Too Perfect Theory

Posts

By: Dan Watkins
Hi all....

Just wanted to offer my services to anyone who had routines that were so good they just can't bring themselves to perform them because they believe in the "too perfect theory".

As a service to the magic community, I will be willing to accept all "too perfect" routines that you wish to get rid of.

I just don't get this theory. Something too perfect in my book translates to a good routine.

Lets take one of Steve V's favorites lately.... Bob Kohler's rising card. The routine is too perfect. It's too strong, Bob should never perform it again. Yea right... thats what makes good magic. It is so strong it has to be some type of gimmick. So what. Most of the magic we do is performed by sleight of hand or some type of concealed apperatus or gaff, so what if something is so strong the only thing someone can say is "its obviously a trick such and such". No kidding. But you still don't know how it was done, and it was sure as hell entertaining, I love too perfect magic...

Had to get that lil mini-rant off my chest.

Dan <--- wants to be too perfect, but rarely achieves it.

By: Steve V
That rising card was beyond beautiful.....Bob Kohler must have real powers, that's the only answer I can come up with.

By: Bob K
> Bob Kohler's rising card. The routine is too perfect. It's too strong, Bob should never perform it again. Yea right... thats what makes good magic. It is so strong it has to be some type of gimmick. So what. Most of the magic we do is performed by sleight of hand or some type of concealed apperatus or gaff, so what if something is so strong the only thing someone can say is "its obviously a trick such and such". No kidding. But you still don't know how it was done, and it was sure as hell entertaining, I love too perfect magic

You're missing part of the Too Perfect Theory (which is a "theory" and not a law). It also states:

"it is worth mentioning for the sake of completeness, that there is another approach. You eliminate all possible solutions... But an easier approach is to make the trick imperfect."

So, he's never saying that too perfect routines shouldn't be done, or that it's impossible to construct a routine that doesn't add imperfections. Only that his way is easier. And we all know that 'easier' is not always 'better'.

By: D
Of all the so-called "magic theories" out there, I don't believe I've ever seen one that has been more misunderstood, misquoted and downright maligned more than Rick Johnsson's Too Perfect Theory (Hierophant 5&6 - 1970). Usually, or so it seems to me, it's people that have never read the original essay in the first place that do the damage.

The basis of Johnsson's theory is that people will always search for an answer:

Twentieth Century man no longer attributes the "magician" with supernatural powers.

To rational man, the unknown is unacceptable. It's reasonable to assume that most will agree that...most spectators realize that the miracles performed by the conjuror are brought about by natural, albeit clever and sneaky, means.

If you disagree with this simple logic then you may as well stop reading now, head back to your cave and continue to wonder what that big bright shiny thing in the sky might be.

Johnsson believed that, since people will look for a solution, we should not lead them directly to the actual one. He was speaking about construction, not method. The "Too Perfect" Theory says we should lead the audience away from the actual method by allowing room for "red herrings." Furthermore, since he believed that the spectators will settle upon some solution, it should, whenever possible, result in the magician receiving all the credit.

He touched on the possibility of eliminating all possible solutions, but it's clear he didn't think this was an easy task (it's not) so he steered away from this nearly impossible standard.

An example of a "too perfect" effect would be to magically change an American half-dollar to an English penny. The magician shows both hands empty except for the penny, but never show both sides of the coin. The audience will assume that the coin is double-sided - and given this poor construction they just may be correct. Even if the magician actually did a perfect Spellbound move with non-gaffed coins and successfully went south with the extra coin, the poor construction leads them to a double-sided coin. Unless the performer shows both sides of the coin, that solution will stay in the minds of the spectator, and the magic is lost.

Now if the performer does show both sides of the coin, the spectator will be stunned, but they will still try to come up with a solution: "That magician did some sleight of hand or something - that was great!" He didn't see it - he doesn't know what it is (so the "magic" is not lost) - but the magician "did it." Mission accomplished and Johnsson's theory is intact.

I believe Rick Johnsson would have loved Bob Kohler's rising card effect. When I saw it, it floored a room full of magicians, with each one coming up with and discarding multiple solutions. His construction of the effect even led us away from a gaffed deck, since the deck was handled by the audience - at least that's how those that I discussed it with remember it (a further testament to Kohler's brilliant construction of the effect: We aren't sure about that, but we remember it that way). Again, Johnsson's theory is upheld since we believe Kohler's effect must be accomplished with some kind of gaff (but we have no clue what it is), and Kohler's ability to introduce it to a previously handled deck (or a complete deck switch) is a testament to his skill. Bob Kohler's card rise is not "too perfect" and Rick Johnsson is smiling.

By: Randy Campbell
I also saw, as did L'il Stevie V., the astonishing performance of Kohler's rising card at the A-1 Con. I believe that effect to be a good case study for the Too Perfect Theory.

Immediately after the Rising Card -- which ended his performance, by the way -- the room was abuzz with fried magicians, and those of us new to the effect were locked in to a "How'd he do it?" cacophony of incredulity and postulation.

If you worry about the effect inspiring questions instead of wonder, this great Kohler performance and effect did exactly that. It was, too my mind, a supremely clever trick, beyond my knowledge or imagination. Yet many of us seemed compelled to unlock its secret.

Another A-1 performance, at the fund raiser for Jerry Camaro organized by Paul Wilson & Friends, fried the audience into a different state. A fellow not on the bill (is his name Akira Fuji??) did two effects which I can still see; the first, was two cigarettes, held at each thumb and middle finger tip, visibly pass through the fingers, a la Crazy Man's Handcuffs. The second was a stunning coins across, cleaner, and more open than any I have witnessed. The audience actually gasped.

The second performance was simply magic. We all just sat there with a deer-in-the-headlights look, as many muttered "No way," some where stunned silent, and others just laughed nervously.

After Akira's performance the buzz was one of astonishment, not of methodology.

I can't speak to the impact on a lay audience, which this wasn't, for either performance, although I'm sure they both destroy. But I believe Akira's to be the more magical.

By: Dan Watkins
Dustin,

Thanks for the clarification of the Theory, I am one of those people who never read it and misunderstood it.

I agree with the logic you stated:

"Twentieth Century man no longer attributes the "magician" with supernatural powers.

To rational man, the unknown is unacceptable. It's reasonable to assume that most will agree that...most spectators realize that the miracles performed by the conjuror are brought about by natural, albeit clever and sneaky, means."

However I don't agree with him in that we should throw out red herrings. I think that the magic should be so good that there really is no to know with certainty the actual method, that the audience is resigned to simply be baffled. This is great magic in my mind, and magic I would argue does not need to be cluttered with false possibilities thrown out for the benefit of the spectator.

Since we are using Bob's card rising as an example. He really leaves nothing to logically cleave to, me personally and I am sure many others are simply left resign to the fact that it was beauty, extremely magical, and not something understandable. In this case, I stop trying to think about how it was done, it was too utterly baffling and makes my head hurt to try to think how it is done!

I say strive for the impossible standard of eliminating all possible solutions, when you can do so, it makes for STRONG magic.

Thank you for your explanation of the theory, it has more merit as you described it when compared to my ignorance of its true meaning.

By: Bob Kohler
My humble opinion on the Too Perfect Theory is based on my observations of audiences for over twenty years. I believe spectators fall into three basic catagories.

1) The spectator who doesn't care how the effect was accomplished. They just enjoy the magic.
2) The spectator who just has to find, figure out or buy the solution. Sleepless nights are instore for this individual.
3) Egocentrics who cannot really pay close attention to or watch magic. Their fragile egos cannot handle the wonderous experience.

Ok, it's a little tongue in cheek, but I believe this to be for the most part true. Also I believe the percentage of people in each catagory is 1) 15%-20%, 2) 70%-75% 3) 5% or less.

The Rising Cards has been a fabulous routine for me to watch the audience's reaction. I've had people tell me they felt like they were 10 years old again. I've also seen people literally rip the table I performed the routine on, ripped apart.

My solution is to make the magic as perfect as possible. Is my routine for The Rising Cards perfect...absolutely not. There are things I'd like to improve. I'll continue to work on it forever.

Is it strong enough to drive audiences over the edge. Depends on my performance. I'd someday like to think I had finally taken the routine to the point it is Too Perfect just so Rick and my buddy Mike Rogers would crack a tiny smile.

By: D
I believe there is a fourth and fifth category of spectator: #4) Those that believe they already know "how it's done," no matter how wrong they are. Thankfully, this is as small a group as your third category. #5) The big one that I try to blot out from my mind; magicians (I shudder at the thought). With tongue planted firmly in cheek or not, I believe you are on target (including my little additions, of course ) with your analysis.

Your rising card is simply wonderful. After you performed it at A-1, and before the applause settled, a friend turned to me, and without him having to ask, I answered, "don't ask me; I haven't got a clue." I love every minute of that feeling. Thanks so much for providing it.

By: Michael Cords
I had the pleasure of seeing Bob's card rise at the A1 convention. It really is as good as people have been saying. I don't think this routine falls into the Too Perfect Theory realm. Yes, it was "perfect". I saw nothing that could lead me to a possible method. It was really a wonderful feeling to be so completely fooled.

I think the Too Perfect Theory compels one to add a red herring when without that, the only possible solution is the correct one. For example, when doing an ambitious card move, most magicians do not put a card in the middle of the deck and then immediately turn over the top card. This would lead a spectator to (correctly) assume that the card put in the middle wasn't the card they thought it was. Instead, most of us use some sort of move; riffle the deck, snap the fingers, pause, etc to give the audience a "moment" when the magic happens. It is this moment when the audience (incorrectly) thinks the move happens. They have no idea what that move may be, but it leads them away from the truth.

By: Bob Kohler
One last path. You may want to read Tommy Wonder's thoughts on the subject. It's in the second Book of Wonder. I could tell you where it is, but you'll have more fun reading through this truly excellent work.

By: D
Dan,

The utopian dream is indeed a "perfect" method and construction thereof that leads to nowhere. Right now, I can't think of one effect that meets this standard - not even Mr. Kohler's card rise or his equally stunning Ultimate Three Fly. Furthermore, it was Rick Johnsson's belief that we shouldn't strive for it! The reason being that people, he believed, will always search for and (more importantly) settle on an answer, be it right or wrong. Perhaps he never met anyone that simply loves to watch good magic and never worried about "how it's done," or he realized that they are a minority, and we must consider the majority when constructing our magic.

A "red herring" certainly should not be overt. But, if an effect is constructed in such a way that the only place for a spectator's naturally curious mind can go is to the correct answer, then something needs to be done to steer him away. It's the reason we have the card signed for the ambitious card. It steers them away from duplicates (the first place their mind would go if we didn't have the card signed). However, that's not even enough. So, we do something as simple as riffling the deck during the sequence, as Michael Cords points out in his post. It's an innocuous move, with no real purpose, but in the deep recesses of the spectator's mind, it's there, and it helps steers him away from, "he never put in the middle."

It's all about construction, attention to detail and thinking about the magic we do and how it's perceived. And it's conversations like this that give me hope for my beloved art! It's nice to know there are people like you out there thinking about their magic - which helps me to think about mine.

By: D
The Tommy Wonder essay is interesting, but as I recall, he had not (as of when he wrote it) found a solution that met the utopian standard of "perfection" for the effect he used as an example. The flaw in his thinking (and believe me, in contradicting Mr. Wonder, I feel like a flea on the tail of a dog who believes he can actually stop it from wagging) is that he believes that, at some point, the audience will stop searching for a solution. He has more faith in human nature than I do (and, apparently, more than Mr. Johnsson did).

The theory is firmly planted in the belief that they will never stop searching, even if it's to settle on something utterly absurd, they will settle on something. Since Johnsson believed this to be true, he felt we should be sure it's not the correct solution, and while we're at it, why not have the magician get the credit?

Tommy Wonder thinks that this is a fatal path of thinking - that it hinders progression. I disagree, for as long as we continue to think about our magic, we progress. The "Too Perfect Theory" gets us thinking about our magic - and that's a good thing. You said it yourself; you'll work on the card rise forever. Will you find perfection? Do you really want to? Tommy Wonder believed he did, and the effect proved to be lost in the mind of his audience. What is so "perfect" about that?

By: Steve Albrecht
But maybe what's perfect for one person isn't perfect for another. I'll use music as example: People have different levels of abilities in hearing music...the details, the harmony, complex polyrhythms, counterpoint melodies, etc. A lot of musicians strive to make their music sophisticated in ways that are beyond the average listener. But, this isn't a bad thing. I've been composing for 25 years and I write what I hear and like which is often filled nuances that the everyday listener misses.

So, I'm just curious if any of you think this might apply to magic? I find this discussion interesting because there are some great points being made on "both sides" (for lack of a better term).

The magic that is near perfect to a non-magician is perfect to the average spectator. And I know what's perfect to me probably isn't perfect to Daryl or Bob Kohler...and other great magicians. Without a doubt, I like my magic to be about perfection but I believe it's all relative to the viewer.

I also didn't sense Randy Campbell's post as an attack on Bob Kohler's rising card. Rather, I thought Randy was expressing what touched him more magically. Certainly, that is just as (if not more so) important than perfection.

I lean towards perfection big time but Randy makes a good point. Still, I hope Bob Kohler keeps coming up with his special brand ofperfection.

Besides, there's no such thing as perfection...well maybe Cardini and Pat Metheny

By: D
That's an interesting analogy, and yes, I think it applies. If you left out those little nuances in your music (that you feel we average listeners miss), would your music still have the same quality to us? I bet not. Those little details add up to big generalities in our minds. If they weren't there, we might say that the song was nice, but, "there was something missing."

Magic is the same. Details that we sometimes incorporate into the construction of an effect go unnoticed. But, in the subconscious mind of our spectator, it may very well eliminate a possible avenue of explanation. An example would be a subtle gesture showing the hand empty, but we do not call attention to it (because maybe it isn't; maybe we were using the Kaps subtlety). It's just a natural gesture, the hand is seen empty. Later, when reconstructing the effect in his mind, the spectator will think, "he showed his hands empty." We did no such thing - he just saw that it was empty, and his subconscious did the rest.

Little details add up to big pictures, and it's the big picture that stays in the mind.

By: Steve Albrecht
These are very good points and I agree with them. But I try to stay objective about intangibles like "perfection". I'd say that depending on the performer nuances can be imperfect too or unnecessary (i.e.. extra instruments and melodies in a piece of music may only clutter the intended purpose. Likewise, extra moves and sleights in magic that a magician assumes makes the effect "more" perfect might just as often confuses the spectator. These add up to the big picture too.

I agree with your idea about the little great things adding to the total effect so I am not at odds with what you are saying. I'm only trying to be open minded here about the vague term "perfection" and how it seems to be relative to both performer and "viewer." Lastly, it goes with out saying, I'm no Bob Kohler so if one is to use him as an example of perfection then I may never get to ride that train.

By: Mike Squires
I like what Derren Brown wrote in Pure Effect (although he didn't refer to the theory by name). His soluton was that when something looks "too perfect" it should be addressed.

In his example, cigarette through coin he realised that most spectators just assumed that he had switched the coin for a gimmicked one and they just didn't see it. He solved this problem by putting the coin in a spectators hand. He would make a point of taking it out of the spectator's hand very slowly and SAYING, "Watch, I am not going to switch the coin, it's still your coin."

I understand that this approach may make some of you cringe (he mentioned a switch...oh god) but I think it may solve an inherent problem within the effect. While this certainly isn't the last word on the "Too Perfect" theory, I think he gives us something to think about.

By: Dave Le Fevre
There's a little self-working card effect that I often perform, in which at some stage a spectator specifies a number and I count that number of cards off the deck. Later, I deal those cards into several piles.

When discussing this with some magish friends, one suggested that a spectator could count off the cards, and the same or another spectator could later deal the cards into the piles.

My initial reaction was "good idea, I must do that". Then I realised that I always got a "wow, you're good!" reaction to this effect, 'cos they thought that I was a brilliant card mechanic. (They could not be more wrong!) And if I performed it as suggested, then I'd barely touch the cards, and so they'd realise that it's a self worker. Not only would I not get the adulation, but also they'd soon work out how it was done.

So making it a bit more perfect would make it worse, in this case.

Of course, I'm sure that many of my effects are in sore need of a bit more perfection, but that's another story.

The discussions on these web pages were extracted from MagicTalk and are therefore Copyright 1998-2003 by Bryan Dean and used with his permission. While this website may be freely read, it may not be freely copied. If you want to copy any of the information from this web site you need to contact Bryan Dean at bryan@magictalk.com to obtain permission.