Tore up, from the floor up!

[Glenn West]

"Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was."

Um, if magic is done properly, the method IS convincing.

 

[Huruey]

"Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was."

Um, if magic is done properly, the method IS convincing.

I don't think I quite understand what you are trying to say with that, but it sounds like you are associating the convincingness of a method with the standard of the performance. Method and performance are two completely different things. A method is simply a series of logical steps that must be followed in order to achieve the desired outcome. The quality of the performance is down to presentation. If magic is done properly, the performance is convincing, but not necessarily the method in itself.

Moreover, I respect your viewpoint – but I do want to discuss it, as long as you don’t take it as an attack.

Of course not, I'm happy to discuss it, too.

So – I never said “count” the convincers, but consider the level of conviction that is created by the convincers.

I was not intending that to literally mean "count", it was intended as an implication of, as you say, measurement. It still bares the same problem, the strength of the effect is not solely down to how convincing it is, there are so many other variables involved.

Also, after I stated I only wanted to discuss the type of restoration that is piece by piece and not compared it to the type of restoration that happens in the hand, like Williamson’s Torn and Restored Transpo, in past posts, like someone else brought up – you compared it. Regardless, I actually do agree that it has its strengths, but it usually done in a different context – which I agree is stronger, but serves a different purpose and may be different in effect. If you were to stand beside me and do the same effect – tear up a card and put it back together…a single card…then I would assume that the unsigned effect is weaker…if done in your hands. IT would be like you saying that Multiplying balls are not as strong as sponge balls in the hand of the spectator. In short, your comparison, although somewhat accurate, has flawed logic in it.

My comparison is not flawed in logic, I looked at the matter in a wider sense to better illustrate my point, but the validity does not change no matter how narrow you make the criteria for the kind of effect you are discussing. Even when you say "piece by piece restoration", you'll find that there are still many different effects that can achieved, despite the fact that you can describe them all with the same general term. For example, Garcia's Torn could be described as a "piece by piece restoration in which pieces are restored with no cover", whereas other "piece by piece" restorations could not. This is the principle behind my argument. The fact is that the actual effect is different, so just measuring how convincing the method is says nothing.

On a side note: your car/horse example actually reinforced my point: you left out some things. Horses do have some negatives – they don’t go as fast, and they pee A LOT…PUDDLES MAN PUDDLES! However, if cars weren’t invented the benefits would outnumber the loss of getting places fast – no car accidents, no insurance fees, gas wouldn’t be a concern, people would walk more and heart disease wouldn’t be one of the top reasons for mortality…so if you think that adding one benefit to take on a multitude of weaknesses is a good thing, I recommend giving up magic and becoming a politician. At least everyone would know you are lying, haha.

I think you've missed my point completely (and in doing so, actually enforced it). My argument is not that things can be counted as improvement even when the preceding technologies have many positives which the new version doesn't. My argument is that it is actually not as simple as you had implied it, that improvement requires "keeping all its strengths intact". Strengths can be substituted for new strengths, and weaknesses substituted for new weaknesses, but to say that if any strength is lost, then it is not an improvement? Even if you start measuring convincers, there is still a heck of a lot more you need to consider about what makes an effect powerful, not least the application of a method in performance itself.

Convincers DO directly enhance the effect, and there is a direct correlation with how convincing an effect is and how strong it is. IF the audience is convinced that something is what you say it is…and something happens – that is magic. Darwin Otriz gives plenty of examples of convincers and their importance in his book “Strong Magic’ – I recommend it, as I always do.

Please note again the point I was trying to make before. If magic is done well, the audience will be 100% convinced, regardless of how many convincers are used in the method. The word "convinced" is a very definite word. You can't be half convinced of something. There may be certain figures of speech which home in on the irony such an idea, but the fact is that you are either convinced, or you are not. Therefore, measuring convincers can only get you so far. You can convince an audience using a million different strong convincers, you can convince and audience with only one, but if you have convinced them, then there is no difference in how convinced they are, regardless of all the extra convincers you've thrown in.

Yes, convincers are important, but your original argument was based completely on them, and as I have said, there is so much more to the strength of an effect than convincers.

"Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was."

I am sorry, but this is contradictory to me – as I believe that when magic is done properly, it consists of multiple mental barriers, convincers and a number of tools used to deceive those that are not as stupid as some magicians may think. I would even argue that the reaction is based on how convinced an individual is that you are doing what you say.

Well, I guess there's the gap in your argument so far. If you could back up the statement that "reaction is based on how convinced an individual is", then the rest of your argument would hold up a lot better, but as it stands, it doesn't. However, I am going to have to disagree with you on this matter, anyway. For a start, I'd like to direct you back to my point that you cannot be "half convinced" of something. I think the flaw is deeper than that, though. If you make a coin vanish, and the audience is completely convinced that it really did vanish, according to your definition, making a lorry vanish in the same manner and having the audience equally convinced would be no stronger an effect.

Huruey

 

[Glenn West]

What I was saying was that, when magic is performed properly, it includes a convincing method.

That is not to say that a convincing method makes the magic convincing, but if the magic IS convincing, then the method is as well.

If a performer performs well, but the method is not in the slightest bit convincing, then the spectator will simply NOT be convinced.

Now, a good performer can take what might be considered a non convincing method and make the magic work, but they do this by making the method more convincing.

As you said, this is done wit their performance. Injecting misdirection, etc, but misdirection is an element of the method now.

 

[Huruey]

What I was saying was that, when magic is performed properly, it includes a convincing method.

That is not to say that a convincing method makes the magic convincing, but if the magic IS convincing, then the method is as well.

Read my whole post again, because the whole thing applies to you as well. "Method is only the sequence of logical steps needed to be taken in order to achieve the desired result. Performance is not part of the method."

If a performer performs well, but the method is not in the slightest bit convincing, then the spectator will simply NOT be convinced.

Now, a good performer can take what might be considered a non convincing method and make the magic work, but they do this by making the method more convincing.

As you said, this is done wit their performance. Injecting misdirection, etc, but misdirection is an element of the method now.

You have just contradicted yourself. I see you are taking a slightly different take on the definition of "method" to me, so for now, even though I disagree that your definition is what people are generally thinking of when the word is used, I'll adopt it for now for your sake. (I clearly stated how I have been using the word in my last post, should you want to take another look).

If a performer performs well, but the method is not in the slightest bit convincing, then the spectator will simply NOT be convinced.

This statement implies that performance and method are two different things.

Now, a good performer can take what might be considered a non convincing method and make the magic work, but they do this by making the method more convincing.

Now you seem to have changed your mind saying that the only thing that changes is the method, because the performance is part of the method? I realise you've made en effort now to contradict yourself in this statement by saying they "take what might be considered a non convincing method" rather than "use what might be considered a non convincing method", but it still contradicts what you said before.

I'm afraid that's where I see you argument fall apart. Furthermore, I did state how I was using the word, which I believe is the generally accepted meaning, so simply playing with words won't help your point anyway.

Huruey

 

[Glenn West]

Read my whole post again, because the whole thing applies to you as well. "Method is only the sequence of logical steps needed to be taken in order to achieve the desired result. Performance is not part of the method."



You have just contradicted yourself. I see you are taking a slightly different take on the definition of "method" to me, so for now, even though I disagree that your definition is what people are generally thinking of when the word is used, I'll adopt it for now for your sake. (I clearly stated how I have been using the word in my last post, should you want to take another look).



This statement implies that performance and method are two different things.



Now you seem to have changed your mind saying that the only thing that changes is the method, because the performance is part of the method? I realise you've made en effort now to contradict yourself in this statement by saying they "take what might be considered a non convincing method" rather than "use what might be considered a non convincing method", but it still contradicts what you said before.

I'm afraid that's where I see you argument fall apart. Furthermore, I did state how I was using the word, which I believe is the generally accepted meaning, so simply playing with words won't help your point anyway.

Huruey

I was assuming that in the initial statement, the performer left the method as is, and everything else about his performance was done well.

That is, the performance and method were left as two separate things, which is what seems to be implied by your example.

This would work with how you were using the word, in that it is separate from the performance, and is merely the means to an ends for the effect. If this was the case, pure performance cannot hide a terrible method.

The second was assuming the performer uses performance to improve a method. That is, something magician adds to the method, like misdirection, which could be considered a performance factor, but is still, very much, a factor for method, then he/she can take what was a terrible method, and improve it.

This is more of a reality, as performance and method to intertwine. Again, the best example of this is misdirection.

In other words, your example of a great performance only works if the performer themselves injects additions to the method, thus improving it/making it more convincing. Even if it is just misdirection for the moment when they execute the most obvious of methods to accomplish something, tat is still an addition to the method by the performer.

 

[Huruey]

I was assuming that in the initial statement, the performer left the method as is, and everything else about his performance was done well.

I think you have just highlighted the point I am trying to make. Method isn't everything about a performance.

That is, the performance and method were left as two separate things, which is what seems to be implied by your example.

That is how I have stressed I am using the word, and how I feel people generally use the word, yes.

This would work with how you were using the word, in that it is separate from the performance, and is merely the means to an ends for the effect. If this was the case, pure performance cannot hide a terrible method.

There you go, now we are getting somewhere, however you have not backed up the statement I have highlighted at all. Rather than going off on a tangent, it is back up for this particular point I was looking for from the beginning, but I have yet to see it.

The second was assuming the performer uses performance to improve a method. That is, something magician adds to the method, like misdirection, which could be considered a performance factor, but is still, very much, a factor for method, then he/she can take what was a terrible method, and improve it.

This is more of a reality, as performance and method to intertwine. Again, the best example of this is misdirection.

In other words, your example of a great performance only works if the performer themselves injects additions to the method, thus improving it/making it more convincing. Even if it is just misdirection for the moment when they execute the most obvious of methods to accomplish something, tat is still an addition to the method by the performer.

Sorry, what example are you talking about here? I only used your definition of the word "method" once (and I did make that very clear). This was to demonstrate that your definition didn't work, which you have basically just reiterated with that last paragraph.

Now that you seem to say you were using two different definitions of the word, I fail to see how you have helped your argument in the slightest.

Please take a minute to look back at my original point, and that is that there is a lot more to the strength of an effect than method. I have clearly explained how I have used the word "method", and the definition I have been using is relevant to my argument against the original post, seen as the original post focussed primarily, if not totally on method to my definition (which includes all the convincers you might stick in). I was arguing that at is not as simple as just measuring the convincingness of an effect is not a measure of how strong the effect is (see this post, especially the last analogy I gave).

It is irrelevant that my argument wouldn't make sense if you start changing what the words mean, when I clearly stated how I was using them in the first place.

Huruey

 

[Bijlogg]

I personally prefer Torn over Reformation. The main reason is that it's easier, at least, I think it is.

Secondly I think that the restorations are actually better (another step closer to getting lynched) but rather than just say that, I will give a reason which is that TORN looks so fair. Ok, the phases go in reverse in terms of fairness, the first being hte best, the subsequent ones not so much, but it's still great because it's so darn deliberate and there's nothing to see. Reformation for me is just too awkward to perform, too many fast movements, like when you blow on the card at the end and to many awkward bits where the hands cover entire portions of the card. It's great, but it's not better than torn by any means and I would probably go as far as saying torn itself is better.

Concerning the back out/face out argument, I don't think the spectator cares, they see 4 quarters and they see half of their signature on the pieces, as far as they're concerned the card is ripped and the signature which is visible throughout confirms this subtly. Remember, a convincer doesn't have to be obvious, it can be something subtle. Reformation on the other hand, great, you have the face out, but you lose an aspect of fairness in the early phases of the effect and in addition to that, if you want to perform it multiple times, it becomes close to impractical.

To me, reformation started the craze for T&Rs, but TORN manages to balance believability with practicality in a most brilliant manner. That's why for me, TORN get's my vote.

Tom

 

[Glenn West]

I think you have just highlighted the point I am trying to make. Method isn't everything about a performance.



That is how I have stressed I am using the word, and how I feel people generally use the word, yes.



There you go, now we are getting somewhere, however you have not backed up the statement I have highlighted at all. Rather than going off on a tangent, it is back up for this particular point I was looking for from the beginning, but I have yet to see it.



Sorry, what example are you talking about here? I only used your definition of the word "method" once (and I did make that very clear). This was to demonstrate that your definition didn't work, which you have basically just reiterated with that last paragraph.

Now that you seem to say you were using two different definitions of the word, I fail to see how you have helped your argument in the slightest.

Please take a minute to look back at my original point, and that is that there is a lot more to the strength of an effect than method. I have clearly explained how I have used the word "method", and the definition I have been using is relevant to my argument against the original post, seen as the original post focussed primarily, if not totally on method to my definition (which includes all the convincers you might stick in). I was arguing that at is not as simple as just measuring the convincingness of an effect is not a measure of how strong the effect is (see this post, especially the last analogy I gave).

It is irrelevant that my argument wouldn't make sense if you start changing what the words mean, when I clearly stated how I was using them in the first place.

Huruey

The second example I was referring to was mine, sorry, where in the method is improved by performance.

Using a word a certain way does not make it that way. And it is far more than the "use" of the word. In fact, that becomes irrelevant, unless you are assuming that the method is completely unalterable. My point is simply that it is CAN be altered by performance techniques, but this becomes where the two blur together, and becomes the sign of a great performer. Look at Slydini. In many ways, his performance WAS his method.

Any who, I agree with you, in that method is not everything, but you are using an example where method means nothing to prove your point. If a great performance can cover a terrible method, that is, then the method doesn't matter in as far as allowing the effect to be successful/

Yes, method does not matter, but only so long as the method used accomplishes the desired effect.

Method cannot stand alone either, but neither can performance is what I am saying.

The most perfect method can be used by someone who makes the magic come off as terrible with their performance, even with the method working perfectly, i.e. no flashes, etc. This means nothing if the performer/performance fails to properly covey the magic.

In other words, if the performer did not do his job, the audience might not even realize "magic" had happened. They wouldn't understand what the effect was supposed to be.

Similarly, the greatest performer in the world, who conveys the effect perfectly, but the method is see through, would not be able to convince the audience of the magic no matter what, without altering the method with his performance. What I am referring to here are elements like misdirection and timing, which are very much an element of method, AND performance.

I cannot see how you want me to back this up any more. It is pretty self explanatory. If the method is left separate from the performance, as you are using the word to imply, then a terrible, see through method would still be obvious to the audience.

In other words, a polished turd is still a turd.

Can you show me someone who is performing a terrible method, but their performance alone, without affecting the method, still creates great magic, which the audience does not see through?

Keep in mind that the audience just missing it does not count, that is like taking credit for the audience not seeing when you blatantly flash.

 

[Glenn West]

I personally prefer Torn over Reformation. The main reason is that it's easier, at least, I think it is.

Secondly I think that the restorations are actually better (another step closer to getting lynched) but rather than just say that, I will give a reason which is that TORN looks so fair. Ok, the phases go in reverse in terms of fairness, the first being hte best, the subsequent ones not so much, but it's still great because it's so darn deliberate and there's nothing to see. Reformation for me is just too awkward to perform, too many fast movements, like when you blow on the card at the end and to many awkward bits where the hands cover entire portions of the card. It's great, but it's not better than torn by any means and I would probably go as far as saying torn itself is better.

Concerning the back out/face out argument, I don't think the spectator cares, they see 4 quarters and they see half of their signature on the pieces, as far as they're concerned the card is ripped and the signature which is visible throughout confirms this subtly. Remember, a convincer doesn't have to be obvious, it can be something subtle. Reformation on the other hand, great, you have the face out, but you lose an aspect of fairness in the early phases of the effect and in addition to that, if you want to perform it multiple times, it becomes close to impractical.

To me, reformation started the craze for T&Rs, but TORN manages to balance believability with practicality in a most brilliant manner. That's why for me, TORN get's my vote.

Tom

Reformation CAN be handled just as "fairly" as Torn. Most people just don't. Also, the beautiful first restoration of Torn can be done with the first two restorations in Reformation.

Therefore, even though they are not taught in Reformation, this aspect of Torn becomes moot. Aside form the fact that it is an element that Torn brings to the T&R world, but it does not remain unique to Torn.

 

[Huruey]

The second example I was referring to was mine, sorry, where in the method is improved by performance.

Do you actually mean "example"? I still don't see what example you are talking about. In the English language, the word example means an more specific instance to illustrate a more general idea. I might simply have missed it, but after reading your posts, I'm becoming more and more convinced that our disagreement is more a conflict of language than of ideas.

Using a word a certain way does not make it that way. And it is far more than the "use" of the word. In fact, that becomes irrelevant, unless you are assuming that the method is completely unalterable. My point is simply that it is CAN be altered by performance techniques, but this becomes where the two blur together, and becomes the sign of a great performer. Look at Slydini. In many ways, his performance WAS his method.

When a word has a definition, then that word may be used in that way. When the meaning of a word could be ambiguous, it is up to the author to make sure their meaning is clear (which I think I did to a sufficient enough level), and the reader to make sure they interpret that word correctly in the context given.

I haven't argued that a performer could change the method to suit themmore, I haven't said that once. You are once again confusing the meaning of the word method when I have clearly stated what I mean by the word. When a word is used, you have to look at the context. There's no point in two people arguing about which sport is better, football or rugby, when by "football", one of them means American football, and the other is talking about "soccer".

Any who, I agree with you, in that method is not everything, but you are using an example where method means nothing to prove your point. If a great performance can cover a terrible method, that is, then the method doesn't matter in as far as allowing the effect to be successful/

Yes, method does not matter, but only so long as the method used accomplishes the desired effect.

At no point have I said anything which contradicts this. I said myself that a method "achieves the desired effect".

Method cannot stand alone either, but neither can performance is what I am saying.

Once again, at no point have I said otherwise. I think you have misinterpreted the fundamental point I have been trying to make with my argument, even thought I have made it very clear.

The most perfect method can be used by someone who makes the magic come off as terrible with their performance, even with the method working perfectly, i.e. no flashes, etc. This means nothing if the performer/performance fails to properly covey the magic.

In other words, if the performer did not do his job, the audience might not even realize "magic" had happened. They wouldn't understand what the effect was supposed to be.

Once again, agreed, but this is not contradictory to any point I have as of yet made.

Similarly, the greatest performer in the world, who conveys the effect perfectly, but the method is see through, would not be able to convince the audience of the magic no matter what, without altering the method with his performance. What I am referring to here are elements like misdirection and timing, which are very much an element of method, AND performance.

My definition, as I gave it before, is that method is merely the series of logical steps taken in order to achieve the desired outcome. If it is completely see through, then that is not a desired outcome. As for your comment about certain aspects being both an element of method and performance, you are using the perfectly valid definition of performance to include the entire act, but once again, the things I have said do not contradict this. By the definition of method I was using, performance is not included in method, however, that is not to say method isn't a part of the performance. I think this might be the root of the disagreement. You have not interpreted my argument as I intended.

I cannot see how you want me to back this up any more. It is pretty self explanatory. If the method is left separate from the performance, as you are using the word to imply, then a terrible, see through method would still be obvious to the audience.

Please please please read what I have said in this post, then read again the posts I have made before. You are no longer arguing against me. My initial point from which this sub-debate spawned holds up even with what you are saying now. Go back to the beginning with this new understanding of what i was saying back then, and you should see that.

I won't both replying to the rest of your post, it is just repetition, as far as I can see, and I have explained why it doesn't disagree with what I have been saying, except in the way of you still mixing the meanings of words occasionally.

Huruey

 

[Medifro]

The argument above seems to be how methods and effects related. They are related quite strongly. A cleaner method produces a cleaner effect. Problem is, methodology is more often a choice of the performer, the performer picks the method that he likes, alot of factors are involved, including difficulty, practicality, angles, the fun, and so forth.

Can a performer makes an unclean method looks clean? He can indeed, with his showmanship and making the effect become cleaner in their heads.

Although what I said might not be the case in real world, as the good performer usually will tend to adjust the method, either from technical point of view, or adding "misdirectional" subtleties to throw off the spectator. This is done in an effort to make it more clean, unless he's doing it for sheer fun and experimenting ( something I do extremely often ).

I don't have Torn, but I plan on practicing Reformation this summer, I like it alot for many factors which I don't think their mentioning will benefit this debate.

If what I said makes no sense in this debate, you have my apologies .. I just skimmed the 10000 words above.

Cheers,

 

[Glenn West]

I just want to throw in that convincers don't directly enhance an effect, they merely conceal the method.

Actually, not at all, convincers help sell the illusion. They CONVINCE the spectator that what they are seeing is what they are seeing.

I don't think I quite understand what you are trying to say with that, but it sounds like you are associating the convincingness of a method with the standard of the performance. Method and performance are two completely different things. A method is simply a series of logical steps that must be followed in order to achieve the desired outcome. The quality of the performance is down to presentation. If magic is done properly, the performance is convincing, but not necessarily the method in itself.

Ok, so I want to cause a dollar bill to float ever so briefly to create a unique moment of astonishment.
So, I toss the bill into the air, where it briefly pauses before fluttering back down to my hand.
I sell this illusion with everything I've got, and my performance in impeccable.
The "desired" effect is achieved, the bill briefly hovered in the air, and my performance was perfect.

So, clearly, my performance was convincing, and the method, obviously not, and yet, unlike you claim, I highly doubt any audience would be convinced.

Do you actually mean "example"? I still don't see what example you are talking about. In the English language, the word example means an more specific instance to illustrate a more general idea. I might simply have missed it, but after reading your posts, I'm becoming more and more convinced that our disagreement is more a conflict of language than of ideas.

I have spelt this out several times already.

You stated that an audience can be convinced of an effect by a convincing performance regardless of how convincing the method was.

I stated, that a convincing performance over a completely transparent method, would not leave the audience convinced.

This was what I referred to later as "example" one.

I THEN said that a performer could IMPROVE said method with techniques that bridge performance and method. This was what I later referred to as the second "example." This also seems to be where I lost you.

Misdirection is something that is a step used to create a desired effect in magic. However, you cannot argue that misdirection is something controlled, in many cases, almost entirely by performance. Again, please refer to Slydini. If you cannot see this, then there is really no point in my going any further.

Slydini uses his performance to draw your attention where he wants it, this facilitats almost every bit of magic he did, making it a pivotal piece of method.

Now, in the cups and balls, when a ball is reveled, and the audience looks there, and the magician uses this misdirection to make a load, this, I would say, would have nothing to do with performance, and this misdirection is entire attached to method.

When a word has a definition, then that word may be used in that way. When the meaning of a word could be ambiguous, it is up to the author to make sure their meaning is clear (which I think I did to a sufficient enough level), and the reader to make sure they interpret that word correctly in the context given.

We are not talking about the definition of a word, we are talking about its relation to another word, and its definition, and where the two can overlap.

You can refer to a specific desired definition of a word, but a definition cannot include the exclusion of a connection to something else.

Acting is not defined by not being singing.

You wish to deal with a world in which performance and method are two completely separate things, which do not cross.

Fine. Even more so does this support my point then that a great and convincing performance will not make an audience blind to a terrible and unconvincing method.

You say if the method is see through then it does not achieve the desired result, and thus, we can conclude, by your arguments, that it is then NOT a method. Therefore only "methods" which achieve an effect that are NOT see through (re. CONVINCING) can be considered to achieve a desired result, and thus be considered a method, under your terms.

SO, by your terms alone, a method HAS to be convincing for it to be used in your "example" of a convincing performer convincing an audience.

I am not saying that a convincing method ALONE will sell an effect, only that a convincing performance alone will NOT sell an effect. That is, however, what YOU were saying.

I haven't argued that a performer could change the method to suit them more, I haven't said that once.

Never said you did, and I never was talking about that either.

Once again, at no point have I said otherwise. I think you have misinterpreted the fundamental point I have been trying to make with my argument, even thought I have made it very clear.

I believe you must have completely misunderstood what I have been saying.


I think have covered going back to your "initial point" which clearly does NOT stand, and your words are the ones that take out its legs.

You stated that a convincing performance alone can sell an effect to an audience. You later make statements that a method cannot fit your criteria if it does not convincingly achieve the desired effect.

Therefore, the method MUST be convincing to be considered, but your argument was based around the convincingness of the method not mattering.

 

[Huruey]

I am close to giving up now. You still aren't getting what I'm saying at all.

Actually, not at all, convincers help sell the illusion. They CONVINCE the spectator that what they are seeing is what they are seeing.

Convincers help sell the illusion, yes, I haven't disagreed with that. They don't directly enhance the effect, but the indirectly do by hiding the method. I have not been arguing the opposite of the initial point, I have been arguing that it is not nearly as simple as made out in the initial post. I also explained why being convinced isn't the only only thing affecting the strength of an effect. That was the main point I was making.

Ok, so I want to cause a dollar bill to float ever so briefly to create a unique moment of astonishment.
So, I toss the bill into the air, where it briefly pauses before fluttering back down to my hand.
I sell this illusion with everything I've got, and my performance in impeccable.
The "desired" effect is achieved, the bill briefly hovered in the air, and my performance was perfect.
So, clearly, my performance was convincing, and the method, obviously not, and yet, unlike you claim, I highly doubt any audience would be convinced.

Straw man... If the desired effect is to cause the bill to float in mid air for a second, then you have convinced your audience that you have just done that, even if they saw you throw it, because the "desired effect" doesn't include anything about not throwing it. If the desired effect on the other hand is to cause the bill to float without throwing it (which is more likely what we'll want to achieve), then it would not be achieving the desired method.

You stated that an audience can be convinced of an effect by a convincing performance regardless of how convincing the method was.

It is important to note the context of my argument when I said this. By "how convincing the method is" I was using the idea of measuring convincers throughout the method.

I stated, that a convincing performance over a completely transparent method, would not leave the audience convinced.

I THEN said that a performer could IMPROVE said method with techniques that bridge performance and method. This was what I later referred to as the second "example." This also seems to be where I lost you.

Misdirection is something that is a step used to create a desired effect in magic. However, you cannot argue that misdirection is something controlled, in many cases, almost entirely by performance. Again, please refer to Slydini. If you cannot see this, then there is really no point in my going any further.

Slydini uses his performance to draw your attention where he wants it, this facilitats almost every bit of magic he did, making it a pivotal piece of method.

Now, in the cups and balls, when a ball is reveled, and the audience looks there, and the magician uses this misdirection to make a load, this, I would say, would have nothing to do with performance, and this misdirection is entire attached to method.

You are really making me want to just give up... You clearly haven't taken in my reply to this point. I did explain that I agreed that things could be classed as performance and method. If I say a square is a rectangle (which it is), that doesn't mean I said a rectangle is a square (which it isn't).

We are not talking about the definition of a word, we are talking about its relation to another word, and its definition, and where the two can overlap.

You can refer to a specific desired definition of a word, but a definition cannot include the exclusion of a connection to something else.

Acting is not defined by not being singing.

I almost feel like saying "no comment" due to the sheer senselessness of this statement. You are saying that we are talking about how the definition of a word can "overlap" with the words relation to another word!?

If we are talking about words being related, then I'd assume that means we are talking about how their meanings are related (rather than saying, ooh, they both start with an 'a'). Words are related by their definition, not the word itself. If you "saw" something yesterday, you wouldn't be able to use that saw to cut wood... You are continually confusing the meanings of words, which is why your argument is so confused.

"Acting is not defined by not being singing"? Of course it's not, but you seem to think this helps your argument...?

Let's use a word with two definitions, for example table (one with four legs), and table (with rows and columns). You might say that "table" is related to "chair". This relation does not exist when you are talking about the latter definition of table.

I have made this clear before, but you, for some reason, seemed to completely ignore it! (See my football vs. rugby analogy)

You wish to deal with a world in which performance and method are two completely separate things, which do not cross.

Fine. Even more so does this support my point then that a great and convincing performance will not make an audience blind to a terrible and unconvincing method.

I did not say there was no relation between performance and method. Chair and table are two completely different things, but they are still related.

You say if the method is see through then it does not achieve the desired result, and thus, we can conclude, by your arguments, that it is then NOT a method. Therefore only "methods" which achieve an effect that are NOT see through (re. CONVINCING) can be considered to achieve a desired result, and thus be considered a method, under your terms.

SO, by your terms alone, a method HAS to be convincing for it to be used in your "example" of a convincing performer convincing an audience.

I am not saying that a convincing method ALONE will sell an effect, only that a convincing performance alone will NOT sell an effect. That is, however, what YOU were saying.

NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING AT ALL!!! My argument from the beginning has been that the strength of an effect doesn't depend on it's convincingness.

Here's where it all began...

Huruey: "Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was."

Here, you know I was using method as being only the sequence of logical steps taken to achieve the desired outcome (desired outcome not including how the raw method would appear to the spectator).

Glenn West: "Um, if magic is done properly, the method IS convincing."

You were taking method to mean how the entire performance is conducted.

Straight away, do you not see that you were not using the same definition of method as me?

Huruey

 

[Glenn West]

Here's where it all began...

Huruey: "Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was."

Here, you know I was using method as being only the sequence of logical steps taken to achieve the desired outcome (desired outcome not including how the raw method would appear to the spectator).

Glenn West: "Um, if magic is done properly, the method IS convincing."

You were taking method to mean how the entire performance is conducted.

Straight away, do you not see that you were not using the same definition of method as me?

Huruey

No, here I was referring to the method being exactly what you were.

 

[Huruey]

No, here I was referring to the method being exactly what you were.

... Why then did you make out that the only way a performance can be made more convincing is to make the method more convincing?

Now, a good performer can take what might be considered a non convincing method and make the magic work, but they do this by making the method more convincing.

That is not to say that a convincing method makes the magic convincing, but if the magic IS convincing, then the method is as well.

Here is an example of a flawed inference. You seem to have ignored most of my last post in which I took the time to explain how meanings of words can have one way relationships. Look back at my square circle analogy.

If you still don't understand, using my definition of method, construct a reasoned argument with a proper reason-conclusion structure to support your statement from which this whole thing was sparked, that being "Um, if magic is done properly, the method IS convincing".

Huruey

 

[Glenn West]

... Why then did you make out that the only way a performance can be made more convincing is to make the method more convincing?

I never said that. I did, however, say that making a method more convincing WILL make an effect more convincing, never that it was the ONLY thing. I even went out of my way to say that a terrible performance can take a convincing method and make it unconvincing.

YOU were inferring that PERFORMANCE is the ONLY thing that can make an effect more convincing.

Like you said, it is not an ABSOLUTE correlation, but there is a direct correlation.

Here is an example of a flawed inference. You seem to have ignored most of my last post in which I took the time to explain how meanings of words can have one way relationships. Look back at my square circle analogy.

If you still don't understand, using my definition of method, construct a reasoned argument with a proper reason-conclusion structure to support your statement from which this whole thing was sparked, that being "Um, if magic is done properly, the method IS convincing".

Huruey

No, it is not a flawed logic. You are referring to the "if all quarks are quints, then are all quints quarks? No. Same as saying all women are humans, but that does not make all humans women.

And these statements are flawed logic, but they do not parallel what I have been saying. In fact they are the opposite.

"That is not to say that a convincing method makes the magic convincing, but if the magic IS convincing, then the method is as well."

Let me reword/flip the order.

If magic IS convincing, then the method is convincing, but this does NOT mean that if the method is convincing, then the magic is as well.

And I have NEVER said that was the case.

"Why then did you make out that the only way a performance can be made more convincing is to make the method more convincing?"

In fact, this very statement, which you quoted, states that it is exactly NOT what I am saying:

"That is not to say that a convincing method makes the magic convincing, but if the magic IS convincing, then the method is as well."

 

[Morgan B]

Okay - wow, this has generated a mini-battle for you guys eh?
Huruey I have been gone for awhile, but I want to address some post issues.
First, you are appearing to be one of those guys that like to generate problems – you see you said this:
Strengths can be substituted for new strengths, and weaknesses substituted for new weaknesses, but to say that if any strength is lost, then it is not an improvement? Even if you start measuring convincers, there is still a heck of a lot more you need to consider about what makes an effect powerful, not least the application of a method in performance itself.

Well, go ahead superman – make an essay – I chose the points, and argued them with experience and examples, that I feel necessary concepts/CONVINCERS to make the effect believable.

Well, I guess there's the gap in your argument so far. If you could back up the statement that "reaction is based on how convinced an individual is", then the rest of your argument would hold up a lot better, but as it stands, it doesn't...you cannot be "half convinced" of something.

There is no gap my friend – REACTIONS have nothing to do with how convinced they are – you must not be a worker if you believe this. You obviously have never shown someone a piece to have them freak out – then come back a month later to offer a solution. People will think about it, especially when you kill them with something – but magic is logical, and there IS an answer – the convincers add up to make the effect fool them over a long period, rather than while you are at the table and you shocked them.

Honestly, Huruey - it appears you are often arguing logistics and are so busy trying to make yourself understood, but you do it so poorly. You are trying to hard to be smart, but not listening to the other side. If you want us to better understand, give us some solid examples to illustrate your point - because right now, I just start spinning in circles when I read your words.

Have you read "Strong Magic” Huruey? There are some great points that would help you realize why I choose Reformation and the strengths that exist in it as very strong moments. If not, I can understand why you are not on the same page as us, when you don’t even own the book.

I would love to know how many torn and restored cards you perform. Do you do Reformation professionally or for people that are not friends? Have you done it, then done others and felt others left a better impression – does your opinion come from tried testing or from observed opinion?

I really don't have time for peope that post just to find points in others argument to belittle and state that “this is your flaw” when they can’t make their own arguments clear. Keep arguing your point – it won’t matter, it is moot. Your entire concept that convincers don’t make the method stronger is ridiculous - tonnes of literature and my own 10 years of performing experience have proven you off base. If we meet in person, I will give you a thousand examples...and would love to stand side by side in performance to show you.

Huruey: "Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was."

This is a horribly stupid concept – so let’s change the term magic for another field to see if it would hold true:

Generally, when carpentry is done properly, the homeowner is 100% satisfied of where they live regardless of how well the work on their house is done”

So, even if the carpentry is done poorly...but properly, the homeowner would be happy? No no Morgician, I am saying that it has to be done properly...so well...AHHH, SO WE AGREE IT IS TO BE ONE WELL? THEN TO BE DONE WELL, ONE MUST USE CONVINCERS, although, I don't agree the more the better, but when used in the right way - FOR CERTAIN. The ones I listed in my first post I feel are ESSENTIAL.

Oh oh...I got another one:

Generally, when writing is done properly, the reader is 100% satisfied on what they read, regardless of how well the author has constructed their point.

Wow, did that hit home? You are a smart enough man to see why this comment is bothering Glenn. I might add, if you spent some time reading what he said, and understanding – rather than trying to be understood yourself, on points that are completely off base – as you really don’t have a point – you might actually learn something from Glenn, and progress in your magic. Wouldn’t that be awesome?

Thanks for posting, you took up a lot of space. Please don’t reply if you don’t feel like illustrating your point better, rather than attacking my posts or others – stick to what you know...so, I am hoping not see a reply with 3/4 page full of quotes....I know what I said. (Also, I realized I quoted you, however, this is my 3 or 4th post in this thread...and you have pages of stuff)

Thanks.

Glenn - well said, you illustrated your points really well - and I would be the first to say if you didn't.

Now – Medifro – I would love to know why you are choosing Reformation over other torn and restored cards. As you mentioned reasons I didn’t touch on? Hope you will share.

 

[Huruey]

As far as I can see, I have already responded adequately to all the "points" you have made in your last two posts, at least the ones which aren't utterly extrapolated from the argument.

You keep ignoring things I'm saying; you keep putting words into my mouth. Every time I read your posts it is a constant struggle to understand, which is normally down to the frequent misuse of words on your part. At first I thought it was just ignorance, but its that among many other things.

It isn't possible to argue with people who don't even know how to make a proper argument, so this is me giving up.

You say convincers are the most important thing in determining the strength of an effect, I say otherwise. I don't need to write my own essay to disagree. Anyone who reads through these posts can make up their own mind as to how they feel.

Huruey

PS. I never argued which was better out of Reformation and Torn, nor did I argue that convincers have no effect on the strength of an effect. Just in case you didn't realise that.

 

[Morgan B]

iHi Huruey,

Well - I asked you many things about what you do with Torn and Restored card, if you do Reformation...many points you haven't answered - as you seemed more concerned with logistic arguments - but never really illustrated your point well at all...as we are all trying to understand you. If you stopped trying to pick apart what is being said and perhaps give better examples - you wouldn't be so frustrated.

I have read your posts many times - and they are empty, sorry pal. You have not given any examples nor have you made a valid argument. You have only trashed others, but made no solutions.

What T n R do you think is the best and why? Oh wait...you don't want to waste your time writing an essay...just filling up this forum with garbage debates that have dead ends.

You still didn't answer my question about reading Strong Magic by Ortiz.

Lastly, you say anyone can make up their mind....sure, but do you really think people are going to read your convoluted thoughts?
Oh well, having you speak your mind, rather than just disagreeing with others, would have been pleasant...but your thesaurus doesn’t allow independent thought.




SO – to recap:
The ideal torn and restored piece by piece restoration should look like you tear up a card in four...and put it back together piece by piece. What separates some from others are the convincers and method used to make people believe what is being done. My first post indicated a few concepts that I feel are important to maintain for the illusion to be convincing and believable.

I would love to hear other thoughts on this.

PS - If anyone got last month’s Genii mag - Regal does a review on a few newly released T n R card videos - The T & R project and Holy Grail...anyhow in two separate reviews Regal states:

I am sick of Torn and Restored card tricks. What is this strange obsession with coming up with different methods, when time might be better spent mastering one of the excellent methods out there, such as Guy Hollingworth's phenomenal routine?

When Guy Hollingworth restores a card one piece at a time, the effect created is one of pieces magically joining and mending. (He even trashed Holy Grail for not having the strength of handing the restored card out to the audience right away).

SO - if anyone is going to question my first post - let me ask this - if it is not for the reasons listed by me...what is the reason Hollingworth's Reformation s considered the BEST of Torn and Restored cards, by so many magicians?

 

[Huruey]

If you are too blind to see the meaning in my posts, or too stupid to understand, then that is not my problem. I gave my best shot at providing my thoughts on the essay. I had a problem with how you pretended to use logic to draw to your conclusion, which you presented as logically sound, rather than as opinion.

I posted with best intention, but you and your friend don't seem to have the capacity to understand it. To say that my posts have been empty, without examples, and without solid argument is a downright lie. Thankfully, I think others will see what your ego won't let you see, so regardless of how many times you condemn my posts as being garbage, I think my time has been well spent.

Huruey