked mostly about magic, and very little about the importance of understanding it. Depending on your interests, magic may or may not be worth the effort. If you've made it this far through a magic web page, especially this far through a 6-chapter essay, I'm assuming you think it's worth some effort.

One of the more popular, and believable, themes in magic is that of telepathy. Telepathy effects suggest the possibility of direct mind-to-mind contact. This kind of contact is also what I believe makes magic itself fascinating. Obviously, we can never truly communicate in such a fashion. In this sense, we are “alone”. In other words, the full range and effect of our true thoughts and feelings can never really reach another mind unaltered.

Over human history, we have found various ways of communicating our general ideas - writing, music, painting, magic, movies, and so on. In, say, music, the idea travels from mind to hands (and/or lips) to instrument to air to ear to mind. Writing, on the other hand, travels from mind to hand to pen to paper to eye to mind. This is why they call the means of communication the “medium”. Anything you express will have to travel via the “middle” ground that bridges the gap between minds.

Tracing magic with this path takes us from mind to hand to prop to eye/ear to mind. As I mentioned earlier, no magic effect (or any other form of expression) will traverse this path unaffected. This brings up a unique challenge in magic, which uses the perception of another person as a tool of the trade! Granted, all forms of expression must take another's perceptions into consideration on some level, but magic goes beyond that. Isn't it difficult to communicate to someone's mind when you have to send a false message by subtly taking control of another's perceptions, just to express an initial idea? Yes, especially when you are trying to get them to enjoy the process, and know that the full idea you're expressing will not be fully understood! (Whew!)

Most artists of any type will tell you that any project they develop represents only about 30% or less of what they originally envisioned. This is due to detours made necessary by the medium itself, as well as other real world considerations (money, laws of physics, etc.). While many artists make use of these detours as a choice, it's almost a necessity in magic! If some unusual detour is taken and seen by the audience as just a way to get around some inconvenience, the feeling of magic is lost.

One nice thing about magic, is that it's one of the few forms of communication in which individual voices are still important. TV, advertising, magazines, movies,as well as many other examples, are all ultimately communication of one mass of people to another. Magic welcomes anyone who's dedicated enough to understand and accept it's scope.

We've covered much ground in this essay. I hope I've shown that magic can be an art, and that the art form goes beyond just the performances you witness. Our definition, or any change made to it in the future, will be great for the art as long as it's expansive. Magic's future can be just as rich, if not richer, than it's past, which is also constantly being redefined and rediscovered. We've discussed the various performance styles, artistic motivations, and the varied levels of magic itself. Hopefully, you understand a little more about the nature and the intrigue of astonishment, as well as how to approach that goal.

Before I finish this essay up, you may have realized that I haven't talked about the subject that first comes to mind when the word “magic” is mentioned: THE METHODS! I haven't talked about methods because they are such a minor part of the true art of magic. Whoah! Halt! What?!? Granted, no magic trick would be effective without it, but if the method is the main point of focus, then the magic is being done incorrectly. Even if the method itself is foolproof and invisible, if the audience is searching for the method rather than enjoying the gift of astonishment, the art is not there.

You'll also notice I use “methods”, rather than “secrets” as my word of choice. This is because I believe the true secrets of magic can never be taught in the traditional way, but only learned by personal experience, observation, and hard work. These secrets can never truly be exposed.

While reading this essay, I'm sure the thought has passed through your mind: “Scott, what makes you think you know everything about magic?” I don't know everything about magic, nor is this essay intended as the be-all and end-all of magic. This is simply an attempt to put my understanding of magic down on pape . . ., uh, website, as I understand it TODAY. I've only studied magic seriously for the last 10 years, and I know that I have much, much more left to learn! Perhaps you understand magic in a completely different, but equally valid way. If so, or you have any other comments, constructive criticisms, or questions concerning this essay, feel free to e-mail me (See address under Site Information at the bottom of the rightmost column)! I'd enjoy hearing from you!

Presentation Resources

2010-10-24T14:46:00.000-07:00

Here are some wonderful sites on the web that help with presentation, even if they don't directly concern the art of magic:

Dramatica.com

Essential Magic Conference videos

Heath Brothers Blog - Chip and Dan Heath are the authors of the book Made To Stick. To see how this relates to magic, check out my blog posts on the principles from Made To Stick:

Memorable Magic: Simplicity
Memorable Magic: The Unexpected
Memorable Magic: Concreteness
Memorable Magic: Credibility
Memorable Magic: Emotions
Memorable Magic: Stories
Memorable Magic: Wrap-Up

Jim Hull's Story Fanatic Blog

Below are some resources that haven't been updated in quite some time, yet still provide valuable advice:

Creating Passionate Users Blog

Stage Stuff by Richard Tenace