Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:49:51 EDT
From: <HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: How does he fly
 <1992Sep9.200055.14969@kodak.kodak.com> <1992Sep11.164942.13372@spider.co.uk>
 <1992Sep11.175124.20640@inel.gov>

In article <1992Sep11.175124.20640@inel.gov>, mgq@inel.gov (Michael G McKellar)
says:
>
>Using a stooge bothers me.  DC uses the stooge to make the audience
>think "Hey, he is not using wires or else she could see them."

Exactly.   Ignorance of methodologies on the part of the audience is
one of the most powerful tools that a magician has in his arsenal.
THAT'S why the magicians on the net (including me) are getting upset
at the casual discussions of this type that are floating around.

>I don't mind using stooges for jokes like the binocular thing, but
>whether he implicitly says so or not, DC uses the stooge to make
>the flying illusion appear to be greater than it is.

Not always.  When I saw him there was no stooge, and the illusion was
*still* breathtaking.

> BTW I really
>like DC usually and I really liked his flying (very natural and had a
>realistic appearance) but I don't like being decieved by the use
>of stooges.

Gee, than when he uses a pass or a top palm, then you don't like those
effects either, BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW IT'S DONE?  Come on.   This isn't
a flame, it's just that I don't understand your logic.  If a magician
can use a stooge to make an effect appear  MORE ENTERTAININGand MORE
MAGICAL, then by *all means* he/she should.  And without hesitation.

>When I do magic, I don't lie about my illusions, when
>I'm using trick cards, I don't say they are normal, (I usually say
>nothing).
>
>Mike McKellar (mgq@inel.gov)

Lying to an audience is not immoral when you are playing the role of
an entertainer.  If you need to use some sork of gimmick to produce
an effect, and the impact of the effect would be lessened by the
audience suspecting such a device, than  LIE YOU SOCKS OFF.  Give
them EVERY reason to think that you are simply using an ordinary device.
I believe it was the Professor (Dai Vernon - missed sorely already)
who stated something along these lines:

It is essential that an audience be given no reason to detect, let alone
suspect, the method used to achieve an illusion.

That's a rough paraphrase, but the basic idea is still there.  If you
feel, as a performer, that you need to rely upon gimmicks to achieve a
result than you should practice more.  Some of my absolutely *best*
magic is some of my simplest, because there is no room to suspect gadgets
or gimmicks.  I like to start a routine clean and end it the same way.

I agree, considering the worldwide exposure that David Copperfield has, that
he and his advising staff should have hired a couple of different girls
as stooges if they realy wanted to carry someone around when he flew.
Perhaps this was a mistake, perhaps it was a budgetary consideration.
I doubt the latter.

Anyway, as was said, as soon as the stooge was identified the magic
simply became a trick, and any trained monkey can perform tricks.
It is too bad that David did not think about this beforehand...

There will always be people who cannot look at magic without saying
"Yeah, he did some type of secret magicians move there" and explaining
things away.  But I have to ask if they are there to enjoy the magic
or to enjoy the technical skill.  As was said by yet anoter poster,
jugglers have skill that is on par and often even surpasses that which
is required by a sleight of hand artist, but people realize that what they
do is simple digital manipulation.  Not magical by any means.  Oh well.
Sorry for the ramblings.....


Hans C. Masing | HCM100@PSUVM.psu.edu  | Penn State University MIS Dept |

"What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, that in scratching the poor
itch of your opinion make yourselves scabs?" - Will Shakespeare