Características del alumnado

The difference between “mentalism” and “mental magic” (if any) is a controversial issue which frequently appears in online discussion groups. My own interpretation is that mentalism is presentation of mental effects which could be “real” – i.e. they resemble “genuine” paranormal phenomena or parapsychological experiments. Mental magic effects are therefore those which are obviously unreal, often involving “magic apparatus – fake” equipment (Henry Hay, The Amateur Magician’s Handbook). A good example is Symbold by T A Waters (Mind, Myth and Magick), utilising a large plastic clock dial with geometrical symbols next to each number. My own Murder by Fruit (in The Linking Ring, January 1999) is also mental magic; this does not use special equipment, but the murder- mystery presentation is both humorous and unlike any real-life situation.

Mental magic clearly has its place. It is entertaining, holds spectators’ attention with visual props and can be presented with a great deal of humour. But it’s not really my thing. So, what are the implications of presenting “real” mentalism?

Presentation

Marvin Kaye, in The Handbook of Mental Magic, suggests that there are two approaches to showmanship for the mentalist – within or outside the “traditional” mode. The traditional mentalist must not seem to be “doing an act”, but should appear to be speaking about ESP off the top of his head, while performing experiments that may or may not work – never “tricks”. On the other hand, one may reject the “genuine mentalist” personality for something more theatrical – a sorcerer’s costume, a carnival mentalist with robes and turban, or perhaps full evening dress – as long as the role suits the performer, together with appropriate lighting and background music.

My own preference is for the traditional approach – the role of a lecturer in parapsychology, a scientist. Clearly one must be careful not to overdo the patter (unless of course one is actually giving a lecture); the object is to entertain, not bore, so it is the effects which are important.

There is one possible exception to the traditional approach – the performance of séance- room phenomena. Here a certain amount of atmosphere is essential. But a scientific presentation is still possible, and the “How Mediums Trick the Public” demonstration suggested by Corinda still works well. Corinda is not suggesting exposure of methods; demonstrating trickery and explaining it are entirely different (a point sadly ignored by the makers of certain television programmes). The performer needs to be clear, though, whether he is demonstrating Victorian mediumship, with apparatus such as spirit slates and trumpets, or whether the demonstration is supposed to be contemporary – as Bob Couttie comments in Forbidden Knowledge: The Paranormal Paradox, “Magicians often have a problem knowing which century they’re in”.

Ethics

One of the classics of parapsychology is From anecdote to experiment in psychical research (1972) by Dr Robert Thouless. In making his moral distinction between a “conjuror” and a fraudulent medium, Thouless makes the following comment: “The conjuror would be infringing the ethical standards of his profession if he pretended that his results were due to anything but trickery; the fraudulent medium has no such scruples”. He then refers to a personally-witnessed show in which the performer began by telling the audience that he had learned to use telepathy in a monastery in Tibet. While accepting that this may be defensible as showmanship, Thouless feels that it blurs the dividing line between “honest conjuring” and fraudulent mediumship.

Thouless’s remarks were written over thirty years ago; the controversy concerning performers such as Uri Geller was still in the future. However, the ethical question that Thouless raises is still relevant today. Although, in the UK at least, we do not often see performers who claim to be psychic, there are certainly those, such as Derren Brown, who purport to be using psychological techniques rather than trickery (at least in his early television shows). Is this a problem? After all, every magician is by definition a liar, as his whole raison d’être is to entertain by deceiving the audience.

Classic mentalism and magic textbooks often address this issue. Corinda discusses this problem in his interview with Maurice Fogel. Fogel suggests that a performer should not claim that he is genuine, or let others make that claim for him – Fogel “paid very, very much” for claims that were made on his behalf. On the other hand, he does not like the “judge for yourself” line to be used openly – he prefers inference.

Marvin Kaye recommends that, at the very least, a performer should review his patter to eliminate any statements implying or suggesting that he is a real psychic. In extreme cases, however, if a spectator visits him backstage and regards him “as a latter-day Isaiah”, it may be better to expose his methods. T A Waters refers to Kaye’s book as “absurd” for this suggestion, but it is taken out of context. Waters believes that any mental effect will create a false belief in some people – “the theme of mentalism is just too appealing, in a strange way, for most people to resist”.

Henning Nelms, in Magic and Showmanship: A handbook for conjurers, takes an analytical approach to the question; for him, the difference between a charlatan and a magician is similar to that between a “real-life faker and an actor who plays the role of a faker”. A magician needs both deception and conviction; the former should be permanent, the latter temporary. He therefore suggests convincing the spectators thoroughly during the session, but disillusioning them at the end. This could be accomplished with a remark such as “it was all done with mirrors”, but Nelms prefers to end the evening with a simple trick which is unmistakeably conjuring.

In my personal view, this is going further than necessary. Provided that a performer does not openly claim that he has psychic powers, and makes it clear in his publicity material that he is a magician (e.g. by referring to membership of The Magic Circle), no ethical problems should arise. It is not necessary to draw further attention to this during the performance itself, so both the audience and the performer can suspend disbelief for a while.

The ABC of ESP