COMPARACIÓN DE LAS TÉCNICAS DE PROSPECTIVA

Of course, so far in this work, you have only my personal opinion to depend upon relative to the importance of the psychological attack. Certainly I should not blame you if you were to demand more substantial assurance.

So, because of this, I am going to cite you a few merely a few from the many, mind you—supporting statements which will confirm some of the ideas set forth here.

That the performer must, himself, believe as he wishes the spectator to believe is corroborated by Robert-Houdin. He has said, "Although all one says during the course of the performance is—not to mince the matter—a tissue of falsehoods, the performer must sufficiently enter into the part he plays, to himself believe in the reality of his fictitious statements. This belief on his own part will infallibly carry a like conviction to the minds of the spectators."

Robert Houdin has also said, "Nothing should be neglected which may assist in misleading the minds of the spectators."

Note that he selected the minds, not the senses.

It is an old familiar rule in magic that the performer should never reveal in advance what he intends to do. This has been stated and restated many times. Robert-Houdin said it in somewhat different language.

Why?

Because it clearly indicates to the spectator the path along which his attention should proceed, if he knows in advance what the magician is to do.

Almost as important, in my opinion, would be an admonition not to indicate precisely when you intend to do a thing. This precaution seems necessary to conceal the point at which the spectator should concentrate his attention. Under this circumstance

—knowing when the thing is to be done attention control would be almost impossible.

Many years ago H. J. Burlingame published a book entitled HERRMANN THE GREAT. The introduction to this book, subtitled Psychology of the Art of Conjuring, has an exceptional discourse similar in subject matter to the substance of this present work.

One pertinent sentence stands out particularly: What makes prestidigitation the art of deception, is not the technical

outward appearance, but the psychological kernel. Further along may be seen this line: "The main secret of all prestidigitateurs…

lies in the power to direct the thoughts of the audiences into such a groove that a solution of the trick seems for the moment the natural result of artificially underlying causes."

Finally, in support, I can do no better than to bring in Nevil Maskelyne, who, many years ago, said in OUR MAGIC,

"Modern magic deals exclusively with mental impressions." While I cannot agree with Mr. Maskelyne's ultimate conclusions, as expressed in that work—particularly in his chapter on misdirection—I think he intended to say more than he did. The quotation above makes it clear to me that the spectator's ultimate impression was a mental one, in his opinion. But I must confess failure to find this specifically confirmed.

Indeed, Mr. Maskelyne actually said, "The misdirection which forms the groundwork of magic does not consist in telling lies, with the object of deceiving the spectator's intelligence. It consists, admittedly, in misleading the spectator's senses." The word intelligence was italicized in the first sentence, and senses was similarly stressed in the second.

LINOTYPE OPERATOR'S NOTE.—Perhaps just a backhand statement meaning: Do not state "This is just an ordinary glass" if you wish your audience to consider it as such; rather, treat it as though ordinary and the spectators will take it for granted that it is ordinary until too late to concentrate upon it.

I understand this to mean that Mr. Maskelyne believed the senses, not the intelligence, to be the ultimate goal of the magician's deception. I do not think it conveys his true opinion. How can one reconcile this understanding with the sentence quoted in the third paragraph above? There he made it clear that magic deals with mental impressions.

Frankly, I am convinced it can deal with nothing else.

And, speaking of intelligence, many magicians are inclined to underestimate the intelligence of their spectators. This is a delusion that can only result in disaster to the deceptionist. Generally, spectators are quite competent mentally. Modern living conditions are not conducive to prosperity for the intelligently deficient.

Underestimating the intelligence of the spectator can only result in disaster for the deception. The only safe course for the magician is for him to realize that his spectators are fully his mental equals—perhaps, even, his superiors. It is extremely

possible.

Partly because of this dangerous spectator intelligence, and partly because the path to follow has been definitely pointed out, the ancient rule of never repeating the same trick is still eminently valid. Of course, this does not mean the same effect may not be repeated, if a different method is available. What it does confirm is that the difficulty of deception is markedly increased simply because the original factors of disguise and attention control are largely rendered impotent.

Might I repeat myself in conclusion?

The magician's ultimate objective should be the mind of the spectator. His chief task is to insure that the spectator's mind receives the interpretation the magician intends it to receive. He accomplishes his purpose through dexterous, skillful and intelligent mixtures of truth and disguise and attention control. With discriminating applications of the factors of mental deception, the magician needs little else. Without them, no repertoire of sleights and no collection of apparatus is sufficient to deceive.

Consider the professional card sharper. Even as a magician considers himself a deceptionist, the sharper is more so. After all, when the magician fails to deceive, he merely spoils a trick. At most his reputation as a magician suffers. But when the sharper fails to deceive the penalties he suffers are dire. Of course, his means of livelihood are jeopardized. This would hold true of the professional magician as well. But it is not so valid in the magician's case because his deceptions are merely secondary to his entertainment accomplishments. It is possible for the magician to be a completely satisfactory entertainer, even when all of his deceptions fail. Thus, even his livelihood may not suffer.

But the sharper's case is different. Deception is vital to him. It is vital to his livelihood. But it is more vital to his physical well—being. You know, of course, that the sharper's audience is much more critical than the magician's. The witnesses of a sharper's failure are much more violent in their reactions when the latter's deceptions fail.

Without much doubt to me, John Scarne is the world's most adept practitioner in the craft of the sharper. John is one of my best friends. I have spent many hours with him, over extended periods of time. During these times I have seen him do almost unbelievable things with his hands, things which he has shown to few people, things which many experts, even, would never dream could be done. I as sure you, John can do them. Many of these things he has taught me. Many more, however, he showed me which were utterly impossible for my hands to accomplish. As a matter of fact, much of Scarne's repertoire can be done only by one man. Of course, that man is Scarne.

Perhaps one might think that close acquaintance with an expert of his caliber would result in learning much in the field of card handling, as an example. Yes. That is agreed. But that is not the chief thing one learns from Scarne. It is not the important thing.

From John Scarne, principally, one learns the importance of the psychological principles of deception. The first thing that is learned is that deception depends entirely upon doing things in such a manner that it seems there is no attempt at deception.

Any suspicious movement or handling that is away from the normal, natural mode entirely destroys the deception. This is true, even if the spectator does not know precisely what the deceptionist has done.

All of the important things John Scarne does with his hands are done in a perfectly natural, normal manner. That is why so many of his moves are exclusively his own.

I agree that Scarne's hands are probably the most skilled, with cards, in the world. But he is entitled to more important distinction. I think John Scarne is one of the world's greatest experts in the practical application of the psychology of deception.

With his skill in deception, his skill of hand makes him the master he truly is. Without his skill at deception, the things his hands can do would be useless.

I have not asked him his opinion on this, but I am certain he will agree.

Look at the lengths to which the sharper will go to maintain this atmosphere of naturalness and normality. Consider the care with which he disguises the things be uses and the things he does—both physically and psychologically. Notice how, when disguise is impossible, he utilizes the principles of attention control. He is a deceptionist. It is vital that his deception remains effective. He must maintain his deception even under the closest and most unfriendly scrutiny. When the chips are down, and when his very life depends upon the success of his deception, the sharper does not primarily rely upon sleight-of-hand moves or special apparatus. No. His reliance and confidence—and well being—are supported and maintained, first, by skillful applications of the principles of the psychology of deception. And when he fails, he has failed only because the deception has broken down through defective application of these principles of psychology. Nothing else can fail him. These, alone, are the things upon which he relies. These alone are the things upon which he risks his life.

Any confidence man—in any field of endeavor—where successful deception is vital, places his principle reliance upon nothing but skillful application of spectator deception through psychology. These men—these sharpers and other confidence men

—are deceptionists, just as magicians are deceptionists. But more depends upon their deception. They do not dare to fail.

Is it not convincing that these men depend almost wholly upon their ability to successfully interpret for the spectator? Is it not convincing that, through disguise and attention control, they rely almost entirely upon skillful applications of psychology? Is it not convincing that they have little faith in mechanical assistance?

Believe it or not, these are the real secrets of deception. These are the real secrets of magic. With them, there is no limit to what may be accomplished in deception. These secrets cannot be exposed because, as I have pointed out before, there is no way of knowing when they are being applied, if the performer is skillful.

Now, perhaps, more magicians will realize them.

A great renaissance in the methods of magicians took place with the reforms commonly credited to Robert-Houdin.

Formerly, magicians relied chiefly upon strictly mechanical methods. Robert-Houdin broadened the field of magicians' methods to include both mechanical and psychological principles. He discarded the more crude of the mechanical methods and added psychological subtleties.

I feel that another reform is now in progress. It is a reform consistent with a higher level of education and intelligence on the part of the magician's audience. I am certain that we are witnessing the gradual discard of the frankly mechanical and the frankly magical. Instead, I think that the "new", magic will be founded entirely upon psychological principles.

This does not mean, in my belief, that magical apparatus is to disappear. I am certain it does mean, however, that magical apparatus is in process of becoming extinct as magical apparatus. I feel that magical apparatus in the future will be disguised, ALL of it, to appear to be entirely non-magical and as something quite conventional and ordinary, as something with which the spectator is entirely familiar through everyday experience. It will be disguised magical apparatus.

I feel, too, that, more and more, mechanical methods will be discarded. In place of mechanical methods, the magician of the future will place his reliance upon psychological methods—methods such as those discussed in this work. It can't—and won't come all at once. This present—day renaissance must gradually evolve. Indeed I think it is gradually evolving right now. We are a part of it.

If this is true, it might be significant to observe that the methods of the magic of the future are discussed within the covers of this book. At any rate, I believe them to be the methods of the future. That is the direction I am taking personally.

Going my way?