Dai Vernon frequently quoted this philosophy of Francis Carlyle, that your effects should be clear and easily describable, preferably in one sentence.

"His card was on the ceiling!" "The bill was inside a lemon!"

Shin Lim's recent appearances on AGT have got me rethinking this. His acts always consist of highly visual magic; productions, vanishes, transformations- always a LOT going on. It is clear that the judges on AGT (laymen) are beyond impressed by his routines and have even explicitly stated it is the best close up magic they have ever seen, despite them having been a bit fed up with magic on the show.

I also have many laymen friends asking me about Shin Lim and saying how awesome he is.

And yet, I think if I approached any of these laymen in a month (or even less!) and asked them to tell me what Shin Lim did, the response would not be as straightforward as what Mr. Vernon referred to...

And frankly, I think: So what?!! They may not have such a response, but they will still have a memory of how they felt while watching him, and that it was perhaps the closest feeling to "magic" they have ever felt. And dare I say, even if they saw one of the top magicians do an "easily describable trick," they may still have a more magical memory of Shin Lim than of that magician and his trick.

So the point is, what should we make of this famous line of Mr. Carlyle? Maybe my assessment here is incorrect... Or maybe Mr. Carlyle's line only holds true in certain contexts... I don't know. What do you think?

P.S. Please let's not make this a discussion about Shin Lim's act. That is not my point, it's just what got me thinking about this.

Yehuda

If you get a chance, talk to someone who has advanced in AGT about the process. Making no comment on Shin Lim's performance either way, the show isn't real, not the way a show like Fool Us is real. Among other things, the judges on Fool Us have something to lose.

Ok valid point. I am aware of the "realness" of AGT. However, I think my point still holds true- based on the reactions of so many other laymen that have seen Shin Lim.

Yehuda

There are performers like Shin Lim and Jean Pierre Vallarino who are just beautiful to watch. They could cut the deck for ten minutes, and it would be lovely. Like that expression, "I could listen to Anthony Hopkins read the phone book." Vernon's perspective was (most of the time) moveless, and for sure no pretty moves. So I'm not at all sure he was talking about the same category of thing that Shin Lim is trying to do.

Roughly, it seems to me that there are two types of magic effect: effects that demand explanation, and effects where the spectator doesn't want an explanation. On some level, I don't think Shin Lim is trying to do magic. He's like the artistic director of a dance company. You watch the dance knowing there's an explanation for everything, but it takes years of dedication, so no need to hunt for the answers, they aren't the point. By contrast, "real" magic performance requires closing doors to possible solutions, so the audience tries to find an explanation, gives up, and experiences childlike wonder instead.

Like Aaron, I thought of the analogy of dancing as an art form. To tie it to the original post, I think it's most likely that, having seen a beautiful dance routine, we would not be able to describe what happened with any detail. It just would have been an experience of something beautiful. In many ways, dance is a very pure form of art. And watching Shin Lim's magic is very much like watching dance.

Mike

A good rule of thumb shouldn't not be mistaken for an iron law. Frankly, I don't care for Shin Lim's style, but of course there are exceptions to this one sentence summary heuristic. David Blaine has spoken about going against Vernon's time honored advice (I think specifically patter and character). The problem is when you think you're capable of breaking the rules -- and mistaken.

If a person with the blandest personality could do real magic -- making things appear, float, vanish, and transform (for no reason), he'd get incredible reactions and lots of positive reviews. Some fans would say the bland personality augments the performance. Of course, such visual magic is more forgiving because it's undeniable. "What did he do?" He made things appear, float, vanish and transform. A lot of bad magic is ridiculously procedural, but it can still be summarized: "I sorta picked a card and he sorta found it."

You have not seen anything yet.
Wait until you have seen the acts of the first prize winners in Micro and card magic at FISPM 2018.
I can't imagine that these acts can ever be surpassed.
How far can it go?

People will forget what you said.
People will forget what you did.
But people will never forget how you made them feel.

That is a quote from Maya Angelou, probably her most repeated one in fact.

I think Vernon was making a more specific point because his own Harlequin act might fail that test.

Having spent some time with the Professor, I think he meant that thinking be applied more to individual effects with a start, middle and end and some sort of narrative. He also famously said, "confusion is not magic" and I think both comments are aimed at clarity. What you want to accomplish is clear...and when you have accomplished it is clear.

It's one parameter among several to help evaluate the construction of a given effect to make it clearly have a point, a plot and a punch.

It's worth mentioning that Shin Lim's act comprises a number of distinct effects or phases. I would argue that each of those effects could probably be easily described by the audience.

In commercial music, there's a rule that a successful song must have a "hook" or short phrase that can be easily remembered and hummed by the listener. Vernon's rule is analogous to the "hook" in pop songs.

Lim is performing a fugue. A fugue is a contrapuntal compositional technique, built on a theme that is introduced at the beginning which is then repeated, modified and developed throughout until the final recapitulation. A different animal than a pop song.

There is room in magic for more than one genre of "song," and the rules for one are not the rules for all.

Thanks for the responses.

I hear what Aaron and Mike are saying. But I think every magician should be very clear with themselves exactly what their goal is when they present their magic (Note: I'm not implying that Shin Lim is NOT clear on this).

Yehuda

This is true. But what is the point of Mr. Vernon's statement? Dave gave us some insight. Whatever the exact context he intended this to be applied, it seems clear he felt that after watching a magician the audience should be able to describe what was done.

And I think after watching Shin Lim's WHOLE act, since it was so many little effects built into one routine, the average audience will not be able to recall the specifics of any one effect, yet they would be able to if he had done card on ceiling in the middle.

Again, I don't think this is a bad thing. As I said, many laymen will remember it as being the best close up magic they say, even if they can't recall individual effects.

Yehuda

One of the routines the Professor is noted for is the cups and balls. I think a lay person's description of what occurred would be something like: These balls kept jumping from cup to cup and then the cups had lemons under them! All the phases would fade from memory and just become "balls jumped around." And yet the various things that occur before the loads are very cool and yet not likely remembered other than by the generic description viz. "balls jumped around."

Maybe that's "high concept" enough to qualify as "easily described." Nonetheless, the description is very vague.

I'm not sure what my point is. Just some thoughts that seemed apropos.

Mike

Tim Cavendish I was going to say the same thing 😂

Dana makes a great analogy with music. It's partially a stylistic difference. But also I think there is some confusion about what a single effect is, versus an act, routine or show.

If you went to watch a magician's whole hour long show, you aren't going to remember every single thing that happened (well maybe YOU would, but the average layperson will not). Yes there will be some highlights, but the same can be said for Shin Lim's routine as well.

I think Vernon is talking about what we call in mentalism 'The Grandma's Bra' effect. Okay we don't call it that, but we should. To paraphrase Bob Cassidy (who was possibly paraphrasing someone else) basically, if your book test involves having someone roll some dice and multiply the total by your Grandma's Bra size, you don't have a good book test.

I'm pretty sure Vernon was more centered on the directness of effect and method in terms of a single effect. Each of the separate effects in Shin Lim's routine is logical and direct. He's just created a piece of magical art that flows from one effect to another.

If you are entertaining an audience with a magic performance, why does it matter if spectators cannot describe or remember everything you've done?

If you go and see a band or a singer, do you come away disappointed because you can't remember the words to the songs?

If you go and see a good comedian, do you think the next day "well he/she must have been cr@p because I can't remember any of their jokes"?

I think at times some magicians need to get out there and experience the real world of performing for real people; rather than pontificating about psychobabble.

Dai Vernon and Francis Carlyle are psychobabble? Oh, my...

If only we could have asked their audiences whether they'd remembered everything that had happened after their shows eh?

I'm a Vernon fan by the way - but I don't have to agree with everything he ever said.