A (somewhat) common rule of thumb often repeated is "Never tell your audience what you are going to do".

While this is very true in many many effects, especially those with a storyline or kicker ending, there are many exceptions too.
Sometimes I found, it actually makes it STRONGER to say in advance what is the end state of the effect.

Now I'm wondering, can anyone think of some guiding principle to which this applies?

This is one of those "principles that should never be violated." It ranks right up there with "never repeat a trick." There are exceptions to both rules.

The first requirement for this kind of thing is that the method must be absolutely flawless. That is, you must be able to do it without even the least nagging possibility of getting caught. Another principle is the one of not announcing what you are going to do until you have already done it.

For example, if you are doing a card trick, and you need to control the card to the top, you will have more trouble getting away with it if you announce that's what you are going to do first. Get it to the top while they aren't watching you. Then announce "what you are going to do," and do nothing. This is the principle some call "the trick is done, now it's time for the magic."

Here's an example. If you are doing a card speller, do the necessary work while you are "losing the card in the deck." Then, when you ask what the card was, spell right to it. If you ask first, then do the work, you will give the whole thing away.

From my personal experience I do both all the time.

I tend to Not tell what I am going to do, when there is a surprise factor for the spectators. Or I am going to do something they totally did not expect. Or I am going to add a twist to the routine. Another case is when they already expect that I will be doing something, I never tell anything about it. This apply most to magic tricks that are pretty standard, like the ambitious card trick.

On the other hand, there are some routines that are better off by telling them what to expect. By careful use of language, you can sometimes psychological persuade them to believe that they are seeing something. This applies more to mentalism effects.

Phil

Thanks for the replies.

Actually, I'm thinking is there principles to guide where the psychological anticipations builds a stronger climax as compared to the surprise of a magic moment. And when can we tell if anticipation is better or magic moment is better.

Let me attempt an example. A simple card prediction effect.
I can have a card picked, emphasising freedom of choice, and later show that a prediction I have made earlier matches their selection.
Or I can announce that I have a prediction, perhaps shown, and that it is going to match the card that they are going to pick next, and have them proceed to choose a card (of course with emphasis of of freedom of choice and perhaps little play with "chance your mind" mind games).

Generally, I have noticed that the 2nd one produces later reactions.

My thoughts are that for the 2nd one, because the end state is already clearly announced right from the beginning, the spec is aware of it and might make extra effort to evade it, thus the impossibility of the situation become more apparent. And the psychological buildup of the anticipation is much longer and therefore result in stronger reactions.
While for the 1st one, even if freedom of choice was emphasised during the selection process, the spec was unclear about where this is leading them and might later feel that they haven't done enough to make it fair. And the anticipation buildup is relatively shorter (from the time you announce the prediction to the reveal), and therefore not as strong as the former.

So maybe the bit Mr Palmer said about the flawless method is a principle for such tactics.
(But this in itself brings to question what is "flawless method" to a spectator. Afterall, I can let the spectator change their mind multiple times with a simple cull force too, although it wouldn't fool many magicians).

Anyways, back on topic, I'm wondering is there any other guiding principles to determine when such presentation of saying the end state works better for the build up?

Erm....if I sound confusing, it's because it's 6 am for me.

The nature of the prediction actually means that you have to announce the basic effect before you do some of the work. But you don't announce it before you do all of the work.

The same is true of cut and restored effects, torn and restored effects and a whole litany of other items. Basically, you don't prepare the Gene Anderson Newspaper Tear with the audience watching. OTOH, if you do it, people will come back to see you do it again. For them, it can be even stronger.

That's what I mean by a flawless method.

Hello Aloy:

Richard Osterlind calls this "magic's biggest lie" in his book, "The Principles of Magic. I recommend you get this book from him or from a dealer - it changed the way I think about this rule of magic.

Ron

From Our Magic by Maskelyne and Devant, Chapter iV, Surprise and Repetition, page 72. This section was written by Maskelyne.

Maskelyne's rule 14 has more elaboration than can be repeated here, but he does state that very often good reason can be shown to announce the impending effect.

He goes on to write:

He goes on to list examples and other cases, but this is the principle case. Another case I'll not likely encounter is:

There is much more in that book. This is just part of rule 14. Makelyne gives real world examples that make the reason for the rules crystal clear, and he also makes it clear through context that these are really guidelines. The discussions seem very complete (although how could I know that?) and some are extremely deep. Whit Haydn has stated that he re-reads Our Magic occasionally and each time he find new ideas he missed during previous readings! (If Whit Haydn misses things, what chance do the rest of us have!)

Maskelyne and Devant were the real deal, they "lived" magic for decades, and Maskelyne had a flair for writing and a deep understanding of how magic should be presented. Although both performed on stage, David Devant was a natural, and probably would have been like David Copperfield had the jet travel and modern media existed back then. Maskelyne was a businessman and magician and Devant was a personality, although each knew much about the others areas of expertise.

In my opinion, this is the best book on magic ever written. I've read magic books for over 40 years, but I haven't read everything, so I also base that opinion on what some professional magiciains tell me. I've never seen any other book on magic theory that is as clear and unambiguous. Although it is something of a struggle to read, because much of the book is deeper than it appears at first glance, the arguments are usually so compelling that I end up feeling that the ideas expressed must be correct. I've found books by real experts are like this. They cut to the chase.

Sorry, I got sidetracked with enthusiasm!

As to other principles, rule one is dominant, which is:

A few other rules also regarding repetitions and surprise are:

Reading the books is necessary to fully understand these. Rule 13 appears to contradict an earlier rule which states that two effects should not occur at the same time, they should be distinct, and at present, I forget the distincition between feat and effect in this context, i.e. perhaps there is no contradiction. I have to read this again.

There is an interesting discussion of speed in presentation in Our Magic.

The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are analyzed in the book. Suffice to say both are viable under the right circumstances.

This also goes to Darwin's "Strong Magic," if I recall correctly (haven't read it in a while). Both suspense and surprise are valid reactions to pursue; suspense is generated by the audience's knowing what you propose to do (and seeing if you can pull it off), while surprise is generated by the audience's not knowing until the effect transpires. Different effects/methods/etc. lend themselves to one or the other. The Ambitious Card would be a one-shot effect if one followed the "no repeats" principle to the nth degree (though some, I'm sure, would think that was a very good thing!) Most importantly, though, is what Bill said...if you ARE going to telegraph where an effect is going, your technique had better be good; one positive side benefit of the audience's ignorance of your plans is that it helps cover your technique. THat's why, in baseball, the pitcher and catcher use hidden signals.

Ahh...thanks much all. Those are certainly very helpful references and sources.
I will definitely look them up.


Cheers

I was actually going to bring up what Lobowolf mentioned. I recently had one of my magical friends round any we where playing with these coin gimmicks. He comes here so if he reads this don't be offended mate I am just using an example. Anyway we were working on the script for a routine and in his version he was announcing he would make some coins appear and then proceeding. This met with two problems 1. It took away the surprise of the coins appearing and 2. If, for some reason, the coins failed to appear the this part of the routine was ruined. I explained to him this concept of a surprise and suspense technique as described by lobowolf above. The thing I have found is that both can pack a wallop just as good as the other but, however, you must be careful of how you play a trick because a surprise trick played off as a suspense trick can really bring the whole trick down. It's like driving a low-rider like a sports car, sure it could probably be done but dam it man! That just ain't how you drive a low-rider!

Moyle